New season

[MrGongGong]

If people aren't interested in field recordings from decades ago, they don't have to listen.

People are. There are loads of folks all over the place listening to these things.
BUT not on R3

I think there is sometimes an assumption that some (NOT ALL) folks have about musics from other cultures which is similar to those who are "opposed" to electric instruments. The assumption is that somehow any change to musical practice is somehow corrupting and therefore "bad". What is interesting is that there are many forms of non-western music that are assumed to be ancient and somehow "pure" which turn out to be much more recent than we would imagine. Gamelan Gong Kebyar is a good example, the most widely known style of Balinese gamelan was developed in the early 1900's.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

People are. There are loads of folks all over the place listening to these things.
BUT not on R3

I think there is sometimes an assumption that some (NOT ALL) folks have about musics from other cultures which is similar to those who are "opposed" to electric instruments. The assumption is that somehow any change to musical practice is somehow corrupting and therefore "bad". What is interesting is that there are many forms of non-western music that are assumed to be ancient and somehow "pure" which turn out to be much more recent than we would imagine. Gamelan Gong Kebyar is a good example, the most widely known style of Balinese gamelan was developed in the early 1900's.

Vuvuzelas?

[Lat-Literal]

I think when MrGG speaks of immersion, I'm quite sure he really means it regarding placing undertaking musical practices in a context other than that which has given rise to "western" forms of musical practice - forms which include the make-up of the music itself. Lat-Literal hits on something when mentioning commerce and technology as drivers in the determination of what comes to be viewed among the self-elected commentariat as forward-looking, since commerce and technology have brought about change to the cultural infrastructures that gave birth to these once-far off practices in distance and time, and by altering their circumstances have changed the meaning they once held within those communities, which themselves have been changed to such an extent by the effects of Westernised globalisation as to be completely divorced from whatever origins remain and are seen as worth preserving or not.

I think I'll leave it there for now, as this is such a huge and complex subject.

I am losing the thread and do not quite understand who is agreeing and disagreeing but yours sounds right to me. As soon as any culture in a remote village is being enjoyed by people currently residing in Surbiton, it becomes different from what went before it even if technically it is unchanged. But the choice is not one of intervention or non-intervention. Apple and Nokia will be there persuading the entire community that One Direction is a more sophisticated product whether anyone from SOAS is parachuted into the place or not. Consequently the one rational course of action is to parachute those people in. It is only then that you have choices. You can stick the stuff in a vault until 2050 when it is chucked out without thought in an administrative "tidying up" exercise, just place it on the internet and who knows how brief the internet in its current form will be or give it life in concerts and broadcasts, albeit opening it up to being used for hybrids. I choose the latter. We have seen how any ongoing meaning of classical composers has largely been dependent on who was and wasn't placed in a filing cabinet. With grass roots music, it is not about individuals but the music itself and indeed all that it represents or at one time represented.

[Serial_Apologist]

I am losing the thread and do not quite understand who is agreeing and disagreeing but yours sounds right to me. As soon as any culture in a remote village is being enjoyed by people currently residing in Surbiton, it becomes different from what went before it even if technically it is unchanged. But the choice is not one of intervention or non-intervention. Apple and Nokia will be there persuading the entire community that One Direction is a more sophisticated product whether anyone from SOAS is parachuted into the place or not. Consequently the one rational course of action is to parachute those people in. It is only then that you have choices. You can stick the stuff in a vault until 2050 when it is chucked out without thought in an administrative "tidying up" exercise, just place it on the internet and who knows how brief the internet in its current form will be or give it life in concerts and broadcasts, albeit opening it up to being used for hybrids. I choose the latter. We have seen how any ongoing meaning of classical composers has largely been dependent on who was and wasn't placed in a filing cabinet. With grass roots music, it is not about individuals but the music itself and indeed all that it represents or at one time represented.

I think the difference consists in the way in which Western culture places more emphasis on the individual, as you say, because the fact that we live in an individualistic culture marries up rather neatly with the music that was once created to appeal to the courts and then the bourgeoisie was written down, copyrighted as someone's property, and thereafter replicated either via scores or recordings. It's evolvement of its own "vocabulary" from for convenience let's say the dawning of capitalism in late 16th century Venice by way of the internationalist dialects of Baroque and then Classical and 19th century European nationalisms to 20th century deconstructions mirrors social, economic and political developments even when claimed free of external interference, whereas musical traditions outwith the geographical West ostensibly remained tied to a much greater degree to the pre-Capitalist/empire-built eras in which music was inseparable from daily ritual and religious or spiritual practice. The "value judgement" latterly, as you indicate, accorded generic recognition in labelling non-Western musical practices as "world music" can be viewed maybe as "the West's" bid to embrace the musical end of residual cultural manifestations under its "global reach", getting "the natives" on-side, with all the mixed meanings thereby involved depending on who controls all this and to when ends. It is one way the traditionally seen as elitist breakdown between High and Low art can refresh the tarnished image of Modernism by making money therefrom while maybe even gaining a bit of enlightenment that is sadly lacking in much of the materialistic post-Christian West.

[Lat-Literal]

I think the difference consists in the way in which Western culture places more emphasis on the individual, as you say, because the fact that we live in an individualistic culture marries up rather neatly with the music that was once created to appeal to the courts and then the bourgeoisie was written down, copyrighted as someone's property, and thereafter replicated either via scores or recordings. It's evolvement of its own "vocabulary" from for convenience let's say the dawning of capitalism in late 16th century Venice by way of the internationalist dialects of Baroque and then Classical and 19th century European nationalisms to 20th century deconstructions mirrors social, economic and political developments even when claimed free of external interference, whereas musical traditions outwith the geographical West ostensibly remained tied to a much greater degree to the pre-Capitalist/empire-built eras in which music was inseparable from daily ritual and religious or spiritual practice. The "value judgement" latterly, as you indicate, accorded generic recognition in labelling non-Western musical practices as "world music" can be viewed maybe as "the West's" bid to embrace the musical end of residual cultural manifestations under its "global reach", getting "the natives" on-side, with all the mixed meanings thereby involved depending on who controls all this and to when ends. It is one way the traditionally seen as elitist breakdown between High and Low art can refresh the tarnished image of Modernism by making money therefrom while maybe even gaining a bit of enlightenment that is sadly lacking in much of the materialistic post-Christian West.

Thanks for your reply. The griot equals troubadour with perhaps more of a structured and integrated social role? This is all complex as you say. We are discussing these points on a "Radio 3 - New Season" thread. I suppose at root it is once again about what is appropriate for the schedule. It isn't good music or proper music but rather serious music. Then it is how to define serious in that context. A key part of it is historical significance. Bach wasn't simply brilliant. He is extremely significant historically for being highly innovative.

That is, though, where we get into difficulties. When did the third programme, rightly in my opinion, take on early jazz and the blues? If it was less than fifty or sixty years after it was produced, then there is that less than comfortable thought that we should all be thinking about where rock n roll and even the Beatles and the Stones would in 2015 be best placed. Progressive rock was on Radio 3 in the 1970s and at that time many would have seen it as being a high point in the development of popular music. Most serious critics - not all - would now vehemently disagree. I don't think there can be any doubt that roots music is serious music. One can say that those who record it in the modern era - whether early compositions or their own work - are simply favoured individuals engaged in entertaining the world's population but so too is Jordi Savall who deserves all the accolades he gets.

There is something here too about "the people's music" and it is difficult to place for some of it emanates from communities - often the poor - while most of it was probably offered from on high. Handel was a people man, was he not? The main conundrum in 2015 is that the highest - the most powerful in financial terms as the international economy is structured - are among the lowest in terms of priority given to both tradition and innovation in music. While I have no problems with early hip-hop, the manner in which capitalism if nothing else has developed is such we are into year 36 of it and it is in a rut. Had the time scales been different, most of us would in 1977 have been listening to popular music like that made in 1941 which we weren't so on every level something is wrong. We may well all be individuals now but has individuality ever been so lorded over, erm, "culturally"?

[teamsaint]

While I have no problems with early hip-hop, the manner in which capitalism if nothing else has developed is such that we are into year 36 of it. Had the time scales been different would have meant that in 1977 we would have all been listening to popular music made in 1941 which we weren't so on every level something is wrong.

this is something I have been trying to put over in various discussions over the years, including discussions about non classical proms.

the process of energy being sapped from a particular style or genre, by endless commercial regurgitation, retro as an end in itself, or by absorption into a too wide flat shallow pool of content, ( etc etc) is very concerning.

[Lat-Literal]

this is something I have been trying to put over in various discussions over the years, including discussions about non classical proms.

the process of energy being sapped from a particular style or genre, by endless commercial regurgitation, retro as an end in itself, or by absorption into a too wide flat shallow pool of content, ( etc etc) is very concerning.

Absolutely!

[Serial_Apologist]

this is something I have been trying to put over in various discussions over the years, including discussions about non classical proms.

the process of energy being sapped from a particular style or genre, by endless commercial regurgitation, retro as an end in itself, or by absorption into a too wide flat shallow pool of content, ( etc etc) is very concerning.

I was just thinking the other day how much of the commercial music we hear for the first time we seem to have heard before. Wasn't that a phrase from..., etc? There's an ad constantly on telly for some charity, and because much of the doomy piano backdrop contains clear phrases from "I Vow to Thee My Country" and the theme tune from "Exodus" I still haven't managed to remember what charity it is! The more music - of any sort, come to that - is stuck in some kind of rut, the more the fact of plagiarism, intended or not, has to be overlooked, otherwise the courts would be bursting with breach of copyright cases! This has probably always happened - the music of Poulenc already being a subtle satire on the fact in the 1920s; in the past this possibly mattered less because the language of music was expanding, and that expansion in turn coalesced around the musical phrases said by brainwave rersearchers to guarantee melodies earworm memorability in such a way as to appear to alter the perception beyond questionable associations with an innocent predecessor.

[french frank]

The more music - of any sort, come to that - is stuck in some kind of rut, the more the fact of plagiarism, intended or not, has to be overlooked, otherwise the courts would be bursting with breach of copyright cases!

But there are two completely separate points.

1) Composers never innovating in what they are composing, never contributing something of their own - always using recognisable styles (and sometimes actually pinching melody &c from earlier works - which may themselves have been innovative in their time = plagiarism if deliberate and taken too far).

2) Preserving - by performing - musical works from the past, which is sometimes denigrated as being 'the same old stuff' as if newness was the only thing that mattered. And in the previous context of 'field recordings' these are preserving some wonderful music which might otherwise die out if not written down or recorded. Newness can feed commercialism.

[Serial_Apologist]

But there are two completely separate points.

1) Composers never innovating in what they are composing, never contributing something of their own - always using recognisable styles (and sometimes actually pinching melody &c from earlier works - which may themselves have been innovative in their time = plagiarism if deliberate and taken too far).

2) Preserving - by performing - musical works from the past, which is sometimes denigrated as being 'the same old stuff' as if newness was the only thing that mattered. And in the previous context of 'field recordings' these are preserving some wonderful music which might otherwise die out if not written down or recorded. Newness can feed commercialism.

Nobody's questioning performances of pre-existing works, surely? And the "same old stuff" you mention applies to your point 1). "Newness" needs more precise definition here. It is true that innovation can feed commercialism, but only peripherally, i.e. as regards outer details rather than essence, in the main. I'm all for that, mind, but where today are we likely to encounter anything akin to the way the Beatles stepped up to the plate in the years 1966-67 and met avant-garde music on its own terms in such a way at to feed genuine creativity back into what one might call the outer fringes of commercial music as represented by Psychedelia and beginnings of Progrock, drawing the attention of Berio and Stockhausen, among others? I don't think in Techno! This is what I meant by bringing in context in my earlier posts.

[pureimagination]

Just thought I'd take the thread back to Radio 3's new season. There has been some interesting thoughts though the thread did get a little hard to read (in my mind). Sorry S_A, I've read and re-read your posts and though I don't disagree with what you're saying I found it hard to read (blame my 70's comprehensive education).
A lot of what some posters seem to be saying is that they'd like a bit more of one thing and a bit less of something else. Too simplistic I know, but how do those at Radio 3 get the balance right without upsetting some and pleasing others. Is there somewhere where I could go to look up or does anyone have the listening figures for individual programmes? But then a programme's value shouldn't be based/judged on audience numbers should it?
Some points I want to comment on. What's wrong with the Sound Of Cinema being on a Saturday afternoon. Many people like film scores, soundtracks and some I may suggest think that music written for film has some connection to classical music - orchestrated, memorable melodies and tunes - a similar emotional response and if I dare say it easier to listen to/understand (for some) than some modern classical compositions e.g. Boulez, Birtwhistle (and I'm not saying this as a good vs bad thing - just personal taste/preferences). My criticism of Sound Of Cinema is that is doesn't explore the genre enough and focuses too much on a current release ignoring its musical merits or lack of).
Next point. What do people have against the music of Tavener, Pärt, Whitacre, etc. It's not overplayed on Radio 3 in my opinion and is as relevant to classical music as any other contemporary classical music composers. Again a matter of personal taste.
Someone pointed out the connections between folk music (in the international sense) and classical music so again I think it's inclusion on Radio 3 is important (this applies to other genres including World music [for the benefit of time and simplicity I'll leave others to define genres such as classical, world music, folk in their own terms].
Finally another post touched on education. I for one (as someone who cannot read music) would welcome from the BBC more programmes that didn't just play music and include a bit of conversation/information about them but programmes that had some more overt educational intent - 'how to read music', 'the history of the violin', '21st Century music - it's not all bollocks, is it?' (insert your own century of choice).

What do others feel the balance should be between Western classical music and classical music from other parts of the world. I would love to hear more variety including new and old pieces from composers/musicians/orchestras from Japan, China, South America, Africa etc. Who knows what's out there if you don't hear it?

How populist should Radio 3 go? Should the likes of Katherine Jenkins, Russell Watson, Andre Rieu be played? Would this bring new audiences in who can then be introduced to the likes of _______ (insert your own lesser known pieces/composers).

EBU might need explaining to some.

[Serial_Apologist]

Just thought I'd take the thread back to Radio 3's new season. There has been some interesting thoughts though the thread did get a little hard to read (in my mind). Sorry S_A, I've read and re-read your posts and though I don't disagree with what you're saying I found it hard to read (blame my 70's comprehensive education).

Thank you. I do always try to match my posts as appropriately as my linguistic abilities allow to the subject in question.

[french frank]

A lot of what some posters seem to be saying is that they'd like a bit more of one thing and a bit less of something else. Too simplistic I know, but how do those at Radio 3 get the balance right without upsetting some and pleasing others.

I would say the balance that should be aimed for isn’t about pleasing some and upsetting others. At all. It’s about Radio 3 having a coherent vision of what it is that Radio 3 is FOR, what is its role. Many will dislike it.

Is there somewhere where I could go to look up or does anyone have the listening figures for individual programmes?

No. The BBC doesn’t release them – except the Breakfast figures which are published quarterly on RAJAR’s website (under ‘Listening Trends’)

What's wrong with the Sound Of Cinema being on a Saturday afternoon <snip>

That comes back to the fundamentals of what an arts service, rather than a service for popular entertainment, should be about. Your criticisms seem valid. In general ‘arts’ terms, it’s not very good.

What do people have against the music of Tavener, Pärt, Whitacre, etc. It's not overplayed on Radio 3 in my opinion and is as relevant to classical music as any other contemporary classical music composers. <snip>

Can’t say what individuals might dislike about it. I don’t think there’s a great deal of criticism about the bits that get on R3 (but people don’t have to like it – that’s not the same as saying it shouldn't be heard). As far as the Whitacre Prom is concerned, an entire Prom built around one individual as composer/performer is not generally something that fits a ‘standard’ Prom mould. We’ve had Bach recitals, but Whitacre is not Bach. Still less a concert built round a performer: Rufus Wainwright performing Rufus Wainwright is not to be compared with Ibragimova performing Bach.

Someone pointed out the connections between folk music (in the international sense) and classical music so again I think it's inclusion on Radio 3 is important (this applies to other genres including World music [for the benefit of time and simplicity I'll leave others to define genres such as classical, world music, folk in their own terms].

I’ve been trying to argue (not altogether successfully, it seems) for ‘world music’ programming which ranges much wider (and deeper) than contemporary forms, performers, fusions.

Finally another post touched on education. I for one (as someone who cannot read music) would welcome from the BBC more programmes that didn't just play music and include a bit of conversation/information about them but programmes that had some more overt educational intent - 'how to read music', 'the history of the violin', '21st Century music - it's not all bollocks, is it?' (insert your own century of choice).

Agreed, in principle.

What do others feel the balance should be between Western classical music and classical music from other parts of the world. I would love to hear more variety including new and old pieces from composers/musicians/orchestras from Japan, China, South America, Africa etc.

Bit hard to say in terms of actual proportions. But western classical music is and should remain Radio 3’s ‘core proposition’ (BBC speak)

How populist should Radio 3 go?

It shouldn’t. Full stop. The idea that introducing people to Radio 3 by giving them populist pap will encourage them to investigate further is wishful thinking. The lesson is that whatever music is introduced into the Radio 3 schedule, aside from ‘core classical’, people who are then attracted to the station will want more of the same. Jazz listeners would like more jazz, world music listeners would like more world music, Late Junction listeners think it’s the only decent programme on Radio 3. Changing the station remit for the benefit of the few who buck that trend and get ‘hooked on classical’ won’t be worth it. On that model, give people populist classics and they’ll want more. And will get it by asking for it in their tweets, texts and emails, on the analogy: ‘How dare you suggest Ferry Cross the Mersey' is ‘inappropriate for Radio 3’s water music!’ ‘Right, here it is, then: Gerry and the Pacemakers …’).

EBU might need explaining to some.

European Broadcasting Union: a union of a number of radio broadcasters throughout Europe who pool their own off-air recordings and make them available to all the members, thus providing a cost-efficient service of varied professional concert performances.


My thoughts only.

[Quarky]

how do those at Radio 3 get the balance right without upsetting some and pleasing others. .

I guess it comes down to the Controller's musical tastes and how he interprets:

BBC's mission


To enrich people's lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain (I read that as all three values in each programme, not just one or more).


Our vision


To be the most creative organisation in the world.


Our values

Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest.
Audiences are at the heart of everything we do.
We take pride in delivering quality and value for money.
Creativity is the lifeblood of our organisation.
We respect each other and celebrate our diversity so that everyone can give their best.
We are one BBC: great things happen when we work together

[Lat-Literal]

I’ve been trying to argue (not altogether successfully, it seems) for ‘world music’ programming which ranges much wider (and deeper) than contemporary forms, performers, fusions.

You are prepared to argue for it. That is a plus. Thank you. Fine tuning might require a list. Here is one which is not exhaustive:

1. Field recordings and records before 1945 to the extent that they exist - there is nowhere near the volume of material that there is in jazz.
2. Classical music in that sort of period which makes some reference to ethnicity and/or "exotic" instruments - traditional and innovative.
3. Later field recordings, discs and radio - including re traditional folk/celtic musics - post-war but prior to some date - 1967/BBC radio change?
4. Contemporary classical music, ie post 1945, that in innovation incorporates WM elements - note too post-modernism from the mid-late 1960s.
5. Some limited crossover with pop music from the 1950s/1960s - often novelty but not always as in Jobim/Gilberto, Makeba/Masekela, later Kuti.
6. The West Indies etc - calypso/ska/reggae are pop music or roots music or both.........ditto early American music - that's folk and country.
7. Africa, Latin America and elsewhere - 1950s-1970s - music that was contemporary and on record but often roots based and unknown in the UK.
8. Jazz-World, some/most/all fusion ......I think I will let the jazz experts comment on that one if they want to and most may not want to do so.
9. 1980s - CG on the radio, Island releases its Africa series, Womad starts, Paul Simon's Graceland, the World Music label, Peel/Kershaw/Walters.

So what has happened since then? As with all music - including classical, jazz, folk and country music - everything in world music has been commercially packaged to be an aural equivalent of Q magazine. With the internet, there is more access to the old and the new than there has ever been. Radio people are uncertain about how they should "cross-platform going forward" or whatever term industry people use. The same is true of those who produce CDs etc. As you know, a part of the BBC radio "thing" is to encourage people to station hop. No "I always listen to Radio 2" style silos. What has been done with the Proms is an example. There is also "Soul Music" on R4 covering the widest range of music.

As for world music, I reckon it has added three strings to its bow since the late 1980s. 1. Global Dance - the Gilles Petersons - emanates from that time. It is not all without merit from the perspective of those of us who were rather older than 16 when it started but we would distinguish between its fusions with pop music and roots music. Also, while hardly being anything other than contemporary it has not necessarily developed much. 2. Global Pop which is limited in its appeal here although it probably sells better in the rest of Europe. For example, it is not on a lot of British radio. It is not often of interest even to British youth unless it has an overt modern dance reference. 3. The new breed - I would choose 2000 as an approximate starting point for them. That is just three years after Buena Vista Social Club which was as a commercial phenomenon the equivalent to the 1980s' "Graceland" but I doubt that point is of most relevance. Rather, it is all about the internet age. These are young people who back in the day may in entering music have been the types who would have been tempted to put their own spin on one of the very fast moving and developing popular music trends. Now they have an a la carte menu of music from which to choose. They might do rock or rap or jazz or folk or country or African or Cuban or classical or whatever takes their fancy on You Tube and Spotify. Their backgrounds are wide ranging. Their outlook is international. There are huge numbers of them. In terms of musical proficiency they can be quite brilliant. And, sadly, given the contexts I have outlined most will never be culturally significant or particularly memorable although most will be capable of contributing in a nice way to people's lives for as long as they perform.

Anyone who can find it in them to describe themselves as a "World Music" fan is likely directly or indirectly to have the 1980s/1990s as their key reference point in time if not earlier. It was not only when the label emerged but the broader access began. It is when enthusiasm was promoted. To a limited extent, there are "World Music" families although that point can be overstated. Womad is a multi-generational event which some will embrace when dragged towards it and others will vehemently reject. Those who were interested in world music before the label will have been so because of background or travel or on the grounds of being unusually "curious". They are to be respected but they were not the norm. In some senses, the equivalent today is the unusual kind of person who chooses to study at SOAS with more of an academic objective and actual musicianship to perfect.

Where are we all? Certainly we are not all in the same bag, nor are we all naturally on the same radio station. First, I think it is right that global dance and whatever is wanted of global pop are in their own programme on 6 Music. Next, western classical music even with gamalan should principally be in classical music programmes. However, I see no problem with a world music programme on Radio 3 including references to classical music where it is relevant to coverage of musical instruments or styles. Thirdly, the jazz people want jazz programmes to be about jazz. Fourthly, while it is tempting to say that folk, country, reggae etc should just be on Radio 2 and to a lesser extent 6 Music, there is an element of them all which does belong in world music programmes on Radio 3. Rationally, we can't say that we will describe Mali, Pakistan and China as parts of the world but that England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, the United States and Jamaica are not so. The emphasis should be on the roots of the music and artists who have contributed in a significant or memorable way to its ongoing life and/or development. That most definitely does not exclude young artists who since 2000 have made a positive and distinctive contribution.

The fifth point is about interpretations of pop music. The nuances are considerable. While a serious world music fan is not so serious as to be averse to a bit of modern vibrancy, an overt attempt by a studio to get an artist in the German or Italian singles chart is unlikely to be welcomed. The major artists who became popular in the 1980s are wanted even if some on a rare occasion teamed up with a western pop star to be played on daytime Radio 1. There is a lot more to them all. And then there are the moments when a listener wanting to hear Vaughan Williams on Radio 3 tunes in and hears instead what sounds like a funk hit from 1975 except it is in a foreign language. Well, that could be from a brand new compilation from Soundways or another respected record label and the interpretation may not be very far from the truth. I have to say that these are wanted as well and here's why. Pop and rock music in the western world were very evidently in rapid development from the mid 1950s to a time of any individual's choosing. Few would choose an end date later than 1991 and some would call it earlier so it is less than 35 years. What is of interest are the international contrasts - often considerable - in what was the most historically significant period for popular music and of which we were unaware. That won't be done anywhere else on BBC radio because for most it will be too old and too foreign.

Certainly I can agree with the points about building on a serious SOAS approach rather more than is done currently. That would align with the specialist academic studies often undertaken by younger people, the fieldwork I mentioned in an earlier post and the serious objectives for R3. It might well focus on the study of specific instruments - the posts on traditional Asian musical instruments on the WM board a couple of years ago from one contributor were challenging and memorable - and the cultural contexts in which the music emerged. However, my other points should also not be too difficult to incorporate. Nusrat may have been on Real World records but he was a very serious and significant artist. Celtic Connections is about maintaining tradition while enjoying life. And "Recoma" by Super Biton de Segou is not only an enjoyable song but it isn't Rod the Mod nor ever was it.