From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Liverpool Oratorio - McCartney & Davis
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:43:44 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>In article <1992Jul18.192101.18770@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes:
>>roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>>In article <1992Jul17.163230.16999@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> 
>>>ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes:

>>>>I certainly would never approach anything McCartney had a hand
>>>>in expecting 'heaviness' - if it was promoted in this manner in the States
>>>>I'm surprised at a man of your musical background falling for it.

>>>Let me get this straight: you wouldn't expect anything heavier from a
>>>piece entitled "Oratorio" than from one entitled "Band on the run"?

>>I'm afraid not - oratorio, in particular, is a term that I've never had
>>that much of a feel for and have only really used when coming to categorise
>>music I already know. Besides, I'd of thought that maybe THE classic example
>>of oratorio was Handel's Messiah, a piece *I* would never describe as heavy.
>>It's got some good tunes in it though, a bit like the L.O.

>Well, the birth, persecution, death, and resurrection of Jesus are
>hardly lightweight topics, now, are they?  

Certainly not.

>And most of the music of Part
>II is indeed the type I'd describe as "heavy."

I meant heavy in the sense of 'difficult to approach'. I don't think the
music is this.

>>>  If so, you'd have to argue that
>>>all of culture was really a pack of prejudices.  One might also call them
>>>"agreements," "consensuses," "standards," etc.

>>Perhaps you would, but that doesn't mean that all of them are desirable.

>Beside the point.  They're there.  They're what constitutes the culture
>itself: a set of conventions and expectations.  Some may be in need of
>change, but pretending they're not there will not bring about that
>change.

I don't pretend they're not there - I try to set aside those which I consider
irrelevant to my assessment of the music. I think that's as good a way as any
of initiating a change.

>>>>I can't deny that 'HDEs' have their effect on me too, but they still are
>>>>not part of the music itself, 

>>>The hell they aren't!  When a composer writes "symphony" on the title
>>>page, he or she EXPECTS you to think of Beethoven and music since then.

>>I'm afraid I'd have to disappoint them too then. When I listen to a symphony
>>by Sibelius or Prokofiev nothing could be further from my mind than Beethoven.
>>(You're a bit harsh on Haydn and Mozart too, not to mention C.P.E.Bach.)

>No, not harsh at all.  The symphonies of Mozart and Haydn and Bach were
>not what caused the symphony per se to be elevated into the central
>musical art-form in 19th century northern Europe, and since then into
>the stereotype of "absolute," "classical" music.  Beethoven's music was
>the cause of this development.  

Beethoven would have had a job getting started without Haydn.

>And it was also the reason that composers -- including Sibelius and
>(once he got wise to what sold in the S.U.) Prokoviev -- continued to
>write symphonies in the way they did.  And, yes, that includes the
>"Classical Symphony" of Prokofiev.  Only by reacting against the model
>that had evolved from Beethoven through Brahms, Bruckner, and Mahler
>could he produce his satirical masterpiece.

Obviously, Beethoven was an influential figure and symphonies of this
century would certainly have turned out differently had he not lived,
but that's getting off the point. An appreciation of the historical
context in which music is composed is no more a prerequisite for the
appreciation of the music itself than an understanding of pure maths
necessitates a knowledge of the circumstances in which a theorem was
arrived at.

>>>Imagine trying to understand the last movement of the Brahms First
>>>*without* a little understanding and expectation drawn from history!
>>>What sense does the main theme make?  The mysterious chorale?  

>>It's interesting, and fortuitous, that you should have landed on that part-
>>icular example. The last movement of Brahms' 1st was something I heard for
>>the first time on the telly, merely as an accompaniment to a programme that
>>I was getting bored stiff with, and of which I have successfully managed to
>>forget the title. I didn't know what it was, when it was composed, or who
>>composed it, yet it impressed me sufficiently that I found out and bought a
>>recording of it. I regard this as the ideal context for first hearing a work,
>>one which admittedly is hard to arrange usually, and also the context in
>>which I attempt to hear subsequent performances, free from these prejudices
>>(not intended in its pejorative sense).

>Well, Brahms would disagree with you.  If nothing else, he would have
>wanted you to hear the other three movements first.

I'm sure he would, although the last movement, to my mind, is a self-
contained stretch of music, despite reference to earlier material.

>But he ALSO wanted you to get your face rubbed in the resemblance of the
>main theme to the "Joy" theme from Beethoven's Ninth -- and then to
>puzzle over the odd treatment the theme gets the rest of the way.  Why
>does it laboriously transform itself into the horn-call theme at the end
>of the development?  And then never return in its full form?  Why is the
>*horn-call* theme later on replaced by the chorale at the final climax?
>Why were all three themes previewed in the long introduction?  

I'd be interested to know your views on the matter.

>One might not need to know that this is Brahms First Symphony, but one
>*does* need to know that it's a reaction to Beethoven's Ninth.  And one
>can hear that only if one *knows* the Ninth.

Bunkum and balderdash! Certainly, if you compare the main theme in the last
movement with that of Beethoven 9 it will influence your judgements on the
'meaning' of the last movement, as it seems to have done in your case, but 
an appreciation of this relation ( if there is one ) is not necessary to
have a sophisticated appreciation of the work itself.

Personally, I hadn't even noticed the resemblance of Brahms' theme to
Beethoven's until someone pointed it out to me. I refer you to Sir
Donald Francis Tovey's potted analysis for further reading on this matter.

>>>"Classical" music -- especially that from the time since the canon was
>>>founded -- is ALL ABOUT history and how it bears on expectations.  You
>>>can't separate that out from the music.

>>No, classical music may be partially about these things, but only on history
>>since the development of the canon insofar as you're prepared to study it.

>Which we all do!  By listening to it, and by being exposed to attitudes
>toward it that are part of the definition of our musical culture.  We
>don't come to the pieces we listen to by random chance -- there is agood
>deal of history, and a good deal of cultural practice involved in the
>very choice of pieces that get played and recorded.

Well, it's all up there in the subconscious then - just sit back and enjoy
the music!

>>I think most musical archetypes that govern my reactions are probably older
>>than that.

>Indeed -- but the archetype of "classical music" -- of music from
>another era being at least as central to our era as the music of our own
>time is -- that is *not* older than the 19th C.  And our reactions to
>the music of the 19th C are also based to a great extent on a system of
>expectations built up around the transformation of those older
>archetypes in light of a fixed basis for the repertoire.

How can you talk about a single archetype for 'classical music'? If there
were one, it follows that we'd all hear music in the same way, which we
clearly don't. And if the archetype of classical music is not older than
classical music itself, how did classical composers get going?

>>He's obviously exceptionally
>>gifted in some respects. I don't see any 'allusions' or 'references' in When
>>I'm 64 - it's just a piece composed in a not-particularly-sophisticated style
>>which I think it would have been perfectly possible for McCartney to emulate
>>almost without thinking about it.

>Then listen again.  It is a *most* sophisticated little piece.  From the
>choice of instruments ( not only the clarinets, but also the drumming
>style, etc.) to the melodic type to the self-deprecating singing style
>-- this was carefully thought out.  And, more important, it *transforms*
>the things it parodies and otherwise alludes to.  Listen to a few 1920's
>hits from England -- even something like the "Lambeth Walk" -- and note
>the similarities.  Then notice the DIFFERENCES, the ones that make it
>fit into a rock album -- and, not coincidentally, something far more
>worthy of being called a Liverpool Oratorio, a record about many of the
>same things that get lost in the bloat of the new work.

Well, I'm still not convinced. Even if he did go to all this trouble, though,
is an explicit recognition of these factors necessary for an appreciation of
the music, or were all those people who bought Sgt. Pepper's just
philistines?

>>>>>>It just sounds a bit strange
>>>>>>in the context of an 'Oratorio' (again a term that should be dismissed as
>>>>>>irrelevant if you automatically associate it with more traditional English
>>>>>>works). Nevertheless, the words have a particular effect that they 
>>>>>>wouldn't otherwise, and an accessibility that is probably appreciated most
>>>>>>by the Liverpudlians for whom the work was primarily written.

>>>>>It was?  I wonder why he tricked it up in church/concert-hall dress,
>>>>>then, and for forces that require high ticket prices, and wanted it
>>>>>heard in a manner of listening that most Liverpudlians don't even
>>>>>practice?

>>>>The world premiere of the piece was in the Anglican Cathedral in Liverpool,
>>>>and then at the Philharmonic Hall, where the seat prices were no higher than
>>>>for one of the regular concerts of the RLPO. 

>>>Which are no doubt teeming with working-class locals.

>>Not necessarily working class, but audiences at Liverpool concerts do normally
>>comprise a more representative cross-section of the population than in other
>>cities I've visited.

>Faint praise, I'm sure.  It's still the concert-hall audience, which is
>hardly the audience he's, say, *writing* about...

We don't all go into 'concert-hall mode' when we go to a concert. Besides,
who's to say how the social standing of Liverpudlians of McCartney's generation
has changed since the Second World War? I can think of one, at least, who was
a 'working-class local' then, but isn't any longer.

>>>>Since the piece was commissioned
>>>>by the RLPS to celebrate their 150th anniversary, I think I'm on pretty firm
>>>>ground saying that it was written primarily for Liverpudlians. 

>>>That sounds more like commisioning it to draw worldwide attention to hte
>>>orchestra.

>>in a city with Liverpool's economic difficulties I don't consider that a bad
>>motive.

>Rather a roundabout way to do it, wouldn't you say?

What else can an orchestra do?

>>>>>>Who says? If your musical success has been based on a method of composition
>>>>>>that involves no knowledge of musical notation, what reason is there to change
>>>>>>this if you have a willing collaborator? 

>>>>>Because the collaboration doesn't work too well.  Let's see their next
>>>>>piece.

>>>>Obviously, you can only say that with hindsight.

>>>Hindsight is generally available after the first rehearsal.  Why was
>>>this time different?

>>Well what would you expect them to do if they considered it unworthy of
>>performance (which they obviously didn't)? Enroll Paul McCartney on a
>>course of lessons in musical notation?

>No! Tell him to write something else!  But of course they can't do
>*that* -- he's Paul M, and this is their big chance to cash in on that
>fact -- certainly *their* first and last chance.  

Again, money doesn't grow on trees in Liverpool. You should pay a visit
sometime.

>>>>>(Nor do we know how much of what we hear is in fact his
>>>>>musical idea, and what is the other guy's.  Who, of course, DOES write
>>>>>music--what if our favorite bits turn out to be by him?)

>>>>Does that matter?

>>>For the next piece, it sure does!  Assuming word gets out...

>>This still shouldn't affect your judgement of the piece in its own right.

>Now pay attention: in its own right, the piece wouldn't have *existed.*
>Carl Davis wouldn't ever have sat down with Joe Schmo (as opposed to
>PMcC) to create the piece.  The orchestra wouldn't have commissioned the
>piece from Joe Schmo.  The recording company wouldn't have promoted
>Schmo's music.  The piece doesn't *have* an "own right."  And for this
>very reason (which also applies to Beethoven, I might add, albeit in a
>different direction, one related to "noblesse oblige"), it is impossible
>to consider the piece that way.  If it *weren't* by McC, why would I buy
>the CD among thousands in the store?

So in other words, nothing exists in its own right, right? So in order to 
be able to 'properly appreciate' any piece of music you need to have done
a study into the development of the classical 'canon' since the early 19th
Century. I'm beginning to see... 

>(For those on the other side, "Schmo" is an ancient Cherokee word
>meaning "Bloggs.")

Very cosmopolitan - I'm impressed.


>>>>Just because some people have developed different methods of
>>>>appreciating music to you and your students doesn't mean their judgements
>>>>on music's value are inferior to yours.

>>>Who ever claimed that?  In fact, if you look at ANYONE who actually
>>>bothers to think about music hard enough to appreciate or judge music in
>>>any but the most facile sense, they'll be doing some version of the
>>>things I outlined (clumsily, I admit) above.  It's not a formal academic
>>>thing, and that's the last thing it should be.

>>Again, how  do you account for the opinions of our original poster?

>Look, _Cats_ is *still* running in the West End.  If one can explain
>that, one can easily explain that there are lots of people who will
>enjoy listening to the L.O.

But how do you explain it *other* than by claiming other people's judgements
are inferior to yours?

>>>>I presume that the inferences which lead you to this conclusion do not make
>>>>allowance for the ways that the original poster listens to music.

>>>Actually, I'd like to meet up with him in about three years and sit down
>>>and listen to the piece together.

>>I'll be sure to remind you!

>You bet.  I hope he listens to it a dozen times or more in between,
>though.  One really has to get to know a piece like this...

Hmm... Irony again, very clever!

>>>>>Music is something that the vast majority of its listeners and
>>>>>practitioners do NOT learn entirely by themselves, entirely from
>>>>>intuition.  Music, one way or another, is taught.  And if you wish to
>>>>>call the choice of what to teah "elitism," then so be it.  

>>>>It wasn't my choice of term in the first place, but you seemed happy to go
>>>>along with it. Besides, what do you mean by 'teach music' - it seems a bit
>>>>of a waffly term? I have a sense of absolute pitch, though none of my music
>>>>teachers did, so I cannot have been taught it - it was developed purely by
>>>>a process of observation. I don't consider that it gives me a superior
>>>>appreciation of music, although it must alter my perception of it relative
>>>>to most other people. Neither should you assume that YOUR musical education
>>>>gives you the right to objectively state what is good and bad in music.

>>>Nor do I!  I state it within a context, one I take great pains to
>>>announce as clearly as possible.

>>Well, you should be in greater pain then! As I recall your first criticisms
>>more or less labelled the L.O. as dross with virtually no qualifications.

>A judgment by which I stand.  

>But look around you!  There's *plenty* of dross!  And plenty of people
>enjoying it!  Unless we give up  ALL critical approaches to art, we're
>going to call something dross now and then.  

On the contrary, it's when you DO start giving up a critical approach that
you begin to  label things as dross.

>And when the circumstances of the piece/event are so obviously unrelated
>to the normal way in which a musical work is brought before the public,
>and especially those aspects which have to do with the qualities of the
>work, how disingenuous it would be *not* to comment on the historical
>and commercial and promotional peculiarities of the work!

Comment, yes, but not use as the whole basis for assessment.

>>>>>But the piece wasn't PRESENTED as such: it was given us as a
>>>>>breakthrough, a major work, the musical event of the year.  You seem to
>>>>>want things both ways.

>>>>I think you're capable of modifying your opinions accordingly. I don't
>>>>want things both ways - it just seems to me that you're criticising the
>>>>music and the promotion in the same mouthful. I think the two are separable.

>>>And I, having devoted a good deal of study to just this matter with
>>>reference to the last two centuries of music, have come to the opposite
>>>conclusion. The very invention of a canon of "Classical" music -- there
>>>was none before the early 19th C -- meansthat music and its promotion,
>>>its cachet, its presumed historical and cultural significance, are less
>>>and less separable.

>>What is observed to occur, in turn, may not be separable from the methods
>>used for observation, as atomic physicists know....

>Been jamming with Schroedinger and his Cool Cats again, eh?  To trump
>your ace, Ace, let me point out that in matters of art, the thing being
>observed also tends to dictate the manner of observation, to a great
>degree.

Of course, in what field doesn't it? Do art historians not sometimes need to
be wary of tailoring their observations to suit their thesis, though?

>>It's still ONLY your opinion, and I respect it as such. 
>>There are probably eminent musicologists who would beg to differ here.

>Well, I have yet to meet one who actually likes it.  Many (and some
>non-eminent ones such as Y.T.) will merely find it a wonderful example
>of how the "Classical Music" idea has mutated into something that has to
>live entirely in the musical past, or at least wear a cloak of the past
>that's so thick, and so impenetrable, and so undistinguished in any way
>but being past-like that anything that *is* inside is unlikely to see
>the light of day.

Well, I don't know how eminent the reviewer is in 'Chorus!' magazine, but
he has an approach to the work, far more in line with what I regard as
reasonable, and I get the impression that he's actively looked for positive
aspects of the work, rather than becoming bogged down with cynicism before
even hearing it.

Martin Watts.
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical