From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Liverpool Oratorio - McCartney & Davis
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:42:41 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) writes:

>In article <1992Jul21.111423.5246@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>, ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes:

>> A verbal definition is a definition in terms of other words such as you might
>> find in a dictionary. A purely verbal definition is one which is defined
>> purely in terms of other words (such as one might find in a dictionary) and
>> not acquired ostensively. The Liverpool Oratorio comes within most verbal
>> definitions of Oratorio, whilst being very different from what people expect.

>Ah, do you mean then that they might have called it an 
>oratorio without reference to the historical examples
>of that genre?  I was perhaps thrown by your unfamiliar 
>usage of "ostensive".

Sorry to have thrown you, although I'd have thought the word had a
sufficiently narrow range of definitions to be unambiguous in this context.
In answer to your question, I was merely pointing out this possibility,
with no comment as to its likelihood.

>  Given Davis's background, doesn't 
>that seem unlikely though?

Yes.

>  It seems to me that at least
>one of the two of them would have known quite well what
>sort of expectations would be raised by such a name.  And
>in what sense, from a purely verbal point of view, is the
>Liverpool lad's story to be considered sacred?

The dictionaries I have available for consultation here, by my desk, define
an oratorio to be 'usually of a religious nature', so the Liverpool Oratorio
is not in violation of this definition. But all I'm trying to say is that
whatever associations you have with the word "oratorio" they are not going
to be identical to those of other people, so ultimately the only criticism
you can have of someone naming a composition "oratorio" is that it doesn't
fall within the bounds of a reliable verbal definition. As a consequence of
this the prejudices (NOT in a pejorative sense) that you have as a result
of a work's title are best set aside since they are not really useful ones.

>>>> 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?

>>>Given the financial situation that many orchestras find
>>>themselves in lately, I would expect them to grit their
>>>collective teeth and play it anyway.  

>> I meant McCartney and Davis.

>Ah, again.  I misunderstood.  

I apologise - I *was* ambiguous here.

>But given his background, we might
>not expect McCartney to be able to make an informed judgement on
>the worthiness of the piece in the "classical" arena to which he
>has come only lately.  

Not necessarily a bad thing. And yet I still haven't heard McCartney
himself refer to the work as a 'classical' one. Does anyone have a reliable
quote?

>And we can make at least a plausible case
>that Davis might have other motives, unrelated to the quality,
>for seeing the work produced.  His is a no-lose situation.  If
>the piece is bad, then he was just the arranger.  But if it's
>good, then he can share in the glory.  But either way, he
>becomes an instant international celebrity.  So, even if it is
>utter dreck, what path of reasoning leads them to NOT produce it?

Well, Davis does have a reputation of sorts and I'm sure he wouldn't
have wanted to tarnish it unnecessarily, but your reasoning is pretty
sound. But do we really have to assume the worst? - you've essentially
explained why a wide range of different circumstances leaves us unable
to tell the difference in the end. If you formed this impression before
you heard the piece then you might well have disliked it, regardless of 
the music's quality.

Martin Watts.