Howard Goodall on BBC Two

[ahinton]

Warning: off-topic!

I enjoy reading ahinton's astonishingly long sentences, but they always remind me of the last part of Chapter 9 of Winnie-the-Pooh. Scroll right down (if you can be bothered) to the last two paragraphs, beginning at 'You can imagine Piglet's joy...'.

http://www.greeting-cards-4u.com/Poo...ook/chap9.html

But I wonder if said piglet's been raised in accordance with the EU compliance standards of which we've been hearing increasingly more of late?...

I also wonder if your thoughts might likewise have wandered to Milne non Hamish had you been a fly on the wall when I first met Britten and he spoke to me with what felt like utter spontaneity in beautifully constructed and sometimes far from brief paragraphs!...

[Pabmusic]

TRY READING what people say
you seem to be struggling with ideas and how the IDEA of something affects how people subsequently think

as well as saying that the processes of serialism have nothing to do with the development of the technologies used to create music ?



(and Milton Babbit spins in his grave again )

Oh dear, I have touched a raw nerve. But I am not struggling with ideas at all - I just think you are overstating your case by quite a bit.

[amateur51]

Warning: off-topic!

I enjoy reading ahinton's astonishingly long sentences, but they always remind me of the last part of Chapter 9 of Winnie-the-Pooh. Scroll right down (if you can be bothered) to the last two paragraphs, beginning at 'You can imagine Piglet's joy...'.

http://www.greeting-cards-4u.com/Poo...ook/chap9.html

[ahinton]

HG said something like "serialism hasn't produced a single piece of music the ordinary listener can understand or enjoy. In 100 years."
I thought it might prove inflammatory here...

Well, without wishing to appear over-simplistic, the fact is that serialism has never produced a single piece of music that any listener can understand or enjoy - in 100 years; for one thing, serialism in any recognisably formalised sense does not date back as far as 100 years (notwithstanding some earlier independent experimentations that might be construed as having led to it, albeit indirectly and perhaps also unwittingly) and, for another, serialism has never produced a single piece of music in any case, because only composers do that kind of thing.

[ahinton]

And what do you suppose that Christopher Penderecki and Robin Holloway were doing?...

[MrGongGong]

Oh dear, I have touched a raw nerve. But I am not struggling with ideas at all - I just think you are overstating your case by quite a bit.

Not a raw nerve at all
and i'm not a great "fan" of serialism
but we have much to thank it for

Here's a piece of music that couldn't have existed WITHOUT serialism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYdRzDx1_J4

and here's another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnZKSdGzxoE

and another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vkj-t1ytzo

and so on

[Ian]

Who has diagnosed you as having some sort of problem? I can't see it's a very interesting thing to say, because it's so non-specific: you could say it about anything ("the problem I have with Rimsky-Korsakov's music is that it is consistently and precisely one third too long" etc.) Is there something intrinsic to the construction of Schoenberg's music which makes it consistently one third too long or is that just what you feel whenever you hear it? The first might be open to discussion, the second is just oh really fancy that?

The Schoenberg point was a BTW - and only intended to demonstrate that some listeners might not be enamoured with Schoenberg for reasons other than serialism or atonality.

Yes, it’s what I feel when I hear it, but how can that be any reason other than not finding the intrinsic construction of his music satisfying? And, of course, I’m up for discussing that - but what’s the point? At any time you will still be able come in with “oh really fancy that”

Another BTW - I’m not a big fan of Berg - mainly because I don’t like his orchestration.

“oh really fancy that”....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i think the opening phrases bear an uncanny resemblance to the words Howard Goodall ...

[Pabmusic]

Not a raw nerve at all
and i'm not a great "fan" of serialism
but we have much to thank it for

Here's a piece of music that couldn't have existed WITHOUT serialism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYdRzDx1_J4

and here's another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnZKSdGzxoE

and another

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vkj-t1ytzo

and so on

Yes - I'd agree on the face of it (I haven't yet listened to them). But I never said that serialism had no influence - that would be silly. It was you who said that serialism had influenced all subsequent composers (you emphasised the 'all'). I don't agree; I think it's hyperbole. That's all.

[Sir Velo]

Charles Rosen wrote, "(Schoenberg) will be performed as long as there are musicians who insist on playing him.

Rather tautological I would have thought! Surely any music will be performed as long as there are musicians who play it?

The most significant composers are those who gain the fanatical loyalty of some performers."

Again, a very tendentious opinion. Alkan and Sorabji (to name but two) are both composers who inspire fanatical loyalty from a small group of aficionados. I doubt, however, whether even their greatest admirers would admit either as being among the most "significant composers".

Rosen has the reputation of being a fearsome intellectual, but some of his utterances are too banal to take seriously.

[ahinton]

Yes - I'd agree on the face of it (I haven't yet listened to them). But I never said that serialism had no influence - that would be silly. It was you who said that serialism had influenced all subsequent composers (you emphasised the 'all'). I don't agree; I think it's hyperbole. That's all.

It is - or, if not, it's at the very least misguided and misleading and sounds almost akin to some kind of throwback to the statement widely attributed to Boulez all those years ago; either way, ample evidence suggests that many composers have gotten on fine without recourse to it as a compositional tool.

[ahinton]

Alkan and Sorabji (to name but two) are both composers who inspire fanatical loyalty from a small group of aficionados. I doubt, however, whether even their greatest admirers would admit either as being among the most "significant composers".

But both Alkan and Sorabji (and plenty of other composers) inspire far more than mere "fanatical loyalty from a small group of aficionados", thereby rather undermining the very premise of your doubt here!

[amateur51]

Rosen has the reputation of being a fearsome intellectual, but some of his utterances are too banal to take seriously.

I'm sure that Rosen is suitably chastened and gutted that he didn't live long enough to make amends

[ahinton]

I'm sure that Rosen is suitably chastened and gutted that he didn't live long enough to make amends

Indeed (yawn). One of Rosen's most engaging attributes was the way in which he manged to couch what some might perceive to be high-minded intellectualism in terms that can not only be merely understood but also appreciated by those who are by no means as musically literate as he was; I have personally heard from a number of non-musicians who have gotten much of value from his writings despite some of those people being unable even to read a score.

[Julien Sorel]

The Schoenberg point was a BTW - and only intended to demonstrate that some listeners might not be enamoured with Schoenberg for reasons other than serialism or atonality.

Yes, it’s what I feel when I hear it, but how can that be any reason other than not finding the intrinsic construction of his music satisfying? And, of course, I’m up for discussing that - but what’s the point? At any time you will still be able come in with “oh really fancy that”

Another BTW - I’m not a big fan of Berg - mainly because I don’t like his orchestration.

“oh really fancy that”....

But I wouldn't have said "oh really fancy that" in either case. I'd have asked you what it is about the intrinsic construction of Schoenberg's music that you find unsatisfying, and what it is about Berg's orchestration you don't like.

But you seem to prefer wallowing in paranoia, so I won't bother.