Holst, Gustav (1874 - 1934)

[smittims]

I've always understood 'kitsch' to be false art, or as the OED has it 'characterised by worthless pretentiousness'. I don't think that can credibly be applied to 'the Planets' which has always struck me as original in its structural use of harmony and melody.

The score says only that the door should be closed slowly and silently and the last bar should be repeated until the sound is lost in the distance. This was probably practicable in Queen's Hall in 1920. I don't suppose Holst imagined someone listening to a digital recording through headphones, straining to catch the actual last sound. It would be interesting to hear his comments about the various attempts made to fade the sound a niente.

[Serial_Apologist]

Well I don't think that's a case of backfiring. Hearing the door clicking (or a choir member clip clopping away in high heels), is a bad performance. A hard-of-hearing audience member should be looking at the conductor and their fellow audience members for queues as to when to clap. It's difficult to tell on YouTube clips because recordings are so quiet but here's what is possibly a good ending done of Neptune, except even at full volume I can't hear it properly on my equipment:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMXNUHuWug

There is of course no silence - anywhere, or at any time - as John Cage discovered in an anechoic chamber. If there is a "correct" way of perceiving the ending of Neptune it would have to consist in leaving oneself open to any and all of the ambient sounds excluded by conscious concentration on the music being performed. I would see the fading out at the end of The Planets as analogical of, as opposed to revelatory of pure being. This was I think what Cage was getting at, following through his conscious de-controlling of processes of composition and then leaving it up to performers (within bounds he set, of course) - namely the "de-signification" of mediated intentionality. Once the whole point of compositional control has been deconstructed, the object assumes the framework for the sensory phenomenal world at that passing moment, as a pretext for practising present-centred awareness, or mindfulness.

[NatBalance]

The score says only that the door should be closed slowly and silently and the last bar should be repeated until the sound is lost in the distance. This was probably practicable in Queen's Hall in 1920. I don't suppose Holst imagined someone listening to a digital recording through headphones, straining to catch the actual last sound. It would be interesting to hear his comments about the various attempts made to fade the sound a niente.

It seems to me the point about the ending is that you should not hear them stop singing, like you would if he'd marked it to fade down to quadruple piano and then stop, which is what I very often hear. Sometimes I have even heard them only go down to about double piano and stop! Atrocious behaviour. And you shouldn't be straining to hear the last sounds, you just should not be aware of the point when the music stops and the silence, or the background sounds (music), begins. You should never be in a rush to catch a bus or do anything after Neptune :)

[RichardB]

There is of course no silence - anywhere, or at any time - as John Cage discovered in an anechoic chamber. If there is a "correct" way of perceiving the ending of Neptune it would have to consist in leaving oneself open to any and all of the ambient sounds excluded by conscious concentration on the music being performed.

I'm not sure that what Holst had in mind was a Cagean interpretation of the end of the Planets... surely the point is that the voices get quieter and quieter and you['re increasingly straining to hear them, trying to remain within the world of the music rather than opening up to the world outside it. The noise threshold below which the voices eventually sink (if it's done well) isn't something you should be conscious of. While, as Cage discovered, there's no outer silence, there's still such a thing as an inner silence, towards which the end of Holst's piece draws the listener. The last time I heard it I was sitting next to the side room where the singers were located, so that when they started to sing they sounded quite close and quite separate from the orchestra, unfortunately. On the other hand the withdrawal into silence was managed very well, by having them walk slowly along a corridor leading away from the hall, with no shoes on (I know this because I was there for the dress rehearsal as well!).

[Serial_Apologist]

It seems to me the point about the ending is that you should not hear them stop singing, like you would if he'd marked it to fade down to quadruple piano and then stop, which is what I very often hear. Sometimes I have even heard them only go down to about double piano and stop! Atrocious behaviour. And you shouldn't be straining to hear the last sounds, you just should not be aware of the point when the music stops and the silence, or the background sounds (music), begins. You should never be in a rush to catch a bus or do anything after Neptune :)

But not to be aware would surely have to mean having to be aware of not being aware, and therefore not being aware - a catch-22 or double-bind, similar to "You should not think of a pink elephant while taking this medecine, otherwise it will not work" - a favourite Alan Watts analogy for the problem with "shoulds" and "should nots" since you are thinking about not thinking about what it is you should not be thinking about. One can only be "caught 'unawares'".

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm not sure that what Holst had in mind was a Cagean interpretation of the end of the Planets... surely the point is that the voices get quieter and quieter and you['re increasingly straining to hear them, trying to remain within the world of the music rather than opening up to the world outside it. The noise threshold below which the voices eventually sink (if it's done well) isn't something you should be conscious of. While, as Cage discovered, there's no outer silence, there's still such a thing as an inner silence, towards which the end of Holst's piece draws the listener. The last time I heard it I was sitting next to the side room where the singers were located, so that when they started to sing they sounded quite close and quite separate from the orchestra, unfortunately. On the other hand the withdrawal into silence was managed very well, by having them walk slowly along a corridor leading away from the hall, with no shoes on (I know this because I was there for the dress rehearsal as well!).

I know - I was being a bit mischevous there. What one is describing here takes quite a bit of practice however, and I'm unsure whether it is possible to immerse oneself to the degree when the thinking mind is not interfering, asking itself "Can I still hear the voices? Have they destroyed the purpose of the ending by stopping too soon?" and so on, thereby undermining whatever the whole point of the endeavour may be conceived as.

[RichardB]

I'm unsure whether it is possible to immerse oneself to the degree when the thinking mind is not interfering, asking itself "Can I still hear the voices? Have they destroyed the purpose of the ending by stopping too soon?" and so on, thereby undermining whatever the whole point of the endeavour may be conceived as.

But you might not get into such an "analytical" frame of mind until you're remembering it just after the event, don't you think?

[Serial_Apologist]

But you might not get into such an "analytical" frame of mind until you're remembering it just after the event, don't you think?

I would have to go back to the first time I heard the work to answer that, but it's too far back in time. Non-recognition in tranquillity, to misquote an ancestor (I've been told - seriously!)

[NatBalance]

But not to be aware would surely have to mean having to be aware of not being aware, and therefore not being aware - a catch-22 or double-bind, similar to "You should not think of a pink elephant while taking this medecine, otherwise it will not work" - a favourite Alan Watts analogy for the problem with "shoulds" and "should nots" since you are thinking about not thinking about what it is you should not be thinking about. One can only be "caught 'unawares'".

Ha ha, very good. Very profound. Now my brain's all tangled up :) And you shouldn't have mentioned John Cage. You've got me itching to vent my views on his most famous .... .... his most famous what? ..... I will call it his most famous 'instruction', not a piece of music. I will post that on the thread for him.

[Bryn]

Ha ha, very good. Very profound. Now my brain's all tangled up :) And you shouldn't have mentioned John Cage. You've got me itching to vent my views on his most famous .... .... his most famous what? ..... I will call it his most famous 'instruction', not a piece of music. I will post that on the thread for him.

How strange that someone who uses the nom de guerre NatNalance should fail to recognise 4'33" as music. It's the natural balance of the acoustic environment which the time divisions of the work offer up for aural appreciation.

[RichardB]

not a piece of music

So many people seem to have such fixed ideas about what is and isn't a piece of music.