Harrison Birtwistle 80

[umslopogaas]

I think what keeps me trying to get to grips with Birtwistle's music is the thought that this is a very serious composer. He has spent a long life writing what he must be aware is very difficult music for most listeners, and I doubt he has made a lot of money out of it. He doesnt make concessions and if people complain that they dont like it, he doesnt say all right, I'll start sugaring it up, he says well, you'll just have to try harder. I think there is more than a small streak of Schoenbergian stubbornness in him:

Exasperated violinist "Mr Schoenberg, your violin concerto is so difficult I'd need six fingers on each hand to play it."

AS "So. I can wait."

[MrGongGong]

I see this every now and again, especially on this forum, and I really don't understand it. What is meant by "difficulty" here? If it's "distance from traditional norms and expectations of someone who generally listens to classical music) I would say it's pretty low on the scale of difficulty.

It's "note based" music all right.
But not really "difficult" to grasp at all sonically
It might be "difficult" to play but that's another matter entirely

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I found myself eventually, initially hearing a very few moments in the texture of the sound which were more familiar and recognisable as music rather than cacophony which then gave me some kind of anchor in it. From there, I began to be able to notice musical shapes - though not really what I'd call melody; melody to me always having the property of being memorable.

From there, though, I began to hear some loveliness in the sound which until then had a sort of unpleasant blandness. I am really no more than at the entrance to something which I am not sure will welcome me but the clarinet quintet was a turning point for me. It's so undemonstrative - as I remember it - that it's perverse. "Why is it speaking if this is all it has to say?", I felt. But by degrees, the insistent softness of the clarinet's music began to draw my attention to the fundamental sound of the instrument, for which result the music seemed merely a means. And that has developed into a feeling that, sometimes at least, in Birtwistle his music fundamentally reverts the attention to the instrument rather than the tunes it plays.

You don't need "us"! - just keep listening; each hearing is unfolding a new relationship between you and this Music. Just keep listening - and, before you know what's happening, you'll be remembering the melodies (even finding yourself whistling them). You're getting it all on your own, and in your own terms, which is far more important than how I or anybody else thinks of it. Just keep listening.

(I have no idea what your last point here means, by the way - "the Music seems merely a means to draw your attention to the sound of the instrument"?)

There is something 'first principles' in some of his music, a sense that it is prehistoric though that contradicts what ferneyhough and Richard B have to say about it.

You're definitely getting it! Michael Hall (who wrote the first book in English devoted to the composer - still the best introduction to his work up to the mid-'80s: you can spend a fiver much less wisely: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Harrison-Bir...%2C+birtwistle) frequently refers to the "source work" aspect of Birtwistle's work; as if the composer is imagining the vantage point of someone who had invented the genre of Opera, for example; thus avoiding the conventions, traditions and clichés that have accumulated over the centuries. Paradoxically, this doesn't necessarily contradict the "New"-ness of the Music. By pre-dating the languages of the mainstream "classical music" repertoires, the differences become more pronounced. (Much the same can be said of Xennakis - even [?especially?] in his electronic/computer work.)

[Quarky]

Thank you very much, Ob. Birtwistle does make an interesting subject for discussion, doesn't he. Can I ask what you've forked out for?

Punch & Judy (second -hand), but enjoying greatly.
Triumph of Time/ Earth Dances/ Panic BBCSO/ Boulez - that's in the Car Radio.
waiting for Carmen Arcadiae / Silbury air etc LSinf.

The reason I don't have a bigger HB Collection is that there are so many other, more "challenging", composers to get hold of. By the way I think I know what you mean about the sound of an instrument - I often feel that way about Bach - as though I am hearing a violin or piano for the first time.

[Richard Barrett]

this is a very serious composer. He has spent a long life writing what he must be aware is very difficult music for most listeners, and I doubt he has made a lot of money out of it. He doesnt make concessions and if people complain that they dont like it, he doesnt say all right, I'll start sugaring it up, he says well, you'll just have to try harder.

You could say that about dozens if not hundreds of contemporary composers though.

I've come to think that the reason Birtwistle is so often cited here as a "difficult" composer, despite what I and MrGG have had to say, is that his is maybe the most "difficult" music which currently enjoys the approval and support of the UK music establishment, to the point where his work is fairly regularly featured at their showcase events like the Proms and the London opera houses, so that it's more visible and less marginalised and ignorable than many musics which are considerably further away from the "classical" tradition than his. (This isn't in any way to be construed as a criticism of Birtwistle's music of course.)

[jayne lee wilson]

NONCOMMERCIAL BREAK

IT's a shame, Blotto, that when I go to the trouble of addressing your ideas personally, you seem determined to ignore the female presence in this discussion. Would it be easier for you if I called myself Jack or John?

If this comment causes others to sigh, well tough, or as Marilyn Monroe liked to say, what the hell.

NONCOMMERCIAL BREAK ENDS. BIRTWISTLE 80 THREAD CONTINUES

[ahinton]

NONCOMMERCIAL BREAK

IT's a shame, Blotto, that when I go to the trouble of addressing your ideas personally, you seem determined to ignore the female presence in this discussion. Would it be easier for you if I called myself Jack or John?

If this comment causes others to sigh, well tough, or as Marilyn Monroe liked to say, what the hell.

NONCOMMERCIAL BREAK ENDS. BIRTWISTLE 80 THREAD CONTINUES

If he'd been Harriet Birtwistle...

No - ignore is the best policy, methinks!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

By the way I think I know what you mean about the sound of an instrument - I often feel that way about Bach - as though I am hearing a violin or piano for the first time.

Oh! I get that Stravinsky said of Bach's instrumental writing - "You can taste the reeds of the Oboes and smell the rosin from the strings listening to this Music."

(Not so sure about "the Piano", though.)

[ahinton]

Oh! I get that Stravinsky said of Bach's instrumental writing - "You can taste the reeds of the Oboes and smell the rosin from the strings listening to this Music."

(Not so sure about "the Piano", though.)

Strange it is (at least to me) that occasionally when Stravinsky opened his mouth he would let out of it such sensitive and unarguable thoughts; by no means everyone has appreciated the greatness and subtleties of Bach's instrumentation as he did...

[Roehre]

Strange it is (at least to me) that occasionally when Stravinsky opened his mouth he would let out of it such sensitive and unarguable thoughts; by no means everyone has appreciated the greatness and subtleties of Bach's instrumentation as he did...

...or emulated this like Stravinsky himself in his Cantata, e.g.

[Richard Barrett]

...or emulated this like Stravinsky himself in his Cantata, e.g.

... although of course Stravinsky knew little and cared less about what Bach's instrumentation actually was!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... although of course Stravinsky knew little and [B]cared less[/I] about what Bach's instrumentation actually was!

Not entirely - he was critical of the early Deutsche Grammophon Archiv recordings (the Karl Richter generation) because they played the Music on modern instruments and with post-Romantic "expression".

[Blotto]

It's quite the day today!

A downloadable recording of the Clarinet Quintet for 70p on this surprising 'little' site. http://www.clarinetclassics.com/shop/hymnos/ They also have a recording of the intriguing Four Interludes for a Tragedy for basset clarinet and tape http://www.clarinetclassics.com/shop...f-alan-hacker/ Ten minutes ago, the postman brought Wild Tracks - A Conversation Diary by Fiona Maddocks, her recent book about B.

You don't need "us"! - just keep listening; each hearing is unfolding a new relationship between you and this Music. Just keep listening - and, before you know what's happening, you'll be remembering the melodies (even finding yourself whistling them). You're getting it all on your own, and in your own terms, which is far more important than how I or anybody else thinks of it. Just keep listening.

(I have no idea what your last point here means, by the way - "the Music seems merely a means to draw your attention to the sound of the instrument"?)

You're definitely getting it! Michael Hall (who wrote the first book in English devoted to the composer - still the best introduction to his work up to the mid-'80s: you can spend a fiver much less wisely: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Harrison-Bir...%2C+birtwistle) frequently refers to the "source work" aspect of Birtwistle's work; as if the composer is imagining the vantage point of someone who had invented the genre of Opera, for example; thus avoiding the conventions, traditions and clichés that have accumulated over the centuries. Paradoxically, this doesn't necessarily contradict the "New"-ness of the Music. By pre-dating the languages of the mainstream "classical music" repertoires, the differences become more pronounced. (Much the same can be said of Xennakis - even [?especially?] in his electronic/computer work.)

Taking the highlighted point first, f, about music and the sound of instrument; what I mean is something like this. It never fails to surprise me when I hear someone whose voice I know cough or clear their throat in their sleep. Because even in their unconscious cough, that individual voice is as recognisable as if they were awake and speaking. So, the 'instrument' has an individually identifiable voice independent of more deliberately 'formal' vocal sound.

What I meant above was something similar about the clarinet, for instance, in the quintet; that the slow, clear fall of the clarinet music in the early part of the quintet, is very simple and unformed music which exposes the clarinet's fundamental voice; I suppose I mean 'idiomatic' (to my ears), do I?

The recording I'd been listening to was copied from a live performance on Youtube with some lovely playing but a slightly fizzy sound. Listening to my new download this morning, much more is revealed and particularly how the strings seem to be given music which also sounds clarinet-like. In the early stages, the higher strings seem to 'mimic', though softly, the more grating sound of the clarinet in the more forced upper register; later on, the cello seems to duet briefly with the clarinet with music that sounds like two wind instruments, the cello perhaps a clarinet with a deeper register. Towards the end, the clarinet then begins to take on the high sound of the strings' mimicry from earlier on.

I suppose it may be that all good music is 'about' the instruments. In this piece, that seems unusually clear and, in that regard, it seems quite 'fundamental' music, quite 'prehistoric'. It seems to be a piece which makes music whose focus is expressly to expose the instrument's voice and to play with it. I can't do better than that, I'm afraid. Does this make a discernible point?

With regard to your point about needing others, I don't like to contradict you but I've found the quiet encouragement invaluable. A bit of gentle suggestion and good will can be invaluable in helping set aside a solitary, perhaps resistant struggle with the obscure. I go back more relaxed for another go and my ears ring a little less with anxiety.

[Richard Barrett]

Not entirely - he was critical of the early Deutsche Grammophon Archiv recordings (the Karl Richter generation) because they played the Music on modern instruments and with post-Romantic "expression".

That's interesting, where did he say that?

Still, I don't think his idea of "expression" (or lack thereof) would have much in common with the way baroque music is conceived nowadays (ie. with the weight of scholarship that's now been built up).

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That's interesting, where did he say that?

Oh, crumbs. It's in one of the later Conversations books (so Stravinsky filtered through Craft) - I think the same one where he mentions Casals wanting to play Bach as of it were Brahms.

Still, I don't think his idea of "expression" (or lack thereof) would have much in common with the way baroque music is conceived nowadays (ie. with the weight of scholarship that's now been built up).

- No, possibly more in the style of the Busch/Serkin recordings of the Brandenburgs if his recordings of Dumbarton Oaks are anything to go by?