Howard Goodall on BBC Two

[ardcarp]

Well, yes I do having just watched (what I hope is) the final episode. The 20th century tradition of 'art music' is virtually dismissed, Rhapsody in Blue, Porgy and Bess and West Side Story being the sole repository of virtue. Serialism is trashed. Firebird/Petrushka/Rite of Spring are barely alluded to. Les Noces becomes the cacophony upon which all other 20th century classical music is based. No mention of Britten or Tippett. Neoclassicism is 'like reproduction furniture'. Film music is OK. Jazz and pop are the true inheritors of the earth. Musicals are the new opera. Minimalism is the max!

It's the world according to Howard Goodall of course, but presented with a self assurane amounting almost to arrogance... which some might mistake for authority.

[teamsaint]

Well, yes I do having just watched (what I hope is) the final episode. The 20th century tradition of 'art music' is virtually dismissed, Rhapsody in Blue, Porgy and Bess and West Side Story being the sole repository of virtue. Serialism is trashed. Firebird/Petrushka/Rite of Spring are barely alluded to. Les Noces becomes the cacophony upon which all other 20th century classical music is based. No mention of Britten or Tippett. Neoclassicism is 'like reproduction furniture'. Film music is OK. Jazz and pop are the true inheritors of the earth. Musicals are the new opera. Minimalism is the max!

It's the world according to Howard Goodall of course, but presented with a self assurane amounting almost to arrogance... which some might mistake for authority.

Thanks for the summary, Ardcase. Assuming you are right, I'll just cut out the middle man and pop on a good CD, or do another hour on the "Here and now" evening class !!

[Ian]

As a history of 20th classical music it was obviously ludicrous. But as a history of 20th music I thought it was pretty interesting. I did wonder if he was being deliberately provocative towards “classical”, but perhaps that would have been impossible to avoid in an overview that takes all music equally seriously.

Sure, Tippett and Britten didn’t feature, but neither did Miles Davies, Jimi Hendrix, The Beach Boys, Ornette Coleman, Cole Porter and Richard Rodgers.

But then, it wasn’t a check-list history and didn’t need to be. I’m not sure that I’ve ever come across a music history that has attempted this no ring-fencing approach - which makes it pretty hard to judge in its own terms.

[ardcarp]

I’m not sure that I’ve ever come across a music history that has attempted this no ring-fencing approach - which makes it pretty hard to judge in its own terms.

OK fair point. But put simply, his terms for judging music in this final programme were simply based on how popular (or I suppose one could substitute the word 'accessible') it was. He declared Verdi and Puccini to be the last 'classical' composers whose music was truly popular. At the end however he shot himself in the foot by (once again) referring to J.S.Bach as probably the greatest composer who ever lived. 'Popular' in his day? I think not. He tried to excuse 'pop' for its lack of melodic and harmonic complexity and went on to extol minimalism...for its lack of melodic and harmonic complexity. Oh dear.....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

... what little he said about jazz [he could have said more] was sure footed and bright ... at the end i felt rather exhilarated by the programmes ... we got Bartok the progressive hero, the importance of dance and the irrelevance of much serious 'classical' music in the 20th century ...

Britten has now been entirely ignored by two major programmes on music is there something we should be told?

i find myself in party with Mr Goodall overall; i find his point of view sympathetic ...but that is no recommendation eh .....

[Mary Chambers]

Britten has now been entirely ignored by two major programmes on music is there something we should be told?

It must be some kind of conspiracy!

I suppose he wasn't groundbreaking or radical musically, but then neither was Copland who was mentioned in both programmes - American bias for some reason (like selling the programme)? I'd have thought works like Peter Grimes, War Requiem and, in an entirely different way, Noye's Fludde were easily as important/significant as many of the works that did get a mention. Very, very odd.

[BBMmk2]

Ther way the BBC makes programmes these days is quite astonoshingly very bad. i just watcxhed one programme in HG's series and that was enough for me not to see anymoreof his presentations again!! Ever! He trashed eveyrthing in sight. Serialism the same as atonality? Hmmm....? What music college did he go to?

[MrGongGong]

It must be some kind of conspiracy! .....................


- American bias for some reason .

Alex Ross is an American and one of these was based on his book
even though I take issue with some of what has been in both of these
they are both explicitly personal journeys rather than an attempt at a definitive version ........

In a more in depth look one might trace the influence of non western music to include Colin McPhee and Britten playing piano duets of his Balinese gamelan transcriptions .......... but that's probably too "niche" for BBC TV

Serialism the same as atonality? Hmmm....? What music college did he go to?

Probably the same one as the Peester who thinks it's all rubbish anyway .......

(actually he went to Oxford which explains some things.......)

[aeolium]

But calum, wouldn't you prefer a series of programmes on music, particularly C20 music, that did not endlessly rehearse the ideological debates about it, one that didn't effectively say "if you like this music, then you really ought not to like this other music"?

I would like a series - I suppose this is a comment more for the Sound and Fury thread but it applies to HG too - in which the different musical styles were described and analysed (including their origins), illustrating how Western classical music moved increasingly away from a common language into multiple co-existing languages (as well as being influenced by non-classical and non-Western music) without whole styles being summarily dismissed as irrelevant or unpopular (or anachronistic). It is up to the listeners/viewers to make up their own mind about the different styles with which they are presented, it is up to the presenter to illustrate and account for those styles as clearly and unpartisanly (?) as possible.

[Mary Chambers]

Alex Ross is an American and one of these was based on his book

This is one of the reasons I was surprised by the omission of Britten. Alex Ross's book has an entire chapter about him.

[Ian]

OK fair point. But put simply, his terms for judging music in this final programme were simply based on how popular (or I suppose one could substitute the word 'accessible') it was.

‘Accessible’ is just a euphemism for ‘popular‘, so ‘popular‘ will do just fine. But I didn’t get the sense he was ‘judging‘ any sort of music. What purpose does ‘judging‘ music serve? It’s only individuals that can judge quality and individuals come up with different assessments - so where does that get us?

He declared Verdi and Puccini to be the last 'classical' composers whose music was truly popular.

Yes, with the implication that they were representative of classical composers whose music represented the fears and aspirations of a wide cross section of society - in other words, whose music caught the public’s imagination - a status ‘classical’ music lost during the 20th Century. Is he that wrong?

At the end however he shot himself in the foot by (once again) referring to J.S.Bach as probably the greatest composer who ever lived. 'Popular' in his day? I think not.

I think that’s a bit like saying: "Steely Dan is one of the best American bands of the 70s but popular in their day? I think not." Merely because the Eagles sold more records (probably).

He tried to excuse 'pop' for its lack of melodic and harmonic complexity and went on to extol minimalism...for its lack of melodic and harmonic complexity. Oh dear.....

I don’t believe he thinks popular music need excusing - and his point was about the significant degree of cross fertilization between minimalism and ‘grass-roots‘ popular culture - sampling for example.

[BBMmk2]

HG, does he know anything?

[Bryn]

Ther wya the BBC makes programmes these days is quite astonoshingly very bad. i just watcxhed one programme in HG's series and that was enough for me not to see anymoreof his presentations again!! Ever! He trashed eveyrthing in sight. Serialism the same as atonality? Hmmm....? What music college did he go to?

He read music at Christ Church, Oxford. He's a good tunesmith and convivial presenter of l.c.d. programmes on various aspects of music in general. That's about it, really.

[MrGongGong]

‘Accessible’ is just a euphemism for ‘popular‘, so ‘popular‘ will do just fine.

No it's not
Xenakis is "accessible" but certainly isn't what one might think of as "popular" (except for lots of the people I know but we aren't representative of the rest of the world at all......

The "curse" of our time is to confuse taste with value

It's good because I like it
I like it because it's good

there are many many other ways of viewing things (and I wont bang on about contextualisation again )

[Ian]

No it's not

The "curse" of our time is to confuse taste with value

It's good because I like it
I like it because it's good

I haven't come across anyone who has ever said this and meant it in the sense you mean - i.e. that what I like is objectively good.
What might be questioned is the relevance of 'good' (i.e. in an objective/detached from what anyone might think sort of way)