Pied Piper in the Interval: Monday 28 -

[MrGongGong]

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)?

I'd rather not
because at the moment i'm not that keen on having my thoughts subjected to micro-textual analysis (not by YOU, I hasten to add) or seen to be some kind of manifesto

I'm glad lots of you folks found this inspirational and still do

[jean]

What a tease you are, Mr.GG!

What's the point of telling us that there are fundamental differences in the ways that music is understood now compared to the 1970s when you won't tell us what those differences are?

[MrGongGong]

What a tease you are, Mr.GG!

What's the point of telling us that there are fundamental differences in the ways that music is understood now compared to the 1970s when you won't tell us what those differences are?

Briefly
The model of understanding (or talking about) music in DM's programme (and i've only heard ONE of them) seems very much based on historical narrative and the idea of music being divided into historical periods etc
Music CAN be thought about in this way
BUT it's not the only way of going about it
and
In my experience this way of thinking is a complete turn off for most people
The people who post on R3 messageboards are probably the group for whom this "works"

Tony Pappano is much more nuanced and connected to the music than DM is in this programme.
Bach is still wonderful

[french frank]

Quite difficult trying to get Gongers to reply to comments on what I'm saying. Especially my last post.

You can't criticise a programme made in the 1970s on the grounds that it would be done differently/better now. Tony Pappano has his audience, David Munrow had a different audience 40-odd years ago, an audience of which the adult you has no experience.

And, as you admit, David Munrow's approach - the 'historical narrative' - is one possible approach; yes, 'not the only one', but that doesn't invalidate it, other than that you think it's a 'complete turn-off'. The evidence against that is the success of the programme in its day.

As I remember when I first started to learn French and Latin at the age of 11, some children liked the 'direct' oral method, others liked the text-book grammar method. I don't think you can generalise.

I'm glad lots of you folks found this inspirational and still do

I think you misunderstand what people were saying. No one has said that they find it inspirational' NOW, nor even that that is exactly how it should be done now.

But I realise the 'micro-textual analysis' is not something you're keen on. I think it's quite important to understand exactly what people are saying, and for them to understand exactly what you're saying.

Briefly
The model of understanding (or talking about) music in DM's programme (and i've only heard ONE of them) seems very much based on historical narrative and the idea of music being divided into historical periods etc
Music CAN be thought about in this way
BUT it's not the only way of going about it
and
In my experience this way of thinking is a complete turn off for most people
The people who post on R3 messageboards are probably the group for whom this "works"

Tony Pappano is much more nuanced and connected to the music than DM is in this programme.
Bach is still wonderful

[kernelbogey]

My memory of Pied Piper is that David Munrow played and talked about instruments that no one had heard of. I remember a contemporary of his talking, after his sad death saying that he could pick up an ancient instrument that he had never seen before and within a short time would be playing music on it.

It ran (I learn) 1971 -1976. As far as I am concerned, I was otherwise ignorant of the 'Early Music' movement or the playing styles that were beginning to emerge then: I'd guess that this programme was an influence on listeners' interest in Early Music - very likely seminal for adults who were children of the time.

[MrGongGong]

I think it's quite important to understand exactly what people are saying, and for them to understand exactly what you're saying.

The last time I made a musing about how it was interesting to listen to music without knowing what it was and so on it was assumed that I was making some kind of manifesto about how the world should be

SO in case you find it hard to understand

I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS PROGRAMME
I DON'T REMEMBER IT BECAUSE AT THE TIME I WAS PROBABLY LISTENING TO GONG AND STOCKHAUSEN

Enjoy it
i'm sure it will bring a smile to many