Matthews

[Guest]

One knows that, and appreciates why, Richard is no fan of the RAH's acoustic properties, but I reckon his CONSTRUCTION would make a very fine Prom indeed. With the right, ahem, marketing, it could attract a large in-hall audience, too.

It's kind of you to say so but please not in the RAH. The Round House would be the place in London I think. I agree with FG about Proms programming... but I should also say that the premiere of CONSTRUCTION wouldn't have happened at all without the support of Radio 3 and I guess Roger must have had to approve that support at some point.

Now I'm no fan of David Matthews' work either. I appreciate that music doesn't need to "break new ground", though if I'm honest I do prefer when it does, and I also appreciate that Matthews doesn't write the music he does in order to court "accessibility", but what I don't like is music that appears to be in a state of denial about the second half of the twentieth century, like a kind of musical U**P one might say, I'm sure that will be thought unfair but that's how I hear it.

[Bryn]

It's kind of you to say so but please not in the RAH. The Round House would be the place in London I think. I agree with FG about Proms programming... but I should also say that the premiere of CONSTRUCTION wouldn't have happened at all without the support of Radio 3 and I guess Roger must have had to approve that support at some point.

Now I'm no fan of David Matthews' work either. I appreciate that music doesn't need to "break new ground", though if I'm honest I do prefer when it does, and I also appreciate that Matthews doesn't write the music he does in order to court "accessibility", but what I don't like is music that appears to be in a state of denial about the second half of the twentieth century, like a kind of musical U**P one might say, I'm sure that will be thought unfair but that's how I hear it.

The Roundhouse would of course be a much better venue for CONSTRUCTION, and not just for its design and acoustic properties. It has certain historical associations with major 'new music' performances, too.

As to David Matthews's muse, you are by no means alone in your reaction to it.

[Beef Oven!]

I cannot envisage RAH doing any music any real favours, actually.


Well, it's how you hear it, there's nothing to be said about that, really; you have to hear it the way you do, just as do others who hear it differently. It's good that you appreciate that David Matthews doesn't write as he does to court accessibility, popularity or anything else, but I cannot see how music written as, for example, he writes it can in and of itself be in a state of denial about the second half of the last century. What IS the second half of that century, anyway? It's Xenakis and Rubbra, Ferneyhough and McCabe, Sorabji and Arnold, Hespos and Stevenson and so on and so on; in other words, a far richer diversity of musics than was the case even a century ago and I'd have thought that this is something to be celebrated.

Take Ferneyhough and Matthews, for example, born in the same country within less than two months of one another yet their musics could hardly be more different. As far as I know, their paths crossed only once, when each was in his late 'teens at what would then have been a rare Prom (I think) performance of Rachmaninov's first symphony, which evidently impressed them both. Finnissy and Colin Matthews were likewise born in the same country barely more than a month apart, yet look again at how different their musics are.

Howells has been mentioned upthread (or perhaps in another thread); I well recall the late Derek Bell telling me that, when he studied with him, Howells was always going on to him about Boulez, Stockhausen and other Darmstadt oriented composers, which I have to say surprised me rather and Bell found this heavy going.

"In denial" suggests in practice either an ignorance or a wilful rejection, but do people who don't care for David Matthews' music really do so because they believe him to be ignorant of or wilfully to reject the work of, say, Stockhausen, Nono, Boulez or whoever? Were that to be the case and were it to be correct (which it most certainly isn't), one could only conclude that Matthews (and others) write as they do either as though such composers didn't exist or as some kind of reaction againt them and their work, which would be an unacceptable way for a composer to work. Matthews writes as he does because that's the way he feels that he wants to write; to do otherwise would be an act of creative dishonesty, much as it would be were you to compose tonal symphonies against your will or better judgement, if I may say so. Being aware (i.e. not in denial) of other musics isn't the same as identifying with them.

I'll say nothing about Matthews' 8th symphony yet because I want to listen to it again at least once before doing so; I will, however, say that the very notion of a "musical U**P" is indeed as unfair in the present context as it would be deeply unpleasant in any context; Beecham's description of HvK as "a kind of musical Malcolm Sargent" (which it brought momentarily to mind) at least had the advantage of being mildly amusing...

You are obsessed with UKIP. Why can't you resist mentioning them? At least RB's mention was amusing and had context. Your mention was gratuitous. You might not like UKIP, but many people do. And please keep the politics out of the forum, it's against the house rules.

[ahinton]

You are obsessed with UKIP.

No.

Why can't you resist mentioning them?

As it patently obvious, I did so on this occasion in direct response to

RB's mention

which was indeed

amusing and had context

whereas mine was an aside about the notion of a "musical U**P", which strikes me as at best bizarre, which hardly makes that reference

gratuitous

I don't think that you'll find RB himself among those "many people" who you claim to like U**P.

And please keep the politics out of the forum, it's against the house rules.

Is RB's reference to "a kind of musical U**P"a political one that you would see as being "against the house rules"? If not, how come you assume my response to it to be one? In any event, it was but a very small part of a considered response to RB#'s post about which you appear so far to have nothing to say, preferring as you have to single out the "musical U**P" bit. Ah, well...

[Beef Oven!]

No.


As it patently obvious, I did so on this occasion in direct response to

which was indeed

whereas mine was an aside about the notion of a "musical U**P", which strikes me as at best bizarre, which hardly makes that reference

I don't think that you'll find RB himself among those "many people" who you claim to like U**P.


Is RB's reference to "a kind of musical U**P"a political one that you would see as being "against the house rules"? If not, how come you assume my response to it to be one? In any event, it was but a very small part of a considered response to RB#'s post about which you appear so far to have nothing to say, preferring as you have to single out the "musical U**P" bit. Ah, well...

You really can be an imbecile when you want to be.

[Serial_Apologist]

You really can be an imbecile when you want to be.

And you can be right out of order when, as here, you act like some drunk in a pub butting into someone else's conversation because you object to something you hear said.

[Beef Oven!]

And you can be right out of order when, as here, you act like some drunk in a pub butting into someone else's conversation because you object to something you hear said.

Who threw you a bun? It's a forum, not someone else's conversation.

[ahinton]

Who threw you a bun? It's a forum, not someone else's conversation.

So, in your part of said conversation, do you actually have anything to say about David Matthews's Eighth Symphony or, for that matter, about RB's comments and my response thereto because, if so, please let's all hear them! (and I do mean that in good faith)...

[Beef Oven!]

So, in your part of said conversation, do you actually have anything to say about David Matthews's Eighth Symphony or, for that matter, about RB's coments and my respnse thereto becaquse, if so, please let's all hear them! (and I do mean that in good faith)...

Why are you quoting my reply to SA? I only replied to him because he's saying that I was butting into someone else's conversation which of course is wrong because for you to have a conversation with RB, he'd at least need to reply to you once in a while. In fact it was you and I who were having a conversation and SA butted in throwing his weight around and blurted stuff like some drunkard in a bar. Quite out of order! (going by SA's rules, that is).

If I had a response to RB's post, I would have replied already.

[ahinton]

Why are you quoting my reply to SA? I only replied to him because he's saying that I was butting into someone else's conversation which of course is wrong because for you to have a conversation with RB, he'd at least need to reply to you once in a while. In fact it was you and I who were having a conversation and SA butted in throwing his weight around and blurted stuff like some drunkard in a bar. Quite out of order! (going by SA's rules, that is).

If I had a response to RB's post, I would have replied already.

I just asked if you had something to say about what is, after all, the thread topic; not an unreasonable question, methinks. Never mind any other conversations; why not just say something about David Matthews' Eighth Symphony, if you have something to contribute about that? (so much for good faith, so far, anyway)...

Anyway, I've now listened to it three times and it certainly impressed me.

[Barbirollians]

I think the term " musical UKIP " is offensive as it no doubt was meant to allude to deliberately reactionary conservatism and ahinton was quite right to take issue with it . In essence as a term it seeks to diminish anyone who does not follow the latest musical fashions and that form of criticism is as misconceived today as it was when used by disciples of Wagner about Brahms .

[Beef Oven!]

I think the term " musical UKIP " is offensive as it no doubt was meant to allude to deliberately reactionary conservatism and ahinton was quite right to take issue with it . In essence as a term it seeks to diminish anyone who does not follow the latest musical fashions and that form of criticism is as misconceived today as it was when used by disciples of Wagner about Brahms .

You have completely misunderstood the relevance of RB's point (and ahinton's Uriah Heep response). There is nothing offensive in the note that music is a developmental, revolutionary life-force.

[ahinton]

Uriah Heep response

Rubbish! For one thing, I don't do that kind of stuff; for another, "Uriah Heep" to whom, for heaven's sakes? We're here to discuss a new symphony by David Matthews, no more, no less, other than where it might stand in the overall picture of new British music.

There is nothing offensive in the note that music is a developmental, revolutionary life-force.

Indeed; let us at least agree wholeheartedly on that, if nothing else! Meanwhile, however, your thoughts on David Matthews' new symphony, whatever they might be, wouldn't come amiss, assuming that you have some and that you'd like to share them with us here...

[Barbirollians]

I wish forumites would not quote that idiot's posts - I have had him on ignore for well over a year .

[Beef Oven!]

Please don't try to incite other people. If you have an issue with me, that's up to you but don't try to encourage other people to ignore my posts.

You say that you've put me on 'ignore'. Ok , but please don't try to encourage other members to do the same. They may not agree with you.

Oh, and don't call me an idiot. I don't call you a wanker, leave. It there, please.