BBC4 "Symphony" with Simon Russell Beale

[EdgeleyRob]

I only watched the first two episodes.I have learnt more about the symphony from this forum to be honest.

[ardcarp]

Makropulos.

Very good to hear a positive report.

Making something that's compressed into four hour-long programmes is a no-win really

That's probably very true. And it had to appeal to 'Everyman' not just classical music cognoscenti. SRB and ME were I agree most engaging. I feel the series improved as it went on. The first one spent too long giving us an overview of the thing, and what I found annoying was the 'producerish' tactics of quick shots and of moving us from place to place in milliseconds...all quite unnecessary. Sometimes musical extracts were too short and were spoken over...and of course we had to have shots of SRB peering through harp-strings and stuff like that. But I think I'm worrying about my own prejudices; by the end I had come to accept and tolerate the format of the programme. On reflection I wouldn't have missed it. I even went as far as re-playing the bits I'd slept through!

I'm glad you enjoyed it, and I'm sure lots of others did too, cognoscenti or not.

[hafod]

Overall I thought the series was successful not least because it must be a nightmare to strike a balance that caters for the widest possible range of audience knowledge and interest but remain watchable for those at either end of the spectrum. The direction was irritating at times but that seems to be the modern way of doing things. The best part for me was Sir ME. His contributions I thought were pertinent, interesting and provided without affectation. A great pity they were not more extended. Perhaps he should have his own programme?

[Barbirollians]

Give me strength - there is no need to talk down to an audience and not to inform them just to make it accessible . Let alone to cram so much into four hours - Tchaikovsky received three minutes !

The old mantra used to be never over estimate their knowledge or underestimate their intelligence . The latter the BBC seems to have long since forgotten.

It is a shame as the first series of Sacred Music I thought was excellent , the second was not as good and this were evidence of further dumbing down - if that is now going on at BBC4 as well as everywhere else in the BBC there is little hope ...

[ardcarp]

The old mantra used to be never over estimate their knowledge or underestimate their intelligence

Even the old mantra seems a bit patronising to me!

[makropulos]

Give me strength - there is no need to talk down to an audience and not to inform them just to make it accessible . Let alone to cram so much into four hours - Tchaikovsky received three minutes !

I didn't detect "talking down" - do you have specific examples in mind? As for Tchaikovsky, you do the programme makers an injustice. He received nearly 5 minutes (4:43 to be precise), which you may feel is insufficient, but again I would make the point that hearing extracts from the Pathétique, the interview with Temirkanov and seeing the hall where the work was first performed should whet anybody's appetite. That's all a programme like that can do. The same was true of the excellent but even more selective Sacred Music series.

What's the hard evidence for dumbing down? You post gives the impression that you want it to become true by saying "dumbing down" a lot. Widespread appeal in this case seemed to me to be achieved without dumbing down. I suppose the unduly short music examples might be seen as that, but not in the context of a series that had to cram an extraordinary amount into four hours.

[Barbirollians]

If you compare it with Sacred Music series 1 - there were far fewer extended musical examples or illustrations of differences in style and development of the form . As such that is one of the reasons I object to missing out Mendelssohn and Schumann.The dumbing down is exemplified by giving only very short Classic FM style brief biographies of composers and little else .

The series was characterised by endless short pieces to camera by SRB from whichever city he had landed in to discuss a composer extremely briefly . Only Haydn and Beethoven in the whole series received the full treatment deserved.

[makropulos]

If you compare it with Sacred Music series 1 - there were far fewer extended musical examples or illustrations of differences in style and development of the form . As such that is one of the reasons I object to missing out Mendelssohn and Schumann.The dumbing down is exemplified by giving only very short Classic FM style brief biographies of composers and little else .

The series was characterised by endless short pieces to camera by SRB from whichever city he had landed in to discuss a composer extremely briefly . Only Haydn and Beethoven in the whole series received the full treatment deserved.

Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Pabmusic]

In the space of four hours I find myself feeling much more positive towards the series than most people here. I was glad that it recognised that symphonies were composed by British and American composers (among others), and it left the way open for any interested viewer and listener to explore further, which is surely all a series lasting a few hours can hope to do.

And finally, I thought SRB and Mark Elder were excellent presenters - enthusiastic and intelligent, even playing piano duets together, which was a charming touch.

I entirely agree (and I've read your subsequent posts). Not for a moment did I feel this was 'dumbed down', nor was it patronising. Of course, I can list dozens of things I should like to have seen, but I wasn't the producer. I freely admit that I didn't know what to expect before the first episode, being naturally disbelieving of contemporary hype, but in the end it was a good overview of the breadth of mainstream symphonic works. It could not have been much better without extra length.

In particular, it was good to see glimpses of the various composers' personal worlds - it's all too easy to forget, when you're immersed in their music, that that they were real people.

[ardcarp]

Pabmusic. Glad you liked it too. But I suspect the majority of music lovers (the French 'amateurs de musique' expresses it rather better) were irritated by presentation techniques bordering on the silly.

[MrGongGong]

I really liked the final instalment
Great stuff about Ives and some interesting contextual things in relation to recording , the status of the conductor and the whole music and politics issue that still continues to this day.
There was much to discover in this one rather than treading the same old boards and a blessed relief that it wasn't a luvvie fest !

[Boilk]

Why the total exclusion of Prokofiev in the last episode? Because he didn't write as many symphonies as Shostakovich? It's understandable that the latter's Leningrad Symphony was going to be easy fodder for a picture postcard documentary like this, but Prokofiev was also a symphonist every bit as capable as Shostakovich, though admittedly with less tendency for developmental note spinning.

The real tragedy of this serries was that there was no programme devoted to the post-War symphony. It's not for lack of symphonies, but probably that there are almost no symphonies composed post-1950 that have made it to the standard repertory (or at least none that the broad target audience would know). One consolation, far more stimularing than any of these programmes, was Saturday's Music Matters programme, which addressed the symphony since 1945, happily available on Listen Again ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017lylx

[Serial_Apologist]

Why the total exclusion of Prokofiev in the last episode? Because he didn't write as many symphonies as Shostakovich? It's understandable that the latter's Leningrad Symphony was going to be easy fodder for a picture postcard documentary like this, but Prokofiev was also a symphonist every bit as capable as Shostakovich, though admittedly with less tendency for developmental note spinning.

The real tragedy of this serries was that there was no programme devoted to the post-War symphony. It's not for lack of symphonies, but probably that there are almost no symphonies composed post-1950 that have made it to the standard repertory (or at least none that the broad target audience would know). One consolation, far more stimularing than any of these programmes, was Saturday's Music Matters programme, which addressed the symphony since 1945, happily available on Listen Again ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017lylx

Thanks for the reminder, Boilk.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Prokofiev's 6th symphony is one of the greatest composed in the 20th century, finer than any of Shostakovich's symphonies IMO even though I enjoy Shostakovich's symphonies. The greatest period of symphonic activity appears to the years 1940-1965, I now possess recordings of almost 1450 symphonies post 1800 and I think over a quarter come that 25 year period, the sheer variety of symphonies written during this period and the different approaches to the symphonic form, give a total lie to the sometimes held account that the symphony was a dying entity. A few more of these works in the repertoire might help to convince the listening public to the value of these works

[Ferretfancy]

I absolutely agree about the stature of Prokofiev's Sixth, it is profoundly affecting. On the whole Prokofiev for me is a composer to admire rather than to love, a man who masked his emotions behind irony. I once saw him described as a 'wrong note romantic", and I can see what was meant by the phrase. Choosing1940-1965 as a representative period does rather exclude symphonies that to my mind need to be heard more often. I can never understand why Nielsen's symphonies are not in the standard repertory, and although Rubbra's are not the easiest to assimilate they should be part of every listener's experience. Nowadaty we seem to hear Honegger and Roussel more frequently.