The Glory of Polyphony

[ahinton]

I fell asleep during Gesualdo, and haven't Listened Again yet.

Because you happened to be teired or for some other reason?...

[Serial_Apologist]

Not necessarily, they would just be best to look at two part counterpoint, of which admittedly there are scant examples in that period of music history.

Well in that case Bach could have been one possible starting point; the Ars Nova period would have been better - instead of which they choose the Gesualdo period, is what I'm saying.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes - the problem originates in the programme title and "jobspec": it's not The History of Polyphony, it's The Glory ... a "six-part series celebrating" said "glory". In other words, it could take any approach - it coulod have started with Bach's two-part inventions, or with Webern's Symphony, or, as they did, with Palestrina. Myself, I'd've gone for the historical approach, with each of the six programmes showing the development(s) of composers' changing attitudes to Polyphony; starting with monodic plainsong and how the intricate structural methods of plainsong were/had to be abandoned with the rise of early polyphony. But they didn't ask me.

[Quarky]

I’m almost sure that it was in his ‘job description’ to include some ‘personal experiences’. That was why he sounded so uncomfortable.

As to the programme, it could have been more academic but there are many sincere listeners, the listeners who take listening to music seriously but do not have the specialist knowledge to follow what suits many members on the forum. Beginners can learn a lot of things the experts have long forgotten that they too learned it once upon a time. All that besides, I hope the programme will develop into Stage 2 and beyond.

Amen to that! Learnt a lot about Gesualdo and will have to listen again.

Do you know the way to Dublin? The Irishman replied.....Well soir if I were you I wouldn't start from here......

[ardcarp]

it coulod have started with Bach's two-part inventions

Do we need to distinguish between polyphony and counterpoint, Ferney? Or is one a sub-set of the other?

Agreed, I'd have gone for your historical approach...starting with monodic plainsong and how the intricate structural methods of plainsong were/had to be abandoned with the rise of early polyphony...e.g. the so-called Notre Dame School.

[doversoul1]

But beginning a series on polyphony with composers of the High Renaissance is like teaching a child to run before it can crawl!

But showing a child a picture of a bicycle and telling him/her what all the parts are called and how they work won’t teach him/her how to ride a bicycle. My guess is that these two composers were chosen for the starter of the series because they are two of the better known composers in the period (pre-Baroque)*.

I think historical approach is fine if you have an overall picture of the subject and know what comes next but for those who are at an early (or middle) stage of developing an interest in polyphony or even classical music in general, a programme like this (as is Early Music Late) is a good opportunity to hear a particular type of music and the information about it.

* I’m afraid this is not a very good argument but what I am trying to say is that to begin at the beginning is not always an effective way of introduction to a new subject.

ardcarp #20
What percentage of (even) Radio3 listeners do you think know what monodic plainsong is? When you want to introduce a new (-ish) subject, you start from what people know about which is Palestrina and Gesualdo in this case. I don’t think this programme is meant to be a Master class. I hope it will develop into that one day.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Do we need to distinguish between polyphony and counterpoint, Ferney? Or is one a sub-set of the other?

I "hovered" when I was writing that - I'd say that for the purposes of introducing the concept of "polyphony", beginning with two-part writing (canonic imitation and "descant") isn't a bad idea.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What percentage of (even) Radio3 listeners do you think know what monodic plainsong is? When you want to introduce a new (-ish) subject, you start from what people know about which is Palestrina and Gesualdo in this case.

I'd say that precisely the possiblity that it might only be a small percentage of R3 listeners know what monodic plainchant is, is the reason why it should be introduced first. The notion of "start with what they know" is only sometimes a valid educational method - as often (at least) startling people with a concept/topic brand-new to them is the best way to hook their fascination.

But - and at the risk of contradicting what I've just said - sales of "Gregorian Chant" CDs (with or without Saxophone improvisations, drum machines etc) are quite as healthy as those of Palestrina. I doubt that there'd be many listeners who didn't recognise the Music.

And, again, we're discussing a programme that doesn't exist - a series called The Glory of Polyphony could quite legitimately consist of six programmes of works by Palestrina, perhaps even exclusively from the recordings by the Tallis Scholars. That it isn't what I was hoping for; that it avoids education and information to concentrate on the Hello!-type entertainment ... well, that's today's R3.

[doversoul1]

I'd say that precisely the possiblity that it might only be a small percentage of R3 listeners know what monodic plainchant is, is the reason why it should be introduced first. The notion of "start with what they know" is only sometimes a valid educational method - as often (at least) startling people with a concept/topic brand-new to them is the best way to hook their fascination.

But - and at the risk of contradicting what I've just said - sales of "Gregorian Chant" CDs (with or without Saxophone improvisations, drum machines etc) are quite as healthy as those of Palestrina. I doubt that there'd be many listeners who didn't recognise the Music.

And, again, we're discussing a programme that doesn't exist - a series called The Glory of Polyphony could quite legitimately consist of six programmes of works by Palestrina, perhaps even exclusively from the recordings by the Tallis Scholars. That it isn't what I was hoping for; that it avoids education and information to concentrate on the Hello!-type entertainment ... well, that's today's R3.

Whilst there are a lot to criticise, I don’t think Peter Phillips was (after he got through the bit about ‘me’) a presenter who would invite us to ‘come and join me and have fun’. Let’s hope this is a start (or even a sign of a start) of something more suitable for the Real Radio 3.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Whilst there are a lot to criticise, I don’t think Peter Phillips was (after he got through the bit about ‘me’) a presenter who would invite us to ‘come and join me and have fun’. Let’s hope this is a start (or even a sign of a start) of something more suitable for the Real Radio 3.

[BBMmk2]

I quite enjoyed the way PP presented the programme. Looking forward to hearing the rest of the series.

[Beresford]

I'd say that precisely the possiblity that it might only be a small percentage of R3 listeners know what monodic plainchant is, is the reason why it should be introduced first.... :

So would you start a series on physics with Archimedes, or with something about the Development of the Atomic Bomb?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

So would you start a series on physics with Archimedes, or with something about the Development of the Atomic Bomb?

But this is a series on "Polyphony", not the wider subject of "Music" - to make the comparison apt, you'd have to focus on an aspect of Physics; such as Quanta. This isn't my "subject" - I suppose I could be said to be someone from the hypothesized "small percentage" of R3 listeners who know very much about it - but the radio and TV programmes that I have learnt most from on Quanta are precisely those which take the "Historical" approach to it, such as Jim Al-Khalili's TV series (or, to move to another subject, Michael Mosley's Pain, Pus, & Poison).

[doversoul1]

So would you start a series on physics with Archimedes, or with something about the Development of the Atomic Bomb?

I don’t think there is The Way of introducing something new to an audience. It depends on who the audience is and what you aim to achieve. A good mixture is probably the best (how boring ). The point I was trying to make is that we should remember that not all Radio 3’s listeners are experts on, in this case, Polyphony.

[Quarky]

But this is a series on "Polyphony", not the wider subject of "Music" - to make the comparison apt, you'd have to focus on an aspect of Physics; such as Quanta. This isn't my "subject" - I suppose I could be said to be someone from the hypothesized "small percentage" of R3 listeners who know very much about it - but the radio and TV programmes that I have learnt most from on Quanta are precisely those which take the "Historical" approach to it, such as Jim Al-Khalili's TV series (or, to move to another subject, Michael Mosley's Pain, Pus, & Poison).

Totally irrelevant, but one of the best explanations of Quanta IMV is a recent Youtube upload on the subject of Quantum Computing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lypnkNm0B4A&t=25s

**** For more info on Quantum Computing, I would recommend a series of Videos that can be found by searching YouTube for "Quantum Computer UNSW"