Proms 2015: Today's the day

[ahinton]

As for wider chronological range the Albert Hall by its nature makes much early music very difficult to programme there I imagine

That's not discouraged the powers that be from putting on all the Bach sonatas and partitas for solo violin and all six of his cello suites in the absurdly unsuitable bathroom that is RAH (OK, that's not that early, but...)

Finally , what sort of works from the 1960s, 70s and 80s are missing from today's proms

Mon Dieu, where to start?!...

[ahinton]

To be precise on the "usual suspects" it would be useful to have access to a list of Proms commissions over the years; as far as I know none exists in easily-accessible form. (Although if anyone knows more than I do about this it would be good to hear from you!)

I'm sorry that I can't help you there but I'd be surprised if there wasn't such a list in some reasonably assessable form somewhere in the BBC annals if nowhere else.

The Albert Hall is an unsuitable venue for almost anything and, as I've said here and elsewhere ad nauseam, the best thing to do with it would be to gut it and put a concert hall there instead.

Well, boxing matches, perhaps. Yes, unsuitable for almost anything, indeed. I blame tghat Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt meself; his incompetence as a Luftwaffe pilot ought to have been discovered before he was put on missions, methinks...

When the Proms began, Wagner had been dead for only 12 years. His work was "new music" about which there was still a considerable controversy among both musicians and audiences.

Quite.

[Barbirollians]

I'm sorry that I can't help you there but I'd be surprised if there wasn't such a list in some reasonably assessable form somewhere in the BBC annals if nowhere else.


Well, boxing matches, perhaps. Yes, unsuitable for almost anything, indeed. I blame tghat Hans Schmidt-Isserstedt meself; his incompetence as a Luftwaffe pilot ought to have been discovered before he was put on missions, methinks...


Quite.

Wagner's music was extremely popular - today's contemporary classical music isn 't . Why when modern art is why is that ?

[Richard Barrett]

Wagner's music was extremely popular - today's contemporary classical music isn 't . Why when modern art is why is that ?

Wagner's music however would have been known to what would now be regarded as an exclusive audience, given that the number of people who would have been able to attend performances of it in the days before broadcasts and recordings would have been quite small. Secondly, if I may, the term "contemporary classical" is an oxymoron. Thirdly, modern art is "popular" on account of being able to be absorbed into the market-driven structure of our society whereas music isn't.

[teamsaint]

Wagner's music however would have been known to what would now be regarded as an exclusive audience, given that the number of people who would have been able to attend performances of it in the days before broadcasts and recordings would have been quite small. Secondly, if I may, the term "contemporary classical" is an oxymoron. Thirdly, modern art is "popular" on account of being able to be absorbed into the market-driven structure of our society whereas music isn't.

most people don't buy, in the market, pieces of modern art, at least not the sort displayed in popular museums like Tate Modern.
Lots of people pay to "consume" music in the same way they pay to "consume" art.
In fact I would think the average spend, ( the spend surely being most important part of a market) on music is far higher for most people than on art. Isn't that " being absorbed into the market driven structure of our society"?

Art and music are both deeply connected into out market driven society.I would think that the (mass) markets for music are rather better developed than those for art.

[Richard Barrett]

Art and music are both deeply connected into out market driven society.I would think that the (mass) markets for music are rather better developed than those for art.

Well, many people don't like to pay anything at all for consuming music these days! What I meant about art though is that a successful artist is a highly profitable "operation" both for him/herself and for gallerists, investors etc., in a way that in musical terms is only really true in popular music. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that! I'm a bit pressed for time today.

[teamsaint]

Well, many people don't like to pay anything at all for consuming music these days! What I meant about art though is that a successful artist is a highly profitable "operation" both for him/herself and for gallerists, investors etc., in a way that in musical terms is only really true in popular music. Sorry I wasn't clearer about that! I'm a bit pressed for time today.

Thanks for clarifying.
This might make for an interesting discussion, perhaps elsewhere .

[ahinton]

Well, many people don't like to pay anything at all for consuming music these days!

Wouldn't you just know it?! YouTube alone (and there are plenty of other sources) have tens if not hundreds of thousands of recordings of music still in copyright, some of it by living composers, that has been uploaded without asking the composers or their representatives, the artists involved or the record companies / broadcasting organisations and from the uploading / downloading of which none of those people / organisations have made it possible to upload / download usually get so much as a cent; this has either created or been an outcome of an attitude that all music should be made available to everyone free of charge, a greedy viewpoint at worst and an idealistic one at best, neither of which give any credence to the fact that composers, artists, record companies and broadcasters have to make money to survive and cannot do what they do without costs being incurred.

OK, it's a hobby horse of mine (and others), but I don't know how some of these free for all people think about how what they consume becomes available for their consumption.

Rather off topic, I know - and perhaps for another thead...

What I meant about art though is that a successful artist is a highly profitable "operation" both for him/herself and for gallerists, investors etc., in a way that in musical terms is only really true in popular music.

Very true indeed. As composers' income sources are, broadly speaking, commissions, royalties from live public performances/broadcasts/recordings and publication/self-publication, it's far harder for all but a tiny handful of the most "successful" ones (in commercial terms) to achieve in financial terms what those "successful" artists do; commissions don't grow on trees and not all composers even get them, live public performance royalties are usually minuscule unless given in large venues (like the Royal Albert Hell!) before capacity audiences, broadcast royalties are vanishingly small in many countries and only ever become appreciable sums when the broadcasts are given on national public radio/television stations and publication/self-publication is dependent upon sales of scores - and how many people regularly purchase contemporary music publications?

[Demetrius]

Considering the width of the Proms coverage from Lachenmann to Lalo ( in fact Lalo has had a raw deal recently ) and from Monteverdi to Boulez I am somewhat baffled by such a sweeping statement unless indeed it is a complaint that music that is the meat and drink to HCMF for example is not in the programme ?

The width (or slight lack of) of the coverage is what a number of posters criticize (including me). The quality of the orchestras and soloists are- I think - not in question. The problem lies in the quantity of certain parts of the season.

A few numbers:
a) the Beethoven Fest.
- 5 Piano Concertos + Choral Fantasy and Triple Concerto
in itself, no problem
- another 5 Symphonies and assorted smaller pieces
still ok, Beethoven is after all a brilliant composer, nothing wrong with celebrating him extensively every once in a while
- a full symphony cycle 2012
- 8 of 9 symphonies in 2014
- full piano concerto cycle 2010
in the 10 seasons between 2006 and 2015 we had:
Symphony No 1: 5 times
Symphony No 3: 7 times
Symphony No 4: 5 times
Symphony No 5: 7 times
Symphony No 6: 5 times
Symphony No 7: 6 times
Symphony No 9: 11 times (maybe one of the 2 outings 2007 was an excerpt?)

basically, there is a Beethoven fest every damn year. As he is also far from neglected during the rest of the year, this can tire out regulars.

Some other numbers of warhorses since 2000:

Holst, The Planets - 12 out of 16
Stravinsky, Firebird 1910 - 9 out of 16
Stravinsky, The Rite of Spring - 15 out of 16
Stravinsky, Petrushka - 11 out of 16
Tchaikovsky, Symphony No 4 - 9 out of 16
Tchaikovsky, Symphony No 5 - 9 out of 16
Shostakovich, Symphony No 5 - 8 out of 16
Shostakovich, Symphony No 10 - 12 out of 16
Ravel, Bolero - 9 out of 16
Ravel, Daphnis et Chloé -14 out of 16
Ravel, La Valse - 12 out of 16
Brahms, Symphony No 1 - 8 out of 16
Brahms, Symphony No 4 - 9 out of 16
Brahms, Violin Concerto - 10 out of 16
Berlioz, Sinfonie fantastique - 13 out of 16
Strauss, Till Eulenspiegel - 9 out of 16

If you cut a little bit of these warhorses - not completely, just every third (or second, when it comes to Ravel, the planets or the Rite of Spring) performance, you suddenly have room to include other composers/pieces. Not necessarily cutting edge modern pieces scored for bicycle and turntables. One could possibly even give Lalo his second or even third outing since 1961. Or Taneyev a second shot outright (the first and only piece by him was performed in 1925).

Great Festival, no doubt. Great music, Great performers (lousy hall). But it could be and do more.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Interesting statistics, Demetrius, many thanks.

[Barbirollians]

The width (or slight lack of) of the coverage is what a number of posters criticize (including me). The quality of the orchestras and soloists are- I think - not in question. The problem lies in the quantity of certain parts of the season.

A few numbers:
a) the Beethoven Fest.
- 5 Piano Concertos + Choral Fantasy and Triple Concerto
in itself, no problem
- another 5 Symphonies and assorted smaller pieces
still ok, Beethoven is after all a brilliant composer, nothing wrong with celebrating him extensively every once in a while
- a full symphony cycle 2012
- 8 of 9 symphonies in 2014
- full piano concerto cycle 2010
in the 10 seasons between 2006 and 2015 we had:
Symphony No 1: 5 times
Symphony No 3: 7 times
Symphony No 4: 5 times
Symphony No 5: 7 times
Symphony No 6: 5 times
Symphony No 7: 6 times
Symphony No 9: 11 times (maybe one of the 2 outings 2007 was an excerpt?)

basically, there is a Beethoven fest every damn year. As he is also far from neglected during the rest of the year, this can tire out regulars.

Some other numbers of warhorses since 2000:

Holst, The Planets - 12 out of 16
Stravinsky, Firebird 1910 - 9 out of 16
Stravinsky, The Rite of Spring - 15 out of 16
Stravinsky, Petrushka - 11 out of 16
Tchaikovsky, Symphony No 4 - 9 out of 16
Tchaikovsky, Symphony No 5 - 9 out of 16
Shostakovich, Symphony No 5 - 8 out of 16
Shostakovich, Symphony No 10 - 12 out of 16
Ravel, Bolero - 9 out of 16
Ravel, Daphnis et Chloé -14 out of 16
Ravel, La Valse - 12 out of 16
Brahms, Symphony No 1 - 8 out of 16
Brahms, Symphony No 4 - 9 out of 16
Brahms, Violin Concerto - 10 out of 16
Berlioz, Sinfonie fantastique - 13 out of 16
Strauss, Till Eulenspiegel - 9 out of 16

If you cut a little bit of these warhorses - not completely, just every third (or second, when it comes to Ravel, the planets or the Rite of Spring) performance, you suddenly have room to include other composers/pieces. Not necessarily cutting edge modern pieces scored for bicycle and turntables. One could possibly even give Lalo his second or even third outing since 1961. Or Taneyev a second shot outright (the first and only piece by him was performed in 1925).

Great Festival, no doubt. Great music, Great performers (lousy hall). But it could be and do more.

Very fair points I wonder how many of the warhorses are played by the visiting orchestras who have their international programmes planned out and the Proms appears to have take them as they are .

I agree entirely that there are cases where a very popular work is lazily programmed e.g the Bruch 1 and Lark Ascending .

[subcontrabass]

basically, there is a Beethoven fest every damn year. As he is also far from neglected during the rest of the year, this can tire out regulars.

It is not that long ago that every Friday of the Proms was "Beethoven Night". Things have moved on (a little) since then. I agree that we need fewer "warhorses" and greater variety.

[MrGongGong]

Wagner's music was extremely popular - today's contemporary classical music isn 't . Why when modern art is why is that ?

It is a real shame that this book is so superficial (and a bit useless)IMV

http://www.zero-books.net/books/fear-of-music

You can walk away and return to a painting, sculpture or installation
music demands attention of a different kind

BUT (like Richard says) the " contemporary classical" name is a bit cr*p and says very little about music.

[Ferretfancy]

The width (or slight lack of) of the coverage is what a number of posters criticize (including me). The quality of the orchestras and soloists are- I think - not in question. The problem lies in the quantity of certain parts of the season.

A few numbers:
a) the Beethoven Fest.
- 5 Piano Concertos + Choral Fantasy and Triple Concerto
in itself, no problem
- another 5 Symphonies and assorted smaller pieces
still ok, Beethoven is after all a brilliant composer, nothing wrong with celebrating him extensively every once in a while
- a full symphony cycle 2012
- 8 of 9 symphonies in 2014
- full piano concerto cycle 2010
in the 10 seasons between 2006 and 2015 we had:
Symphony No 1: 5 times
Symphony No 3: 7 times
Symphony No 4: 5 times
Symphony No 5: 7 times
Symphony No 6: 5 times
Symphony No 7: 6 times
Symphony No 9: 11 times (maybe one of the 2 outings 2007 was an excerpt?)

basically, there is a Beethoven fest every damn year. As he is also far from neglected during the rest of the year, this can tire out regulars.

Some other numbers of warhorses since 2000:

Holst, The Planets - 12 out of 16
Stravinsky, Firebird 1910 - 9 out of 16
Stravinsky, The Rite of Spring - 15 out of 16
Stravinsky, Petrushka - 11 out of 16
Tchaikovsky, Symphony No 4 - 9 out of 16
Tchaikovsky, Symphony No 5 - 9 out of 16
Shostakovich, Symphony No 5 - 8 out of 16
Shostakovich, Symphony No 10 - 12 out of 16
Ravel, Bolero - 9 out of 16
Ravel, Daphnis et Chloé -14 out of 16
Ravel, La Valse - 12 out of 16
Brahms, Symphony No 1 - 8 out of 16
Brahms, Symphony No 4 - 9 out of 16
Brahms, Violin Concerto - 10 out of 16
Berlioz, Sinfonie fantastique - 13 out of 16
Strauss, Till Eulenspiegel - 9 out of 16

If you cut a little bit of these warhorses - not completely, just every third (or second, when it comes to Ravel, the planets or the Rite of Spring) performance, you suddenly have room to include other composers/pieces. Not necessarily cutting edge modern pieces scored for bicycle and turntables. One could possibly even give Lalo his second or even third outing since 1961. Or Taneyev a second shot outright (the first and only piece by him was performed in 1925).

Great Festival, no doubt. Great music, Great performers (lousy hall). But it could be and do more.

This may come as a surprise, but in the amazingly cheap Arena in the Albert Hall, standing alongside others who have bought a ticket after queueing for a long time, I quite often find myself talking to people who are hearing Till Eulenspiegel for the first time. This goes for Beethoven, Shostakovich and the others you name.

It must be part of the function of the Proms that they introduce music which may be familiar to us, to listeners who are hearing it for the first time, and fresh newcomers arrive at the RAH every year.

I like going to Proms that include new works, even when some of them are terrible, and I think that on the whole the balance of so called warhorses to less familiar works is about right. A complete Namouna might be nice, but we can't have everything, can we ?

[teamsaint]

This may come as a surprise, but in the amazingly cheap Arena in the Albert Hall, standing alongside others who have bought a ticket after queueing for a long time, I quite often find myself talking to people who are hearing Till Eulenspiegel for the first time. This goes for Beethoven, Shostakovich and the others you name.

It must be part of the function of the Proms that they introduce music which may be familiar to us, to listeners who are hearing it for the first time, and fresh newcomers arrive at the RAH every year.

I like going to Proms that include new works, even when some of them are terrible, and I think that on the whole the balance of so called warhorses to less familiar works is about right. A complete Namouna might be nice, but we can't have everything, can we ?

.
You are spot on here, FF.

the much criticised Mahler 2 " chamber Prom" went down a storm in the arena a couple of years ago, and a lot of people went away very happy that night, many probably having heard Mahler played live for the first time.

THere is a vast amount of learning ( and enjoyment) going on, at highly affordable pricing, and that is to be cherished.

We would all want the programmes more to our liking, and we can all make valid criticisms of it. But that it is too important a festival to not see the fantastic things it does, as well as the regrettable.