Pied Piper in the Interval: Monday 28 -

[doversoul1]

8.10pm Interval: Pied Piper

A radio programme that's aimed at children and teenagers, but draws in an audience of all ages. That's exactly what Pied Piper was - a twenty-minute programme that ran on BBC Radio 3 from 1971 until the untimely death of its presenter, early music specialist David Munrow in May 1976. It was broadcast at tea time and was initially billed as 'tales and music for younger listeners', yet many now cite it as the programme that gave them a way into classical music. As part of the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the Third Programme, BBC Radio 3 has dug out some of the programmes from the archive to give us a chance to listen again to how Munrow enthused his audiences with his passion for music of all types.

During the intervals of the concerts this week, we'll be hearing a selection of programmes from the five-year-long series. Munrow explored a wide range of music, and these five programmes can only begin to give a taste of the topics he covered.
In this edition of Pied Piper from 13th September 1971, David Munrow discusses the music of Handel, sings 'jolly good, jolly good' along to a Bach Brandenburg concerto and gives a brief history of electronic and pipe organs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b083qrgr

[french frank]

It wil be interesting to hear how Munrow sounds, forty years on …

[doversoul1]

Did anyone listen? I found t fascinating. David Munrow’s voice may be very slightly old fashioned but other than that, I think the programme will more than interest serious minded young people. There is no air of ‘Look, I know what you young people like’, which I fond the problem with Tom Service’s programme.

[MrGongGong]

It wil be interesting to hear how Munrow sounds, forty years on …

Having not heard any of this and had lots of folks rave about how wonderful it was I was interested in listening.
Sadly, for me, I was rather unimpressed.
He seemed so fixated on his "jolly good" delivery and didn't really communicate well IMV
Talking about music is difficult but the idea that someone simply describes what happens in words and says that it's "great" doesn't really work.
An interesting piece of history (and very useful for some research i'm doing) but I do think there are folk about these days (maybe NOT on R3) who do it so much better.


Nice to hear Keith though

[french frank]

Talking about music is difficult but the idea that someone simply describes what happens in words and says that it's "great" doesn't really work.

Is that how you heard it? I didn't hear him say anything like "it's great"; and he wasn't always talking about 'music' but about instruments.

An interesting piece of history (and very useful for some research i'm doing) but I do think there are folk about these days (maybe NOT on R3) who do it so much better.

I wonder what they're trying to do?

Nice to hear Keith though

Yes, and there was some Handel and Bach too, as well as a medieval popular piece and J. Clarke's Prince of Denmark's March.

[doversoul1]

Having not heard any of this and had lots of folks rave about how wonderful it was I was interested in listening.
Sadly, for me, I was rather unimpressed.
He seemed so fixated on his "jolly good" delivery and didn't really communicate well IMV
Talking about music is difficult but the idea that someone simply describes what happens in words and says that it's "great" doesn't really work.
An interesting piece of history (and very useful for some research i'm doing) but I do think there are folk about these days (maybe NOT on R3) who do it so much better.


Nice to hear Keith though

To each his own but Munrow doesn’t just talk. He plays music. I thought the use of ‘jolly good’ was excellent. Not something that can come from someone who has a fixed idea about ‘classical’ music.

Such as? (re: the folks who do it so much better)

[MrGongGong]

To each his own but Munrow doesn’t just talk. He plays music. I thought the use of ‘jolly good’ was excellent. Not something that can come from someone who has a fixed idea about ‘classical’ music.

Such as? (re: the folks who do it so much better)

I'm not going to endlessly go on about it (hooooooray !)
I'm sure it was wonderful at the time BUT all he said about the music was that it had a thematic idea (his "jolly good" phrase) and what the instruments were
which really doesn't grab folks who aren't already interested

Folks who do it much better

Tony Pappano for a start

[french frank]

Tony Pappano for a start

I nearly suggested him in my last, but then I thought, no, I'm sure you have other friends besides him Though whether he would be successful at grabbing people by talking about what they aren't interested in is for you to judge!

[doversoul1]

Folks who do it much better

Tony Pappano for a start

Yes, he does it just as well in almost exactly the same way as Munrow does. Only (what I know of) he does it on TV which obviously makes the difference.

[MrGongGong]

Yes, he does it just as well in almost exactly the same way as Munrow does. Only (what I know of) he does it on TV which obviously makes the difference.

I think there are fundamental differences
but there are fundamental differences in the ways that music is understood now compared to the 1970's

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Thank for the notification, ds.
I missed it, but will catch up soon.

[doversoul1]

I think there are fundamental differences
but there are fundamental differences in the ways that music is understood now compared to the 1970's

Understood by whom?

I think what Munrow is doing on this programme is to let the listeners hear the music with a little added, carefully chosen knowledge which will make listening to the music more interesting. I don’t think it has anything to do with ‘understanding’ music as such.

[MrGongGong]

Understood by whom?

I think what Munrow is doing on this programme is to let the listeners hear the music with a little added, carefully chosen knowledge which will make listening to the music more interesting. I don’t think it has anything to do with ‘understanding’ music as such.

Never mind
I'm glad you like it

I guess we hear completely different things
which is fine

[doversoul1]

Never mind
I'm glad you like it

I guess we hear completely different things
which is fine

We probably do. That’s fine but would you mind telling me what the fundamental differences that you see between the way Munrow presents this programme and Pappano does his (the opera programme for example)?

[french frank]

I think there are fundamental differences
but there are fundamental differences in the ways that music is understood now compared to the 1970's

That isn't a reason for not being 'impressed' by what he was doing then. What you ought to be 'impressed' by is the fact that he was introducing young people to music then and was then highly successful at doing it, highly successful at communicating with them (and with adults at the same time).

The perspective on how things change over the years and weren't always as they are now does provides some insights. Some criticisms are merely valid as statements of 'how things have changed': that doesn't mean they should have been done differently then. Heavens! you'll be saying next that contemporary composers are 'better' than how they were in the old days, yer Handel and Bach, because the world understands music differently now …

I thought his voice was interesting: not at all like the voice that many broadcasters had in 1971. He sounded like an averagely well-educated young man - and unlike the well-educated young nowadays who speak with their glottal stops and self-consciously pick up the speech habits they hear on the American media, because speech is an immediate marker of your generation.