From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Grounds for criticism (was: Liverpool Oratorio)
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:53:51 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

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

>In article <1992Jul21.154344.22876@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> 
>ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes:
>>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:

>>>>>  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.

>But what do we do when we have clear evidence that the composer or the
>performer was making a reference to, or otherwise patching into, one of
>the things you've chosen to ignore? What does that do to the value, or,
>of you will, the location of your criticism?

When you DO have clear evidence of a fact, you assimilate it subconsciously
and modify your MUSICAL opinions accordingly. The value of your criticisms
are then high, assuming you're able to articulate them, and their location,
relevant.

But the only clear evidence that you have here of McCartney aspiring to write
a classical oratorio is that it calls itself an "Oratorio", and as I've tried
to elucidate, I really don't think that constitutes sufficient grounds because
the work quite legitimately falls within the boundaries of verbal definitions
of the term. The music itself does not make enough reference to more orthodox
oratorios for people, generally, to be struck by the allusions and consequently
this cannot be regarded as clear evidence either. Assuming you're addressing
a general audience then, the value of criticisms on these grounds is very
limited, and their location somewhere in the region of 'irrelevant', as far
as most are concerned.

>>>>>>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.

>Very good.  Have a cookie.  Now tell me what this has to do with
>Beethoven's place in our muiscal culture, especially the part that
>relates to the writing and playing of symphonies, and the things we
>think of when listening to them or discussing them.

Well, Beethoven presumably was impressed with the potential of symphonic
form after seeing how Haydn and Mozart had developed it. I don't really
think the steps that Beethoven took in developing the actual *form*
were really so much more revolutionary than those of the earlier classical
composers, because it is very much within the context of just a pure sonata
archetype that I listen to Beethoven's symphonies, and this is a form which
solidified in the hands of just such composers. Of course, Beethoven
made plenty of formal innovations of his own (what great composer hasn't?)
but it's chiefly as deviations from sonata form that they are interesting.

Beethoven's symphonies then, to me, do not provide a very useful context in
which to listen to later symphonies, no more so than Haydn's anyway. Indeed,
to try to listen to any of Sibelius' or Nielsen's symphonies, for example, in
the context of any classical symphony is a hindrance to enjoyment because,
formally, they differ too much. (Indeed, given your emphasis on conformity
in the more well-established classical forms, I can quite imagine you giving
a fairly disparaging reception to say, Sibelius 5th on a first hearing).

Beethoven's place in our musical culture is thus guaranteed by his reputation
as an example of what can be achieved in the way of making use of, and 
developing, a given form, and Haydn should be awarded a place on the same 
grounds, in addition to unconsciously helping to establish an archetype for
Beethoven to work with, in the same way that Haydn was provided with archetypes
by *his* predecessors.

>Haydn has very little to do with the cultural siginificance of the
>symphony.

Only if you're daft enough to start drawing arbitrary lines roundabout 1803!

>>>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. 

>No, it's an analogy to the point: we consider music in relationship to
>other music, whether there are direct references or allusions in the
>music or not, and whether or not there are references in the title,
>program, etc.

I've never claimed that we don't, but the archetypes which govern our reactions
to something like the Liverpool Oratorio are so firmly entrenched in our sub-
conscious that some musicologists tend to get rather flustered on account of not
being able to pigeon-hole it in the usual way.

>>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.

>And that's a *terrible* analogy.  For one thing, listening to music is
>not much like understanding a theorem (for most people; I can't speak
>for Yoder, mind you);

Well, I have to differ there - I certainly find *appreciating* music a very
similar experience to appreciating a mathematical theorem, though both
reactions are inexplicable verbally. 

> for another, understanding a theorem, or an entire
>branch of mathematics, is ofte naided quite a bit by understanding the
>class of real-world problems it's used for.  An understanding of
>turn-of-the-century physics will indeed make tensor calculus make more
>sense, even if the proofs of the theorems are no less easy for it.

So, it's not such a bad analogy after all then? And, yes, sometimes an
understanding is aided, but there are still those who require no such
physical backdrop, as there are those who don't feel a necessity to know
all that much about musical history to have a critical ear.

>Now, let's revise your sentence a bit: for "An appreciation of the
>historical context in which the music is composed," let's substitute
>"performed" for "composed."  I think it's pretty obvious that
>appreciation of the piece you're listening to is very much tempered by
>an understanding of why you're sitting there the way you are, listening
>to this piece and not some other piece -- especially when the piece was
>written 200 years ago or more, in another country.

Roger. Do you ever get the impression that we're bashing our heads against
opposite sides of the same brick wall? OF COURSE our appreciation is tempered
by consideration of these factors if we trouble to study them, but many of us
don't, and consequently develop different critical approaches to music, which
are no less valuable for being different.

(I'm honoured to have my sentence revised - it's a pity it doesn't make sense
any more.)

>>>>>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.

>And this "earlier material" includes quite a bit of material from
>outside the symphony itself!

Maybe; that doesn't alter anything though.

>>>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.

>Well, mine are a lot like Reinhold Brinkmann's, which are published in
>German in _Musik-Konzepte_ # 70, and which will appear in English next
>year, assuming I meet my deadline.  Harvard UP.

Hark! Do I hear a trumpet?   ;-)

>>>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.

>Indeed, one might do well without that, and enjoy the piece.  But if one
>wishes to assume that the composer meant something by the piece, and
>meant for his audience to hear that something and understand it, then
>one must have some appreciation for the context in which the piece was
>written and performed.  Of the expectation that Brahms would produce the
>first truly great symphony since Beethoven.  Of Brahms' 20-year attempt
>to deal with this burden.  Of his deep understanding of Schumann's and
>Schubert's contribution to the form (and allied forms -- cf. the end of
>the C major Quintet by Schubert and the end of the symphony...).  Of his
>ambivalence about the choral finale of the Ninth, which is expressed
>quite well in the movement -- the big theme does an impressive
>disappearing act.  Of his inversion of the beginning of the finale --
>the slow movements looks forward, not back.

But what does music ever really mean? Why do you insist on a verbal recog-
nition of all that the music is trying to achieve? Why not give up music
altogether and concentrate on literature instead? The main purposes of
Brahms' first symphony can be recognised by anybody who isn't tone deaf
providing they devote the necessary time to it. Plenty of the most musical
people I know have a very limited understanding of musical form or history,
but I can still respect their criticisms of music. The points you mention
about its development are really trifling, and are only emphasised by 
musicologists for the sake of a smug sense of self-satisfied superiority.

So what is the purpose of the main theme fading away when considered in
connection with Beethoven's 9th - is this great man, Brahms, who's been
intimidated from having a stab at writing his own symphony for (rather longer
than) 20 years by just this work now saying he doesn't think much of it's
most striking feature?

>The fact of the matter is quite simply that you DO have some
>understanding of some of the contextual issues if you can make your way
>through a complicated piece like that.  You know something about form,
>about the sounds of the orchestra, about Romantic styles, and so on.
>You may not have read them in a book, but you've picked them up via the
>exposure to music that all of us receive in varying quantities.

Well, that may be partially true, but then only with the proviso that
your view of what constitutes 'knowledge' of these things has nothing to
do with the English (or any other spoken) language. But I'm not at all
convinced that it wouldn't be possible to derive all of the salient messages
in Brahms' 1st Symphony from exposure to this work alone. It isn't
particularly formally complex, his orchestration is totally different from
Beethoven's, and my reactions to its harmonic progressions are very similar
to reactions to similar progressions in pre-classical music. 

A knowledge of circumstances surrounding a work's creation influences
my reactions to a small extent, but not always in a way that I consider
beneficial. In no case is this knowledge more irrelevant than in listening
to a Bach instrumental work, where details of the composer's situation at
the time can, in fact, seem to lessen the work's importance. The same applies
to Wagner (as I know it does for many others) and I don't see why it should
be different for composers in between.

>>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.

>"The melody is great enough to stand on its own merits; and our
>attention is distracted if we notice that its most complex phrase
>alludes to a simple figure in an older classic.  So let us forget this
>allusion."  (Tovey, _Essays in Musical Analysis_, I, 92-95.  Oxford,
>1935.)

>TRANSLATION: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

Well, quite!  You aren't supposed to pay attention to the man behind the
curtain, in a literal sense.

>Now, of course, Tovey is paying special care to ignore the obvious
>elsewhere as well.  He refers to the alphorn theme as a "Bell-theme,"
>making much fuss about Crotch and Cambridge, but doesn't notice that
>bells rarely peal with a Scotch snap.

Do you really think he didn't notice? And is 'alphorn' really that much more
apt? After all, apart from the third section of this phrase, the horn imitates
identically the pitch progression of Big Ben. I think he was probably using
it more as a label, rather than expecting you to see an allusion to London
here, but it does illustrate that what's obvious about music is a very
personal thing.

> He also doesn't note the
>resemblance of the beginning of this tune to the beginning of the second
>subject.  He further ignores the absence of a recapitulation of the main
>theme (though he does note that it appears at the beginning of the
>development -- but here he speaks of rondo, instead of a feint at a
>repeat of the exposition).  Otherwise, he merely talks us through the
>score, ignoring the clear references to at least two other pieces (the
>Quintet mentioned above and Schumann's Second) and not even pausing to
>consider *why* Brahms might have done the formally weird things he did
>here, formal peculiarities far more pronounced than those in the other
>movements.

Maybe he thinks the music 'speaks for itself, most eloquently'?

>But, no matter how hard one ignores the resemblance, the question
>remains: why would Brahms DO that?  If asked about the resemblance, he
>would certainly have replied as he did wrt the Piano Sonata, Op. 1 and
>its relationship to hte Hammerklavier Sonata: "Any ass can see that."  So
>why SHOULDN'T we think about it, as we obviously should both here and in
>Op. 1?  We should, and must.  We lie to ourselves if we pretend it isn't
>there, and that the melody "stands on its own merits."  If Brahms had
>wanted one that did that, he'd have written one that didn't point
>elsewhere as hard as this one does.

You needn't always talk in the plural - I, for one, am making no pretense
if I say to myself that Beethoven's 9th rarely crosses my mind as I listen
to Brahms' 1st. There's obviously no reason why you shouldn't address these
points as they occur to you, but to dictate that WE must is pompous.

>>>>>"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!

>Do you buy tickets subconsciously?  CDs?  Are concert programs selected
>that way? Is "classical" music chosen for TV programs and the like on
>such grounds?  I myself am happier when I know *why* someone's messing
>with my subconscious.

The manner in which I actually buy the material goods which enable me to listen
to music is neither here nor there, but I think that ultimately what leads us
to continue to listen to the same music over and over again is probably a 
motive located in the subconscious, yes. I don't spend time listening to
composers like Bach or Brahms because people tell me how clever they are - I
do so because I feel an affinity for their music. I don't spend much time
on, say, Mahler for exactly the opposite reason.

>>>>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?

>Oh, please.  Try a *little* harder to construe what I'm saying.

Then try a little harder to express yourself in a way that is less easy to
misconstrue, preferably without the aid of "quotation marks".

>a) Note the quote marks around "classical music."  When I speak of an
>archetype, I don't mean a piece in its technical details, but rather an
>ideal that is indeed expressed in the Beethoven symphonies.  This is the
>ideal of a piece with lasting value, a piece worthy of preservation
>along with Dante and Shakespeare and Michelangelo.  A piece that
>*everyone* should hear, and hear repeatedly.  A piece that stands for
>history and progress, not only fashion and changing taste.

I don't believe that any such archetype exists. These artists were just
doing the best that they could with their talents and, particularly in the
case of composers, building on the achievements of their predecessors.
Any aspiration towards being remembered was merely a motivation in the same
way that Christianity was in the case of Bach.

>b) Again, with the quote marks, note that the concept of "classical
>music" is indeed newer than the music itself.  Bach wrote for his time,
>and indeed, most of his music was soon forgotten.  All composers before
>him, and almost all in the century after him, wrote for their immediate
>markets and no more; they had little thought of posterity.  (Bach did in
>fact write for posterity, but his goal was to produce a monument to a
>bygone age.)

Just remembered the B-minor Mass in time, eh? Besides, I don't think the
fact that Bach had no ambitions to be remembered means that he wrote music
only for his time, which is a generalisation at best. I would say the
preludes, fugues and fantasias that he wrote were in fact written for ALL
time, which you're just about to tell me is a myth.

>c) Around 1840, a few musicians (notably Mendelssohn, Schumann, and
>Liszt) institutionalized the growing reputation of Beethoven by
>inventing the modern forms of concerts: the symphony concert and the
>solo piano recital.  Their purpose: to play Beethoven's music and
>similarly worthy pieces that "progress" from it.  Liszt also played
>Bach.  This reinterpretation of the past was the moment at which the
>canon was formally founded, and the idea of musical classics entered our
>culture once and for all.

I hope I've made reasonably clear already why I would disagree with this as
a reason why it's relevant to assess music today by such considerations. I
think part of your problem, if I may be so bold, is that you've got hold of
this term 'canon' and you've gone, hook, line, and sinker for all the
simplifications that this term implies.	I really think that to talk of
a 'formal foundation' is meaningless.

>>>>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.

>[apologies -- The Lambeth Walk is from the 30's, of course.]

>>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?

>No, one can indeed enjoy the work without being able to put one's finger
>on this or that.  

>But I think one should be able to do that if one is to write an informed
>critique of the piece! Or even if one wishes to answer obvious questions
>that result from curiosity: WHY the funny instruments on the rock album?
>(This comes right after "Within you, without you", no less!  What a
>putdown of George's pomposity--dancing around with a domestic little
>ditty right after the sitars and tablas and whining profundities.  Come
>to think of it, it's *followed* by yet another music-hall item, albeit a
>much more perverse one: Lovely Rita.  Echoes of Lucy in the Sky, then
>another little jaunty tune.  Only the polymeters of "Good Morning" break
>the mood.)  WHY the explicit references to music hall?  You may sit back
>and enjoy, but as soon as the music makes you sit up and wonder, it's a
>different matter entirely.

O.K. then, but if the music's a different matter when you try to analyse it,
then who are you writing you critiques for - other musicologists? I think
developing a useful critique of a piece of music consists of being first able
to listen to music with no attempt to verbalise your reactions, and only
subsequently to try to put them into words. It's easy to do this with pop
music because you're likely to hear it first in casual situations, but the
same principle should apply to classical music.

>>>>>>>>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,

>If we don't, we get thrown out!  We don't smoke or eat except at the
>interval, we don't talk or move around much, we dress a certain way.
>All these things are part of the concert-hall mode, and contribute
>mightily to hte atmosphere (and the presence or absence of certain types
>of people in great number).

The reason for these conventions is to avoid distraction from the music, though,
not to draw attention. And personally I don't dress up to go to concerts for
precisely the same reason - very few people do these days.

>>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.

>Well, I've since checked with Keith, and he assures me on the basis of
>having attended lots of concerts in both Manchester and Liverpool that
>in fact the concert hall audiences are pretty much the way I suspected.
>In short, NOT the average Liverpudlians McCartney was presumably writing
>the piece "for."

Unlike you to opt for the short answer where there's a choice! (By the way,
who IS Keith Falconer, and what nationality is he?)

>>>>>>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?

>Produce something that will bring *lasting* attention?  It's worth a
>try.  

I think they did give it a try.

>>>>>>>(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? 

>No, in MY words, "in its own right" is generally (and specifically in
>this case) a smokescreen when the very issue of how and why a thing
>exists is most acute.  In this case, the sound, the shape, the
>production, the performers, are all inextricably bound up with the
>unique historical position of the tunesmith.

The 'how' in this case is 'by a process of collaboration between a pop
musician and a conventional composer'. The 'why' is to 'celebrate the
150th anniversary of the RLPS'. That's all you need to know. The other
considerations are irrelevant to most people since such people are likely
to approach the piece in too many different ways.

>>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... 

>No.  Those "other words" are simply your continued misconstruction.  To
>*criticize* a piece one must ask why and how it was written, and how its
>purposes mesh with, or clash with, the purposes of music like it, music
>which it is clearly written as a part of.

Yes, but only as long as there is, indeed, clear evidence to support your
criticisms.

>>>>>>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?

>They're not inferior -- they're just not particularly critical.  

Very diplomatic!

>>>>>>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!

>No, dead seriousness.  I'd like to meet the people who have actually
>liked the piece as well on close listening #12.

I've no doubt they exist. Sorry for the mistake about irony - you no doubt
know it backwards then?

>>>>>>>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.

>I don't follow.  I labeled the piece as being dross in terms of
>"classical" music and its pretensions to same.  (It's also some of the
>most humorless prose I've ever encountered, now that I've been reading
>the libretto; the Wedding makes "Within You, Without You" seem
>positively witty.)

I was just pointing out that 'dross' and similar terms are not very explanatory
descriptions.

>>>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.

>You've got to start somewhere.  And if there's something blatant about a
>piece, why not start with the blatant bit?   We can't *always* ignore
>the obvious, whether or not Tovey tells us to.

Again, you're not noticing something blatant about the piece itself but about
what I consider to be almost totally unimportant aspects of its promotion.
And Tovey doesn't instruct us to ignore the obvious, but an inspection of
his writings ought to make clear that what's obvious to some, can be
inconsequential to others.

>>>>>>>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?

>So where's the part I've missed?

Dare I say, I think somewhere you might have missed the music itself?

>>>>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.

>Well, I can't answer this one, as Mark edits some of my work.  They
>don't let spouses testify against one another, either, you know... 8-)

And you still let him, after such a liberal exercise in criticism?

Martin Watts.