Pieces Not Fit for Purpose

[pastoralguy]

How about Shostakovich? Some of his works were not considered 'fit for purpose' by his Soviet Goverment masters. I'm especially thinking of the tirade of abuse DSCH had to endure at the Composer's Conference by Commrade Zharnov. Iirc, DSCH's 9th symphony came in the firing line. "Hooligan squakings and as a main theme, a Yankee Sargent - whistling...!"

[ahinton]

How about Shostakovich? Some of his works were not considered 'fit for purpose' by his Soviet Goverment masters. I'm especially thinking of the tirade of abuse DSCH had to endure at the Composer's Conference by Commrade Zharnov. Iirc, DSCH's 9th symphony came in the firing line. "Hooligan squakings and as a main theme, a Yankee Sargent - whistling...!"

Another possible thread again, perhaps - Pieces considered not to be fit for purpose...

[NatBalance]

But for what porpoise/s? This, as I mentioned earlier, illustrates the pricipal problem here, namely that of determining what intended purpose/s any piece might have.

Well, for instance, if Vaughan Williams' Lark Ascending sound like this ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fNDraQsxPo

... would you be saying "Oh yes, I can see it. I'm out there in the fields ... a quiet summer's day .... a skylark is singing"?

[NatBalance]

Does having John Adams's account of what's going on in your mind help?
A scenario by Peter Sellars and Alice Goodman, somewhat altered from the final one in Nixon in China, is as follows:

“Chiang Ch’ing, a.k.a. Madame Mao, has gatecrashed the Presidential Banquet. She is first seen standing where she is most in the way of the waiters. After a few minutes, she brings out a box of paper lanterns and hangs them around the hall, then strips down to a cheongsam, skin-tight from neck to ankle and slit up the hip. She signals the orchestra to play and begins dancing by herself. Mao is becoming excited. He steps down from his portrait on the wall, and they begin to foxtrot together. They are back in Yenan, dancing to the gramophone…”

"Surreal" is his word for it. Seeing it staged must help - I dimly remember seeing it on TV decades ago - but to expect the music on its own to conjure up such an image is a tall order, it's a piece of music.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that is what is going on. Yes, very surreal and the more I listen to it I can gradually see such a scene. I think it is possible to make a scene fit a certain type of music as long as you don't have to stretch your imagination too far, and in this case it's not too far because the music is markedly rhythmical.

A composer that comes to mind but I can't think of any examples yet is Bach. Don't get me wrong, any Bach is of course brilliant music but there have been times when a piece of Bach has been introduced as representing something, but when it's come on it's just sounded like any other Bach … great stuff, but as for hearing anything of what it is supposed to represent, well, any other piece of similar Bach could also be taken to represent such a picture.

And that reminds me of folk music. I love folk music but it does make me laugh when they give a long description of the story behind the next song and when you hear it, it just sounds virtually the same as the previous song …. but with different words … and a different melody of course. Nothing in the music itself says anything about the story.

[MrGongGong]

Nothing in the music itself says anything about the story.

What do you want music to do?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Another possible thread again, perhaps - Pieces considered not to be fit for purpose...

Isn't that exactly what this Thread is attempting to "discuss"?

[Nick Armstrong]

Isn't that exactly what this Thread is attempting to "discuss"?

Thanks ferns, I thought I was going mad when I read ah's post yesterday (a not unusual phenomenon in itself )

Perhaps the hintonian distinction is between pieces considered (perhaps wrongly) not to be fit for purpose, and pieces that were in fact not fit for purpose which are the subject of the present thread....?

[ahinton]

Isn't that exactly what this Thread is attempting to "discuss"?

I refer here to pieces considered not to be fit for purpose as distinct from those that are not fit for purpose; not quite the same thing, although each begs the question of what that perceived purpose might be in each case.

(I've just noticed that Cali has said the same thing).

The Feldman case is arguably one such, where diametrical differences of viewpoint can pertain and I' as sure that there are plenty who share both MrGG's and mine on this.

[Nick Armstrong]

[jean]

Isn't the problem that there are two different sorts of 'purpose' here - either the one expected from the tiltle or description given to a piece by its composer or, as Pulcinella notes:

Richard's thoughts might lead to a slightly different take on the thread: pieces (initially or completely) rejected by their dedicatee/commisioner...

[Ferretfancy]

Pedantry Corner anyone?

[Pulcinella]

Richard's thoughts might lead to a slightly different take on the thread: pieces (initially or completely) rejected by their dedicatee/commisioner.

Oops! There's also spelling that's not fit for purpose.
Duly corrected in original post!

[jean]

Pedantry Corner anyone?

No, there's an important distinction - though I don't think the addition of considered helps to make it.

[ahinton]

No, there's an important distinction - though I don't think the addition of considered helps to make it.

Then what word would you use instead for the "purpose" of clarifying that distinction?

Thee are quite a few parts to this one, though.

What one might assume to be the composer's intended purpose of a particular work might not be perceived in the same way by others, or at different times or in different places. The extent to which a piece gets performed and listened to also impacts upon this. Then there's Richard's point. Then there's the question of whether and how to draw a distinction between the intended purpose of a piece and the impact that it might have on the listener. Then there's the possibility that the purpose of a piece when new might be perceived rather differently many years later when it's still being performed and listened to. And so on and so on...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I refer here to pieces considered not to be fit for purpose as distinct from those that are not fit for purpose; not quite the same thing, although each begs the question of what that perceived purpose might be in each case.
(I've just noticed that Cali has said the same thing).
The Feldman case is arguably one such, where diametrical differences of viewpoint can pertain and I' as sure that there are plenty who share both MrGG's and mine on this.

But my point is that - as Natty's nomination of the Adams demonstrates - it all depends on the individual listener's perception of what is "fit for purpose"; there are no objective criteria involved here, are there? EdgeleyRob and I would have diametrically opposed ideas about whether the work of George Lloyd are "fit for purpose", just as I disagree (quite strongly) with your perception of what the purpose is of Feldman's Music, and how perfectly it "fits" that purpose. In both cases, of course, my own is the "correct" opinion.

I don't quite see the point of this Thread - is it "Can you hear the sea when you listen to La Mer? If so, then that is why I put "discussion" in inverted commas in #21.