Tom Service contemporary Music at the Graun

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

way to go Tom

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Tom Service at his best: enthusiastic without gushing; cutting through the excretia of myth to draw attention to the gold that lies beneath.

Further thoughts on the Grauniad Blog here:

http://johnsonsrambler.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/3204/

[french frank]

I think he argues convincingly for the intrinsic value of 'contemporay classical music'. I'm not sure that those arguments are the right ones to convince the sceptics and nay-sayers. On the contrary, he seems to stress (and demonstrate) the qualitative 'difference' between the contemporary and what preceded it. One example is in the view that it is attempting something quite different ("First, one of the signal, culture-changing achievements of contemporary music is that it opens your mind and ears to re-hear the world, to realise the beauty that's around us in sounds we would otherwise call noises. That's part of the genius of John Cage or Helmut Lachenmann, one way in which the world becomes a different place when you listen to their music.") Another example is that of the schoolchildren's reaction ("What happened was just the reverse: the kids loved Varèse and couldn't get on with Ravel. But that makes perfect sense. So much of the great, radical music of the past 100 years bypasses the world of convention and intellect ... There's a good argument that the less you know about Mozart or Schubert, the more directly you can understand the sounds composers create today.") Another interesting point that he makes is that the influence of the earlier 'radicals' was as in producing a form of 'proto-pop' (I think the point I'm trying to make here is clear from the context, but it's rather clumsily expressed).

What is striking, too, is the emphasis on the powerful effects of such music: 'visceral impact', 'huge reservoirs of feeling and physicality', 'go straight to the guts of sonic power, and to shake up your solar plexus'.

But, you don't dispute the worth of these works by saying that what they offer is not necessarily what everyone wants. And the situation isn't helped by those who fully appreciate the works looking pityingly at those who don't. By all means hit back at those who cry 'Rubbish!' and 'Fraud!' but, if Service is right - and many may disagree - in saying: "So much of the great, radical music of the past 100 years bypasses the world of [convention and] intellect, I see a problem for those (like me) who experience music barely at all in a physical or emotional way.

But I always work on the basis 'Must try harder'.

[John Skelton]

Being myself incorrigibly miserable, ungrateful and ungracious, though Tom Service's piece didn't make me choke on my cornflakes it didn't encourage me to have a second bowl . And I don't understand what he means 'bypassing the world of intellect' - what is 'the world of intellect' when it's at home? I also think "There's a good argument that the less you know about Mozart or Schubert, the more directly you can understand the sounds composers create today" is flawed: I don't think knowing about Mozart or Schubert is any impediment, I think knowing about Mozart or Schubert and knowing that it is obvious what music is is an impediment (one that could as easily get in the way of responding to Machaut as responding to Lachenmann).

Actually Lachenmann is a poor example of 'bypassing' since his music is a critique of a 'tradition' (among many other things). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebsF16Ywwsk And while 'visceral impact' is fine it's a bit like saying never mind the content just feel the bass .

As usual in The Guardian there seems to be the idea that everything was destined to arrive at Thomas Adès. Which does make the odd cornflake go down the wrong way. Grumble, grumble.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

As usual in The Guardian there seems to be the idea that everything was destined to arrive at Thomas Adès.

Ironic, seeing how TS's (and TA's) worst moment was the Music Matters TA "Special" where the two pals got plastered and slurred on inconsequentially at each other for 3/4 of an hour like a pair of Half-Time Delias!

[amateur51]

Francis Bacon, that most visceral of painters, spoke of the effect on him of reading Aeschylus as " ..they open up the valves of sensation for me" (David Sylvester)

[EnemyoftheStoat]

Ironic, seeing how TS's (and TA's) worst moment was the Music Matters TA "Special" where the two pals got plastered and slurred on inconsequentially at each other for 3/4 of an hour like a pair of Half-Time Delias!

Do you think that was TA's worst moment?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Do you think that was TA's worst moment?

Naughty, Stoatfoe!

[french frank]

Ignoring the emoticons which suggest just a tincture of mirthfulness: how do you (i.e. you who have commented here) evaluate the music of TA? What are your criteria?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Ignoring the emoticons which suggest just a tincture of mirthfulness: how do you (i.e. you who have commented here) evaluate the music of TA? What are your criteria?

I find the work he produced before he was thirty much more interesting and enjoyable than what he's written since. I think he has fallen into the "trap" that many successful Brit composers have, in that the number of commissions they receive force them to produce work that requires them (simply because of the limited time they have to produce the works) to fall back on diluted ideas that they might otherwise have developed and moved on from. The irrational metres in Asyla, for example, show an awareness of Ferneyhough, but in Ades, this is just a passing "effect" - he doesn't make it an essential aspect of the rhythmic/harmonic/textural structure. Nor does he follow up what he's discovered here in subsequent work. Perhaps because he has other fish to fry and perhaps he realizes that his Music might become less "his" if he does so. But the more recent work strikes me as more "establishment"-required than fascinating and moving for itself.


Mind you, he doesn't think much of what I write, either!

EDIT: And I'm aware that similar "criticisms" were made of Stravinsky's works after 1920 by enthusiasts of his early "Russian" works, so what do I know?

[Serial_Apologist]

if Service is right - and many may disagree - in saying: "So much of the great, radical music of the past 100 years bypasses the world of [convention and] intellect, I see a problem for those (like me) who experience music barely at all in a physical or emotional way.

But I always work on the basis 'Must try harder'.

My mum - a brilliant pianist in her time - used to say the same thing, and I could never figure it out. Surely some kind of emotional reaction has to be anticipated to be motivated to listen to music of any kind - unless for reasons of duty, or survival?

[Serial_Apologist]

EDIT: And I'm aware that similar "criticisms" were made of Stravinsky's works after 1920 by enthusiasts of his early "Russian" works, so what do I know?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[french frank]

My mum - a brilliant pianist in her time - used to say the same thing, and I could never figure it out. Surely some kind of emotional reaction has to be anticipated to be motivated to listen to music of any kind - unless for reasons of duty, or survival?

There are many pursuits that I find rewarding and enjoyable without there being any emotional element. The terms that TS uses to describe his own reactions, convey feelings that I would find extremely uncomfortable - not in the good, constructive way that leads on to a better evaluation, or a fruitful questioning, of some aspect of being (or even self-evaluation). But in the way that - for example - embarrassment or humiliation are (physically?) 'uncomfortable'; and would be, I suppose, to most people. This to me is part of the 'magic' of music, that the appreciation of it isn't completely comprehensible.

I'm not clear where the difference lies between dismissing Adès or Stockhausen, Tavener or - who? Mendelssohn/Brahms/Tchaikovsky, perhaps.

[aeolium]

I think it's a good rule never to be put off listening to music you haven't heard by the negative report of any other listener, as their taste in music is rarely likely to coincide exactly with your own.

[heliocentric]

I don't understand what he means 'bypassing the world of intellect' - what is 'the world of intellect' when it's at home? I also think "There's a good argument that the less you know about Mozart or Schubert, the more directly you can understand the sounds composers create today" is flawed: I don't think knowing about Mozart or Schubert is any impediment, I think knowing about Mozart or Schubert and knowing that it is obvious what music is is an impediment (one that could as easily get in the way of responding to Machaut as responding to Lachenmann).

Actually Lachenmann is a poor example of 'bypassing' since his music is a critique of a 'tradition' (among many other things). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebsF16Ywwsk And while 'visceral impact' is fine it's a bit like saying never mind the content just feel the bass .

As usual in The Guardian there seems to be the idea that everything was destined to arrive at Thomas Adès. Which does make the odd cornflake go down the wrong way. Grumble, grumble.

I suppose in one way it's to be welcomed that anyone is trying in a national newspaper to get people interested in contemporary "classical" music. The "classical" bit sticks in my craw though; it comes loaded with so many assumptions that using it makes TS's "popularisation" job much more tortuous than it needs to be. Nobody would call, say, Francis Bacon (since he's been mentioned here) a "contemporary classical" painter, and I don't think anyone would find his work somehow more palatable if they did. IMO you can't really be "contemporary" and "classical" at the same time. There isn't much that's "contemporary" about Adès, and Service unconsciously admits as much: "Adès's music could not speak more fervently or fearlessly about the essential truth of the way historical patterns repeat themselves" - there's always room for music which has a pseudo-contemporary veneer beneath which are the same old sounds, same old structures, same old expressive vocabulary etc. etc.