Prom 5 - 15.07.13: Bamberg Symphony Orchestra

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Flosshilde
    Full Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 7988

    #76
    Originally posted by Barbirollians View Post
    It may well be that those of a particular degree of musical education may be able to hear the structure behind a piece of music that escapes the general listener that may hear only noise .
    Surely that applies to any piece of music, whether it's 33 years old or 330. I don't hear the structure of Mahler's 5th symphony, so to me it must be (according to you) 'only noise'. I can still enjoy the noise, just as I could enjoy the noise of the Lachenmann piece.

    The ENC cliche as you describe it is to my ears apt
    It's never apt - it's pure laziness, as most cliches are, masquerading as argument.

    Comment

    • Petrushka
      Full Member
      • Nov 2010
      • 12346

      #77
      Originally posted by mercia View Post
      having listened all the way through and far more attentively second-time round, I realise now that was a daft comment, plenty of brass and woodwind was audible - there was only really one sound I couldn't identity, a sort of brush-sweeping sound, not sure what was making that

      shame it won't be on the telly, if ever there was a time when it would help me appreciate a piece by seeing as well as hearing, this would be it
      Mercia, I was there on Monday night and TV cameras definitely recorded the Lachenmann piece so we may yet get to see it on TV at some stage in the future.
      "The sound is the handwriting of the conductor" - Bernard Haitink

      Comment

      • Richard Tarleton

        #78
        Sorry to interrupt the flow with such irrelevant trivia but I was trying to think who Jonathan Nott reminded me of....the jaw, the dimples, the cheekbones, the smile....



        Comment

        • Bryn
          Banned
          • Mar 2007
          • 24688

          #79
          Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View Post
          Sorry to interrupt the flow with such irrelevant trivia but I was trying to think who Jonathan Nott reminded me of....the jaw, the dimples, the cheekbones, the smile....


          A luteous customer, that one. Indeed, quite potty.

          [Sorry, that's probably too obscure by half.]

          Comment

          • Flosshilde
            Full Member
            • Nov 2010
            • 7988

            #80
            I got the 'luteous', but not 'potty'

            Unless you simply mean that he's slightly mad.

            Comment

            • Bryn
              Banned
              • Mar 2007
              • 24688

              #81
              The potty was to infer the intended use of "luteous". Not as referring to pigmentation, but as relating to the potter's craft. The "customer" was aimed at serving a similar purpose.



              [[Oops, too much lost in the last edit.]]
              Last edited by Bryn; 18-07-13, 20:54. Reason: Vain attempt at clarification.

              Comment

              • french frank
                Administrator/Moderator
                • Feb 2007
                • 30535

                #82
                Originally posted by Bryn View Post
                The potty was to infer the intended of "luteous". Not as referring to pigmentation, but as relating to the potter's craft. The "customer" was aimed at serving a similar purpose.
                Odd what you come upon when you click on 'Go to last post'
                It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                Comment

                • Richard Tarleton

                  #83
                  Sorry I started this

                  Comment

                  • Bryn
                    Banned
                    • Mar 2007
                    • 24688

                    #84
                    It was that James Joyce what started it. I can't see the words "lute" or "luteous" without thinking slippery, watery clay since struggling through Ulysses in my teens with the family OED by my side.

                    Comment

                    • french frank
                      Administrator/Moderator
                      • Feb 2007
                      • 30535

                      #85
                      A surreal element to the thread is probably quite appropriate - no need to apologise
                      It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                      Comment

                      • Flosshilde
                        Full Member
                        • Nov 2010
                        • 7988

                        #86
                        Originally posted by Bryn View Post
                        The potty was to infer the intended use of "luteous". Not as referring to pigmentation, but as relating to the potter's craft. The "customer" was aimed at serving a similar purpose.



                        [[Oops, too much lost in the last edit.]]
                        I don't think I've ever come across 'lute' referring to the substance, just the process. I would use 'slip'.

                        Comment

                        • amateur51

                          #87
                          The editing out of the Lachenmann is all the more philistine because Nott is a noted advocate of his music and conducts plenty of 'modern music' in Bamberg. What's the point of getting him over if you're going to remove the performance of a piece that you (the BBC) believe that Janet & Joe Public wouldn't like

                          That distant rumbling noise is Lord Reith rotating

                          Comment

                          • edashtav
                            Full Member
                            • Jul 2012
                            • 3673

                            #88
                            Originally posted by amateur51 View Post
                            The editing out of the Lachenmann is all the more philistine because Nott is a noted advocate of his music and conducts plenty of 'modern music' in Bamberg. What's the point of getting him over if you're going to remove the performance of a piece that you (the BBC) believe that Janet & Joe Public wouldn't like

                            That distant rumbling noise is Lord Reith rotating
                            Well said.

                            Comment

                            • cloughie
                              Full Member
                              • Dec 2011
                              • 22218

                              #89
                              Originally posted by edashtav View Post
                              Well said.
                              Whether it is good listening or not it should be played and heard - how else do we decide?

                              Comment

                              • amateur51

                                #90
                                Originally posted by cloughie View Post
                                Whether it is good listening or not it should be played and heard - how else do we decide?
                                Exactly cloughie - we are consenting adults after all

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X