University Challenge

[seabright]

Stokowski on 'University Challenge'

On last Monday's 'University Challenge' programme, Jeremy Paxman told the students they were going to hear a piece of classical music and had to identify the composer. A few bars of Vaughan Williams's 6th Symphony wafted through the air and were immediately identified. Paxman told the students that the music just heard "was from the first recording of Vaughan Williams's 6th Symphony conducted by Leopold Stokowski, renowned for his concert and recording premieres of many 20th century works." For their bonuses, the students had to identify three more works that had been given their first recordings by Stokowski, namely Shostakovich's 6th Symphony (which they incorrectly identified as being a Prokofiev work); Messiaen's "L'Ascension" and Sibelius's 4th, both of which they got right. If you'd like to hear the extracts, they start at about 17:20 into the programme ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06yjltj/university-challenge-201516-episode-25

Coincidentally, Guild Historical have just released a CD on which Stokowski conducted three more "firsts": the 1945 World Premiere in New York of Nathaniel Shilkret's Trombone Concerto with Tommy Dorsey; the Italian Premiere of Morton Gould's "Latin-American Symphonette" with the RAI Turin Orchestra in 1955; and Paul Creston's Saxophone Concerto from the Hollywood Bowl in 1945 with James Abato as soloist in its West Coast Premiere ...

http://www.guildmusic.com/shop/wbc.php?sid=55493fca7e3&tpl=produktdetail.html&pid=17125&rid=261&recno=6

I suspect few other conductors could match the New York Times' estimated tally of 2,000 "first performances" given by Stokowski over his 60-year conducting career. Among them were the US Premiere of Elgar's 2nd Symphony in 1911 in Cincinnati and the Vaughan William's 9th in New York in 1958. Luckily the RVW9 was broadcast and issued on Cala and easily has the most exciting 'Scherzo' of them all! ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3DApLXA0ww

[Nick Armstrong]

Possibly the most memorable moment ever on UC - the callow youth from Cambridge responding instantly to the question

What is 86 centimetres expressed as a percentage of 4 metres?



Not only his answer - I enjoyed Paxo's deeply impressed, almost erotically-charged "Well done!", and the incredulous appreciative laughter of his team-mates.


PS I flunked the opera question entirely, though got the Debussy ones right.

Like the rest of the country, I mentally went to put the kettle on when the questions about 'acronyms in spectroscopy' started.

[teamsaint]

Possibly the most memorable moment ever on UC - the callow youth from Cambridge responding instantly to the question

What is 86 centimetres expressed as a percentage of 4 metres?



Not only his answer - I enjoyed Paxo's deeply impressed, almost erotically-charged "Well done!", and the incredulous appreciative laughter of his team-mates.


PS I flunked the opera question entirely, though got the Debussy ones right.

Like the rest of the country, I mentally went to put the kettle on when the questions about 'acronyms in spectroscopy' started.

What was the percentage?
Was it a starter or a bonus?

And what is wrong with spectrologoscopthything? Sounds awfully clever !!

[Nick Armstrong]

What was the percentage?

You mean you haven't worked it out yet... ?

[teamsaint]

You mean you haven't worked it out yet... ?

Obviously I have, my dad was a Master grocer, ( well thats what it says on my birth certificate!) and we had Pounds shillings and pence. Mental arithmatic is second nature, even when I get it wrong.

Just wanted to check i wasn't having a decimal moment.

[Serial_Apologist]

PS I flunked the opera question entirely, though got the Debussy ones right.

Like the rest of the country, I mentally went to put the kettle on when the questions about 'acronyms in spectroscopy' started.

I didn't get the opera questions either. I thought they were extraordinarily obscure, and would probably have flummoxed most of the contributers to this forum.

I decided to watch the last two episodes of this programme to see what it is that interests people here. I have to say that the feeling that I have, namely that knowing answers to many of the "associate this with that" type questions that make up quite a large proportion strikes me as totally irrelevant to the world and solving its problems, let alone judging the credibility of panellists or the team deserving winning, and a bit of a waste of half an hour, frankly.

[Nick Armstrong]

a bit of a waste of half an hour, frankly.

There are wild discrepancies in the questions which erode my interest. Tonight, one historical question about various events concluded with the hint 'it's the last year with four ascending consecutive digits' - I had no idea about the events, but what could it be other than 1234?

But that was followed by a convoluted thing about pairing countries and town with the same internet suffix and postcode (Nepal & Newport (NP)) which struck me as silly in a different way.

And then the impossibly abstruse science / maths ones which if you don't know (because you are not a brain in a tank), you might as well not listen to.

In short, I know what you mean S_A but it's fun watching the little beggars squirm while Paxo gurns. And then there's the odd moment of brilliance (see above).

[Dave2002]

And then the impossibly abstruse science / maths ones which if you don't know (because you are not a brain in a tank), you might as well not listen to.

But the idea that dividing 86 by 4 was worthy of a congratulatory comment by Paxo ...... !!!!

[Serial_Apologist]

There are wild discrepancies in the questions which erode my interest. Tonight, one historical question about various events concluded with the hint 'it's the last year with four ascending consecutive digits' - I had no idea about the events, but what could it be other than 1234?

But that was followed by a convoluted thing about pairing countries and town with the same internet suffix and postcode (Nepal & Newport (NP)) which struck me as silly in a different way.

And then the impossibly abstruse science / maths ones which if you don't know (because you are not a brain in a tank), you might as well not listen to.

In short, I know what you mean S_A but it's fun watching the little beggars squirm while Paxo gurns. And then there's the odd moment of brilliance (see above).

I just remember enjoying the programme back in the days when Bamber Gasket was compere; most of the questions were germane to the real world and you were motivated to pre-empt the contestants because some you knew the answers to. Now it just seems to be an occasion for those whose families can afford to send them to Oxbridge to be graced by the ever-supercilious Paxman - all in all representing a good programmatic metaphor for complacent old Britain today.

[Beef Oven!]

I got every single question right this evening. That's never happened before.

[mangerton]

But the idea that dividing 86 by 4 was worthy of a congratulatory comment by Paxo ...... !!!!

Quite. That was one of the few questions I got right this evening, and I got it just before the contestant. But then, I had mental arith every day in primary school, and a secondary maths teacher who said it was ridiculous that the last table we had to learn was the twelve times, so we did a few more.

[Serial_Apologist]

I got every single question right this evening. That's never happened before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLNrLI3OBwg

[Beef Oven!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLNrLI3OBwg

Ok, I fibbed.

[Nick Armstrong]

But the idea that dividing 86 by 4 was worthy of a congratulatory comment by Paxo ...... !!!!

i thought it was pretty impressive too

That sort of maths is like doing tricks with bits of rope or cards, isn't it - if you know the trick, it's dead easy; if you don't it looks (and is) utterly mystifying.

Personally I could never remember how to do number tricks for longer than the few days required for exams I'm happy to be impressed and clutter my brain with other stuff!

[Pabmusic]

i thought it was pretty impressive too

That sort of maths is like doing tricks with bits of rope or cards, isn't it - if you know the trick, it's dead easy; if you don't it looks (and is) utterly mystifying.

Personally I could never remember how to do number tricks for longer than the few days required for exams I'm happy to be impressed and clutter my brain with other stuff!

Where maths is concerned it's mainly about patterns, not 'rules' and if you can see the pattern, it's easy enough. I can do this often enough, but he was very quick...