Prom 71 - 4.09.13: Górecki, Vaughan Williams & Tchaikovsky

[teamsaint]

horses for courses, states of mind, " What is music FOR?" as gongers often asks.

The Folksiness that RB invoked can be restricting, or abused, but it can be used creatively, have intelligence applied to develop it , and can inspire good emotional responses as well.

Not sure lots of dance music tends to be based in intellectual responses, but there is great dance music , and there is lots of terrible dance music.Why does some work, and some not? that is a decent jump off point for a bit of thinking about an essentially non cerebral idiom, isn't it?

Where might Delta blues fit into this, thinking about music rather than lyrics?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

hearing and evaluating music like the Gorecki 3rd is the wrong one - tending away from hearing and responding to what it has to offer.

You're off again! I wasn't talking about "Music like the Gorecki 3rd" - I was talking about Gorecki's 3rd. You (and now Nachtigall) make presumptions about my response to Gubaidulina, Part, Kancheli and others based on my comments on a work by a different composer. Stop evading the issue by inventing opinions for me: it's like reading scottycelt with better vocabulary.

Which is why I said that the strand of music variously called "holy minimalism" "mystical minimalism" etc may not really be open to critical evaluation at all.

Cop out.

[aeolium]

Sorry, ferney, but I thought your msg 98 was wholly intemperate and a misunderstanding of what jlw was meaning when she was talking about when comparing with a different standard, as she has subsequently clarified. How could anyone be attacking your standards which are clearly so much higher than those of the rest of us?

I cannot understand what has led you to conduct such a vitriolic attack on this music, putting it on a level with Bob the Builder, using terms like "quasi-pornographic". Writing as you do, you cannot be "honestly glad that there is such admiration for the work". If its modal cluster harmonies are quasi-pornographic then presumably you think it's quasi-indecent to be listening to them, and perhaps quasi-debased to have any kind of positive response. Perhaps you felt manipulated in your first instinctive reaction to the work and want to deter others ("Sweet love I see, changing his property,/Turns to the sourest and most deadly hate.") And I think your argument about the need to support admiration with analysis is completely wrong. Analysis can describe and help understanding of a work but cannot explain why anyone reacts as they do to a piece of music, some loathing, some indifferent, some admiring. The music is the same in each of these cases. And you were wrong in saying that nobody on the thread had made any comment on other composers in the same tradition; RB commented in msg 65 about his problem with the whole tradition, and there were also a couple of comments about Tavener.

It's not often that someone really goes out of their way to rubbish someone's music on these boards. There are the periodic "Let's hate Mozart" threads and occasionally attacks on modernist works, though the latter are generally slapped down pretty quickly. If you have had experience of one of those threads where music you admire is attacked you have probably felt that the attack is somehow on your own taste, something personal against you. Yet you feel no compunction about expressing not just dislike of this music but contempt for it. What I admire about jlw's posts is that she is nearly always interested in talking about music, including modern music, for which she has enthusiasm, and she is not afraid to express enthusiasm for modern music - Adams, David Matthews, here Gorecki - which does not appear to have much support among followers of modern music here.

I also of course admire your own contributions as among the most knowledgeable on the forum. I would just rather you dwelt, as jlw generally does, on your own enthusiasms rather than your hatreds. Why spend time discussing music that means nothing to you?

[Richard Barrett]

Intellectual arguments such as those mustered by FHG and Richard Barrett simply don't count when we're dealing with instinctive, non-rational responses to music

I wasn't aware of offering "intellectual arguments"! I'm reminded at moments like this of Helmut Lachenmann's observation to the effect that if the intellectual and emotional aspects of listening are at odds with one another, both are underdeveloped.

From what I can gather FHG and RB seem unable to countenance multifarious strands of contemporary musical development which include what you term "holy minimalism", for example, insisting on a certain kind of cerebral approach to musical creativity.

I won't speak for anyone else, but this is completely untrue in my case and I don't think anything I've said supports such an assertion. In fact I've always had a certain admiration (despite an instinctive distaste for the tradition in question) for works such as Pärt's St John Passion - which I would hold up as a prime example of something which creates a cumulative and moving effect by not wearing its heart bleeding on its sleeve as the Górecki work does.

It is of course nothing new for creative artists to dislike and distance themselves from the work of others as a way of asserting the value of their own practice.

Here again you appear to be attributing opinions to me which I haven't expressed. You're getting this the wrong way around: one's musical preferences come first, and obviously one's creative practice will reflect them.

Regarding Serialism, which again I don't remember having set up as a benchmark of any kind, it is a method of composition, not a style, and therefore not comparable in any way with a term like "holy minimalism". The serial method of composition gained very many adherents at a certain point in musical history because composers saw in it a way of expanding their creative horizons, whatever stylistic direction they were taking, not because John Drummond (the name of William Glock used to be used here, but the idea seems to be the same) decided to promote it. The work of many "worthy composers" has suffered "neglect" throughout history for one reason or another, and the 20th century is no different, except in so far as people like to find scapegoats to blame for it.

[Richard Barrett]

What I admire about jlw's posts is that she is nearly always interested in talking about music, including modern music, for which she has enthusiasm

For what it's worth I agree with you, but why should one refrain from expressing strong opinions on music when one has them? - if, that is, they're based on thinking rather than not-thinking.

[amateur51]

No; as I'd said, my first reaction to hearing it was enthusiastic - that was the "instinct". The barrenness of the piece became clearer with each subsequent hearing

I wonder if in part this work was played to death, or chunks of it were, by CFM and so I 'got used to it' in a way that the composer did not intend? The CFM approach would destroy potentially my responses to so much music to which I respond with pleasure when I listen to it on purpose rather than just coming across it between the ad breaks, and this is why I listen less and less to Radio Three before midday and I don't listen to CFM at all.

[aeolium]

For what it's worth I agree with you, but why should one refrain from expressing strong opinions on music when one has them? - if, that is, they're based on thinking rather than not-thinking.

Well, I think that there's a way to express those opinions which is not inflammatory and which at least allows some respect to those who perhaps hold contrary, and possibly equally strong, opinions. There is the reason I alluded to earlier, that it is hard to be dispassionate when music that means a lot to you is attacked (and by the way the Gorecki does not fall into that category for me). Not only that, but I generally feel that those who express enthusiasm about certain music have spent a lot of time with it, have got to know it very extensively, perhaps in multiple interpretations. I suspect that is generally not true about those who have a negative reponse to a composer's music. You, for instance, have expressed your dislike of Britten's music. That dislike may be based on a wide knowledge of his works but I think it more likely that you have preferred to explore other music that is to your taste. Mary Chambers, on the other hand, probably knows all Britten's works and many in multiple interpretations. So, in discussing particular works of Britten - especially less well known ones - rather than his general style, Mary may well have greater in-depth knowledge. It seems fairly clear that someone with an enthusiasm for a composer's work will as a general rule know it better than someone without that enthusiasm - why spend time listening to music in which you're not interested?

There is another reason I prefer to read enthusiastic rather than critical posts (at least in discussions of music rather than its interpretation), and that is that it is so easy to put someone off listening to something, even though we know how completely different reactions to the same work can be. And you may know as a composer how disheartening criticism can be (and has been to composers down the ages). And for all these reasons I prefer to remain silent about music that I dislike or which makes no impression on me.

[Richard Barrett]

You, for instance, have expressed your dislike of Britten's music.

Yes, and I have no more to say on that subject. On the other hand, the stylistic phenomenon represented by Górecki's Third Symphony is of interest to me; I don't think the reputation of this work is going to suffer as a result of what I and ferneyhoughgeliebte have to say about it, and note that nobody has said it "shouldn't" be heard and I certainly believe it should be (as amateur51 notes, though, if you listen to CFM there isn't much chance of it not being) - indeed Jean seems to have decided to listen to this Prom as a result of reading the discussion!

[Hornspieler]

For what it's worth I agree with you, but why should one refrain from expressing strong opinions on music when one has them? - if, that is, they're based on thinking rather than not-thinking.

Yes, quite right, but I believe that this controversy need never have developed in the first place.

No one can deny that Symphony Nº 3 is music, even though it appeals to the taste of some but is intolerable to others.

Of course those who are moved by its content are entitled to hear it and there is no reason why it should not be available on Radio 3, but my problem is this:

To place this work as the first item in a promenade concert is quite likely to result in a lot of listeners reaching for the 'off' button and then, distracted perhaps by some other activity, they forget to switch on again. (I speak from personal experience here, regarding some of those BBC commisions which open a concert to make their first - and usually last, outing on radio)

This causes an understandable annoyance which is then directed both at the offending work and towards its advocates. So the thread develops into a tit-for-tat contest between a few members,; and the rest of the concert, which is what the thread is about, becomes totally ignored.

So why not just agree to differ and leave it at that, before more than just a few feelings are ruffled?

HS

[Richard Barrett]

Yes, quite right, but I believe that this controversy need never have developed in the first place.

You write as if the present discussion is in some way a bad thing. On the contrary, I find this exchange of views interesting and thought-provoking.

And you cite as a reason for your opinion that the programming was defective the fact that the Górecki piece as the first item would have caused people to switch off. But this work, like it or not, is actually extremely popular for a late 20th century orchestral composition, as its frequent appearance on CFM shows. So I can't see how you come to this conclusion except by (somewhat unwarrantedly) projecting your own tastes onto those of other listeners.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Sorry, ferney, but I thought your msg 98 was wholly intemperate and a misunderstanding of what jlw was meaning when she was talking about when comparing with a different standard, as she has subsequently clarified.

"Intemperate"? Possibly - I did begin (#31) in a moderate way, and look how far that got me! Personally, I thought that my #69 was my most belligerent, responding as it did to Jayne's #57. If someone can demonstrate that the "standards" that I listen for in a work are "wrong", even/especially for an individual piece, I would be chastened and enlightened. But if they cannot (or choose not to, for whatever reason[s]) do this, then they have no business making the blanket declaration that these (or anyone else's) standards are "wrong". Jayne is a tough cookie, she'll weather this; but what I was hoping was for someone to point out Musical features that I had overlooked. Nobody has yet done this; certainly not Jayne, who merely resorted to irrelevances and evasions - and (most intemperately, I felt) - ascribing to me, general aesthetic/cultural prejudices that she cannot justify.

How could anyone be attacking your standards which are clearly so much higher than those of the rest of us?

Flattery will get you nowhere. But don't let that stop you. And I don't think my "standards" are higher than everyone else's (next to Richard and Roehre *, I feel they're poorly thought-out: quite Morrisian: enthusiastic for everything that I know to be useful and believe to be beautiful) - just that they are mine; very personal and essential to the way I conduct my everyday life. I don't readily allow them to be impugned without impunity - but, yes, sometimes in defending them, I betray them ...

Writing as you do, you cannot be "honestly glad that there is such admiration for the work". If its modal cluster harmonies are quasi-pornographic then presumably you think it's quasi-indecent to be listening to them, and perhaps quasi-debased to have any kind of positive response.

QED. I am capable of a Whitmanesque juggling of three or four conflicting opinions with the best of them: I am "honestly glad" that people like the work (and I was hoping that someone would articulate exactly what happens in it Musically that excites such admiration) and (at the same time) I also believe that the best word to describe how I find Gorecki's Musical language in this work in the context of the texts is "pornographic" (titillating exploitation, rather than authentic exploration: should these texts be given such an "easy listening" frame?) Again, I'm hoping that somebody would demonstrate how this Music is worthy of respect (I don't "like" it; I don't expect that - but there are whole areas of Music that I don't like whose Musical strengths I respect.)

And you were wrong in saying that nobody on the thread had made any comment on other composers in the same tradition; RB commented in msg 65 about his problem with the whole tradition, and there were also a couple of comments about Tavener.

I think the first referrence to this tradition was Jayne's #64, to which RB responded.

I also of course admire your own contributions as among the most knowledgeable on the forum. I would just rather you dwelt, as jlw generally does, on your own enthusiasms rather than your hatreds. Why spend time discussing music that means nothing to you?

Good question; I certainly prefer doing so. I can only say that when, say, MrPee has attacked Stockhausen, or Simon rubbished RB (or even flossie attacking Mozart) I have used the Music to demonstrate what is there that makes the Music worthy of the name - how it might be respected even by those who dislike it. I was hoping somebody might be able to do the same for me with the Gorecki 3rd: I don't like not liking Music.

EDIT: * = By citing these two, I don't mean that I think my standards are higher than everyone else's!

[aeolium]

If someone can demonstrate that the "standards" that I listen for in a work are "wrong", even/especially for an individual piece, I would be chastened and enlightened. But if they cannot (or choose not to, for whatever reason[s]) do this, then they have no business making the blanket declaration that these (or anyone else's) standards are "wrong". Jayne is a tough cookie, she'll weather this; but what I was hoping was for someone to point out Musical features that I had overlooked. Nobody has yet done this; certainly not Jayne, who merely resorted to irrelevances and evasions - and (most intemperately, I felt) - ascribing to me, general aesthetic/cultural prejudices that she cannot justify.

My understanding of Jayne's comment about standards was that it was nothing to do with your or anyone else's personal standards but that it was assessing the work by reference to a different tradition - as she seems to have confirmed in her msg 99.

Again, I'm hoping that somebody would demonstrate how this Music is worthy of respect (I don't "like" it; I don't expect that - but there are whole areas of Music that I don't like whose Musical strengths I respect.)

I'm not sure how she, or anyone, could do that since it might be that precisely those qualities that move others in this work disgust you. As a matter of interest, are there any composers or works in the tradition that includes Gorecki that do impress you (I mean the tradition dubbed 'the new naivety' by Ivan Hewett in his book on C20 music)?

[Richard Barrett]

Ivan Hewett in his book on C20 music

Has he written a book? They'll publish anything these days.

Speaking for myself, I've already mentioned Pärt's St John Passion and there are a few other pieces of his I've quite liked. And some of the earlier works of Tavener. But the "naivety" is maybe the main problem for me, particularly as it relates to the "spirituality" of these composers and their work (which if you add it all together doesn't come anywhere near the simplicity/complexity of a single Bach chorale as far as I'm concerned): in the 21st century it looks more like a pose than anything else.

[edashtav]

Has he [Ivan Hewett] written a book? They'll publish anything these days.

so has Tom Service: "XXXX: Full of Noises: Conversations with Tom Service" where XXXX was a composer.

They'll ...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm not sure how she, or anyone, could do that since it might be that precisely those qualities that move others in this work disgust you.

I would hope that somebody would point out some felicity of texture, orchestration, harmony, structure, melody that wasn't obvious, that was subtle, that had escaped my notice. In other words, in what way the piece, by its own standards, was worth paying attention to.

As a matter of interest, are there any composers or works in the tradition that includes Gorecki that do impress you (I mean the tradition dubbed 'the new naivety' by Ivan Hewett in his book on C20 music)?

Of the composers JLW mentioned in #64 (Gubaidulina, Kancheli, Arvo Part, and Korndorf) I respect Gubaidulina the most for her open-eared approach to sonority, her confrontational structuring and her dry-eyed realistic presentation of her religious concerns. Kancheli makes me smile, reminding me of some really corny horror film scores. I like a few of Part's works - particularly the shorter pieces (I'd say the same for Tavener - the more he exceeds the five minute point, the lower the returns I get from his Music) - there is a genuine originality with the triadic materials that is his own, and a good sense of timing and proportion. Korndorf I do not know and have never heard of before #64, but I also quite admire Erkki-Sven Tuur, whom she does not mention - I heard his Music at a Huddersfield Festival some years ago and found the experience rewarding and moving.

Having said that, it is a tradition that I respect rather more than I am genuinely and/or fully engaged by - Spiegel & Spiegel is lovely in a decent performance, but really I prefer Messiaen's Louanges from the Quartet for the End of Time (which I think is the starting point for the Part). Work I am pleased to encounter, but wouldn't necessarily choose to play from my collection in preference to Machaut, Dunstable, Tallis, Victoria - or RVW, Britten, Lutoslawski, Scelsi, Feldman, Clementi, James Saunders, LaMonte Young ...


EDIT: Perhaps I should also add that I'm very partial to the bonkers world of Wojciech Kilar's Krzesany, and that Gorecki's tribute to his compatriot, the Harpsichord Concerto (Lurch on acid) is on a similar level of irresistable barminess.