Howard Goodall on BBC Two

[MrGongGong]

logic is not all there is ahinton, i believe serial music gains additional value for the listener in live performance to a greater degree than other genres

That's interesting
I do find that with some music that it's so carefully and precisely constructed that one needs to hear it in the live context for it to "work".
I'd wade through floods to hear some improvisors but the recorded artifact can leave me completely cold

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Nor entirely off-topic, has anyone else heard Goodall's "Land of the Lakes Suite"?

Quite pleasant; a bit repetitive; general all-purpose slightly melancholic background Music - I can hear nothing of the grandeur of the Lakes (having got lost near Buttermere once, I'd've liked something that suggested the terror behind the beauty). Determined not to let anything after 1912 influence it; not even even Britten.

And, pace the youTube notes, it wasn't the composer conducting: Richard Hickox.

[amateur51]

Any luck with that program?

the only recent concert that to a limited extent of fits your description is this:

Alban Berg: Piano Sonata, Op.1
Claude Debussy: Masques for piano
Arnold Schoenberg: 6 Little pieces for piano, Op.19
Leos Janácek: Sonata I.X.1905 (From the Street)
Arnold Schoenberg: 3 Pieces for piano, Op.11

It did sell out the 300+ seater Purcell room, but presumably it's not the concert you mention.

Many apologies for a late response Ian and for a couple of senior moments on my part I'm afraid.

The concert you've found was the concert I missed cos it was sold out. Karim played Schoenberg at RAM in ?October 2012 which I was present at, and he's doing the programme below next Sunday, which is certainly not sold out

http://ticketing.southbankcentre.co....rim-said-62994

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

That's interesting; why do you assume this to be the case. I find the idea quite curious, especially to the extent that I find it hard to perceive that many listeners not technically versed in compositional procedures, not musically literate and without wide listening experience would not likely recognise whether the music was serial or not, whether at a live performance or on a recording.

this is not an assumption, it is my experience

i think it is because serial music has little discernible vocalisation or narrative structure to it; it comes from the ether as it were, so being in the same space allows the apparent random arrival of 'notes' etc to 'belong' in that space and one is observing their presence ... or something like that ... in general live performance is always to be preferred i fee, but especially for music without apparent sense [recordings are probably best heard on headphones rather than speakers]

[ahinton]

this is not an assumption, it is my experience

i think it is because serial music has little discernible vocalisation or narrative structure to it; it comes from the ether as it were, so being in the same space allows the apparent random arrival of 'notes' etc to 'belong' in that space and one is observing their presence ... or something like that ... in general live performance is always to be preferred i fee, but especially for music without apparent sense [recordings are probably best heard on headphones rather than speakers]

But is what you call "little discernible vocalisation" exclusive to serial music of any kind or persuasion?

[jayne lee wilson]

this is not an assumption, it is my experience

i think it is because serial music has little discernible vocalisation or narrative structure to it; it comes from the ether as it were, so being in the same space allows the apparent random arrival of 'notes' etc to 'belong' in that space and one is observing their presence ... or something like that ... in general live performance is always to be preferred i fee, but especially for music without apparent sense [recordings are probably best heard on headphones rather than speakers]

Whilst intrigued by the spatial surrealism of your senseless musical apprehensions, it occurs to me that I've never attended a single live performance of any serial work; and all of my sensual and musically meaningful experiences of this music (far broader and more colourful a category than its musicological label suggests) have come through webcast, broadcast and recordings; all of these heard through loudspeakers.

The lack of access to a live experience of Webern, Skalkottas or Roberto Gerhard hasn't baffled the pleasure I take in them - enriching my life for over 30 years now. Works like Gerhard's Hymnody, or Libra and Leo, or Webern's OP.21 Symphony, have an impact and intimacy about them that doesn't need any help from a special, live occasion.

[Quarky]

logic is not all there is ahinton, i believe serial music gains additional value for the listener in live performance to a greater degree than other genres

Yes I would agree Calum about additional value in a live performance. I recall a performance of Agon at the ROH (now that might be the popular work that HG was looking for). The audience had absulutely no problems with Stravinsky's serialism. And they particularly enjoyed the treat that Carlos Acostas gave his leading lady! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg103cXcas4

But my approach to serialism is a little different. There is as has been noted by detractors no obvious line or form (so the listener cannot apply extrapolation or anticipation to his ears). Instead, the listener has to constantly reassess what he is listening to on a phrase by phrase, bar by bar, or even note by note basis, because it will not follow from what has gone before - and the spaces between the phrases are important.

So in electrical terms, the listener's mind has no AGC or phase locked loop to smooth out what he is hearing- every snap crackle and atmospheric whizz becomes significant.

[MrGongGong]

I'm sure Jonathan Harvey would have been more than able to communicate these things to even the most ardent "detractors"

The idea (yes THAT word again !) that music doesn't have to follow a simple "tension > release" mechanism is tricky for some folk. We have a lot to learn from the theorists of electroacoustic music, given that genre of music hasn't been around for as long as others and that some of the most intelligent thinkers (many of these folks would find the science questions on University Challenge a doddle !) have been working in this medium there are some interesting insights.
Leigh Landy at DMU has written extensively on what he calls the "something to hold onto factor" in relation to listening to music that at times has very slender connections with recognisable sonic objects (if you want to know about that try Pierre Schaeffer or http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/spip.php?p...&id_rubrique=2) and how modes of listening (again there's lots about that on the EARS site http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/spip.php?rubrique219) affect how we hear and process music.

http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/spip.php?rubrique192

(and even though it comes from Leicester there's nothing about Kings under carparks at all )

[amateur51]

I'm sure Jonathan Harvey would have been more than able to communicate these things to even the most ardent "detractors"

The idea (yes THAT word again !) that music doesn't have to follow a simple "tension > release" mechanism is tricky for some folk. We have a lot to learn from the theorists of electroacoustic music, given that genre of music hasn't been around for as long as others and that some of the most intelligent thinkers (many of these folks would find the science questions on University Challenge a doddle !) have been working in this medium there are some interesting insights.
Leigh Landy at DMU has written extensively on what he calls the "something to hold onto factor" in relation to listening to music that at times has very slender connections with recognisable sonic objects (if you want to know about that try Pierre Schaeffer or http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/spip.php?p...&id_rubrique=2) and how modes of listening (again there's lots about that on the EARS site http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/spip.php?rubrique219) affect how we hear and process music.

http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/spip.php?rubrique192

(and even though it comes from Leicester theres nothing about Kings under carparks at all )

What a useful term - that's exactly what I've been pondering for years.

[Oldcrofter]

I know nothing of serialism and like others, disappointed that no explanation or illustration was forthcoming from Howard Goodall. Can anyone explain why, of the 105 "notable composers" of serial music listed on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialism) only three are women (Mamlok, Seeger & Southam) ?

I assume that over the past hundred years or so, women composers have been (and are still today ?) greatly under-represented generally, but surely not as low as 3 % ? Is it technology, education, attitudes in music colleges, lack of role models, lack of interest, or what that leads to such a huge imbalance ? I can't think of many areas of human activity where the imbalance remains so marked.

[MrGongGong]

There are some odd names on that list
I guess it's an attempt at a list of EVERYONE who has ever written a "serial" piece
so that would include most folk who have studied composition in the second half of the 20th century

I can't think of many areas of human activity where the imbalance remains so marked.

Cardinals ?

[amateur51]

There are some odd names on that list
I guess it's an attempt at a list of EVERYONE who has ever written a "serial" piece
so that would include most folk who have studied composition in the second half of the 20th century



Cardinals ?

Scamp!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I know nothing of serialism and like others, disappointed that no explanation or illustration was forthcoming from Howard Goodall. Can anyone explain why, of the 105 "notable composers" of serial music listed on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serialism) only three are women (Mamlok, Seeger & Southam) ?

I assume that over the past hundred years or so, women composers have been (and are still today ?) greatly under-represented generally, but surely not as low as 3 % ? Is it technology, education, attitudes in music colleges, lack of role models, lack of interest, or what that leads to such a huge imbalance ? I can't think of many areas of human activity where the imbalance remains so marked.

Well, the fact that Elisabeth Lutyens is missed out suggests to me that the fault is Wiki's. Betsy Jolas, Thea Musgrave, Nicola leFanu, Kaija Saariaho, Rebecca Saunders, Olga Neuwirth could also be included on a list of "Women Composers using Serial-based Methods in their Work" - but the emergence of large numbers of women composers is something that the meedja have only taken notice of after Serialism became absorbed into a wider pallet of available compositional "tools".

And women tend to be less attracted to "clubs": how many female "notable composers" of Minimal Music are mentioned on Wiki?

[anotherbob]

It seems to me that in respect of HG's series I have had the best of both worlds. While I have found the series itself enjoyable and informative, the many experts who post here have drawn to my attention shortcomings they have identified in HG's material. I found the series was couched in terms I could follow whereas much of what I have read here has been in terms calculated to exclude the possibility of enlightening the lay person. (I'm not complaining; that's the nature of this forum.)
In the latter part of the thread HG's treatment of modern music has come under scrutiny and it is here that I have my greatest difficulty. It reprises difficulties I have with other forms of artistic appreciation. I look at a painting..... I either like it or I don't. I read a book....... I either like it or I don't. It's the same with music. If my reaction to listening is to think "what a bloody awful racket, I never want to hear that again", it doesn't matter whether it is by Arnold Schoenberg or the Beverley Sisters. No amount of learned instruction on Arnold's great purpose, or his methods will make it sound any better.
I expect this is the classic "I don't know much about art but I know what I like." reaction. However for the life of me I cannot see how having modern music explained to me would alter my reaction to it.
(I would especially not want it explaining to me in the patronising terms used by some of the experts here, too few of whom are given to self-doubt.)

[Nick Armstrong]

In the latter part of the thread HG's treatment of modern music has come under scrutiny and it is here that I have my greatest difficulty. It reprises difficulties I have with other forms of artistic appreciation. I look at a painting..... I either like it or I don't. I read a book....... I either like it or I don't. It's the same with music. If my reaction to listening is to think "what a bloody awful racket, I never want to hear that again", it doesn't matter whether it is by Arnold Schoenberg or the Beverley Sisters. No amount of learned instruction on Arnold's great purpose, or his methods will make it sound any better.I expect this is the classic "I don't know much about art but I know what I like." reaction. However for the life of me I cannot see how having modern music explained to me would alter my reaction to it.
(I would especially not want it explaining to me in the patronising terms used by some of the experts here, too few of whom are given to self-doubt.)

Wise words, imho, anotherbob If feel the same.

However among many things, this Forum has brought home to me forcibly that people must listen to music for very different reasons. Some listeners seem to relish the puzzle, the structure, the mathematical or physical construction of music, so that the primary reaction is an analytical one, rather than being concerned with purely what it sounds like or how it make one feel. This is the only way I can account for an enthusiasm for the harder-core serial or other 'modern' music, or for that matter for the more difficult 'HIPP' temperaments (cf Hervé Niquet's Handel at the Proms).

And perfectly legitimate that kind of appreciation is too. It's just not mine (nor, by the sounds of it, yours )