Bruckner: Symphony no. 7 BaL 13/12/14

[Don Petter]

I don't follow you, what do you mean?

A perfect translation!

[Beef Oven!]

A perfect translation!

Well, I think that you are supporting my argument. Things move on.

[aeolium]

Actually the use of a discussion format for comparative reviewing of particular works is not new at all. It goes back as far as the Third Programme. See for instance this programme from 1960:

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/5072b8c7b4d740afb0ec9664b750d6ad

Interpretations on Record, a programme I greatly enjoyed when I came to it later in the 1970s and 1980s, actually employed a number of different formats. In some cases it used the single speaker format, with illustrations, much as BaL usually does now (though IIRC without the "winner" conclusion). In some cases it was a discussion, sometimes about a complete work, sometimes about a single movement or a theme (e.g. the role of Otello). Where these discussions differed from the kind of discussion used in Saturday's BaL though, was that all of those involved in the discussion had prepared and researched the interpretations of the work to be discussed and usually had strong, and strongly contrasting, opinions about those interpretations. Andrew MacGregor, though I think he is a fine presenter of CD Review, had clearly not done the research that Deathridge had, and it really wasn't as a result a discussion between people equally prepared.

I for one would welcome the sort of alternative discussion formats about music interpretation that IoR employed - indeed, I'd love to have it back as a programme, but complementing and not replacing the single-speaker format of BaL, which I still think is the best way in which a large number of recordings can be concisely compared in the level of detail required.

[Beef Oven!]

Actually the use of a discussion format for comparative reviewing of particular works is not new at all. It goes back as far as the Third Programme. See for instance this programme from 1960:

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/5072b8c7b4d740afb0ec9664b750d6ad

Interpretations on Record, a programme I greatly enjoyed when I came to it later in the 1970s and 1980s, actually employed a number of different formats. In some cases it used the single speaker format, with illustrations, much as BaL usually does now (though IIRC without the "winner" conclusion). In some cases it was a discussion, sometimes about a complete work, sometimes about a single movement or a theme (e.g. the role of Otello). Where these discussions differed from the kind of discussion used in Saturday's BaL though, was that all of those involved in the discussion had prepared and researched the interpretations of the work to be discussed and usually had strong, and strongly contrasting, opinions about those interpretations. Andrew MacGregor, though I think he is a fine presenter of CD Review, had clearly not done the research that Deathridge had, and it really wasn't as a result a discussion between people equally prepared.

I for one would welcome the sort of alternative discussion formats about music interpretation that IoR employed - indeed, I'd love to have it back as a programme, but complementing and not replacing the single-speaker format of BaL, which I still think is the best way in which a large number of recordings can be concisely compared in the level of detail required.

Very interesting post - many thanks.

I wonder if there's a case for more programmes on 'interpretations of music/recordings'?

Why is there just a 45-56 minute Bal slot in the whole week?

[Nick Armstrong]

A perfect translation!

[Beef Oven!]

Of course, that's why I asked.

[verismissimo]

Re neophobia:

My sense that that if BAL had for decades been run on the basis of either a twosome or a small group (is that how I recall Interpretations on Record? and the current French programme beloved of Cali?), and was switched recently to be a single presenter reading a pre-prepared script, there would be outcry on these boards.

I think Beefie 's on the money. It's down to the skill of the twosome. Just as it is if the lone presenter makes a mess of it (as has been remarked rather frequently hereabouts).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Re neophobia:

My sense that that if BAL had for decades been run on the basis of either a twosome or a small group (is that how I recall Interpretations on Record? and the current French programme beloved of Cali?), and was switched recently to be a single presenter reading a pre-prepared script, there would be outcry on these boards.

What makes you "sense" this, veris?

I think Beefie 's on the money. It's down to the skill of the twosome. Just as it is if the lone presenter makes a mess of it (as has been remarked rather frequently hereabouts).

Rather ignores Don P's point in post #219 - not to mention the number of television programmes which use the single presenter format with remarkable success: Mary Beard, Sam Willis, Jim Al-Khalili, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stephen Smith, Alice Roberts - just to name the "anachronistic" programmes in this week's Radio Times alone.

It's only the cra ... light entertainment programmes that need Ant and Dec.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Rather ignores Don P's point in post #219 - not to mention the number of television programmes which use the single presenter format with remarkable success: Mary Beard, Sam Willis, Jim Al-Khalili, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stephen Smith, Alice Roberts - ...

When I think of BBC1 Breakfast TV, it's quite cringeworthy the way the man and woman presenters invariably look at one another every few sentences to seek approval. The BBC could save money by having only one. After all, they can't both speak at once; that only works in opera.

[Beef Oven!]

What makes you "sense" this, veris?

Even basic common sense would tell you this.

Rather ignores Don P's point in post #219 - not to mention the number of television programmes which use the single presenter format with remarkable success: Mary Beard, Sam Willis, Jim Al-Khalili, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stephen Smith, Alice Roberts - just to name the "anachronistic" programmes in this week's Radio Times alone.

Don P's point is valid and duly acknowledged. Nobody ignored it.

Shall we start childishly listing all the single and duo programmes and see who wins?

It's only the cra ... light entertainment programmes that need Ant and Dec.

And why do you think light entertainment can stand duo presentations, but other genres can't?

[Beef Oven!]

When I think of BBC1 Breakfast TV, it's quite cringeworthy the way the man and woman presenters invariably look at one another every few sentences to seek approval. The BBC could save money by having only one. After all, they can't both speak at once; that only works in opera.

What's your point here?

[amateur51]

If we want to apply the ''if it aint broke, don't try to fix it'' idea, then we need to be sure that Bal is at least maintaining audience numbers by drawing in new listeners to replace the ones that leave. Otherwise, the programme will die with its listeners.

Is it the role of BaL to draw in new listeners/maintain its audience size?

[amateur51]

A perfect translation!

[Beef Oven!]

Was I too subtle for you, Cali?

[ardcarp]

Incredible, being a professional murderer as well as a quite accomplished musician.

Incredible indeed, and rather the point I was trying to make in #202. The two 'sides' to his personality were not linked in any way, i.e. loving music neither made nor unmade his murderous propensities. Perhaps it is in the the nature of a psychopath to compartmentalise humanity and inhumanity.

The Wagner/Nazi thing always triggers a Pavlovian reaction, as if Richard were handing Adolf pages of Die Meistersinger (or whatever) with the ink still wet. What was suppressed....e.g. Hindemith, as mentioned by Roehre...was surely much more damaging to art and creativity.

But the most sinister 'wet-on-the-page' thing was surely the children's opera, Brundibar. It makes me weep even to think of it. Details from Wiki:

Krása and Hoffmeister wrote the opera in 1938 for a government competition, but the competition was later cancelled due to political developments. Rehearsals started in 1941 at the Jewish orphanage in Prague, which served as a temporary educational facility for children separated from their parents by the war. In the winter of 1942 the opera was first performed at the orphanage: by this time, composer Krása and set designer František Zelenka had already been transported to Theresienstadt. By July 1943, nearly all of the children of the original chorus and the orphanage staff had also been transported to Theresienstadt. Only the librettist Hoffmeister was able to escape Prague in time.

Reunited with the cast in Theresienstadt, Krása reconstructed the full score of the opera, based on memory and the partial piano score that remained in his hands, adapting it to suit the musical instruments available in the camp: flute, clarinet, guitar, accordion, piano, percussion, four violins, a cello and a double bass. A set was once again designed by František Zelenka, formerly a stage manager at the Czech National Theatre: several flats were painted as a background, in the foreground was a fence with drawings of the cat, dog and lark and holes for the singers to insert their heads in place of the animals' heads. On 23 September 1943, Brundibár premiered in Theresienstadt. The production was directed by Zelenka and choreographed by Camilla Rosenbaum, and was shown 55 times in the following year.

A special performance of Brundibár was staged in 1944 for representatives of the Red Cross who came to inspect living conditions in the camp; what the Red Cross did not know at the time was that much of what they saw during their visit was a show, and that one of the reasons the Theresienstadt camp seemed comfortable was that many of the residents had been deported to Auschwitz in order to reduce crowding during their visit.