|
Post by ahinton on Sept 25, 2013 4:41:50 GMT -5
Once again, I can only offer you, ahinton, and everyone reading ' The Third', my full and unreserved apologies. And, once again, there's really no need, you know!...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2013 7:27:51 GMT -5
Music schools say 'give us your money', I wonder why no schools specialising in mathematics and finance exist, or perhaps they do and do not advertise in the proms guide ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2013 14:38:13 GMT -5
Well, you tend to specialise in finance later in your education, Jason! Of course, a background in mathematics helps, as you probably do need to be good with numbers. I did not really study economics, for example, until I became a postgraduate. It is ultimately an applied if not dismal science! As for music, well, I suppose that if you have real talent, it makes sense to start relatively young. Of course, we cannot all be child prodigies, I suspect that I am the precise opposite, a late developer, but such is the nature of the beast!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2013 2:38:43 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2013 1:04:36 GMT -5
I'll content myself with mentioning just a few names at random in the (probably vain) hope that they might encourage such an answer. Joe Venuti (of whom Heifetz spoke highly), George Gershwin (much admired by Schönberg), Art Tatum (much admired by Horowitz and Rachmaninov), Stéphane Grappelli (who worked with Menuhin), Oscar Peterson, Nikolai Kapustin, Richard Rodney Bennett (composer of operas, symphonies et al). Over to you (or not)... Well it is a distasteful task you have set me Mr. H., and the subject is more than a little beneath me; but it may be of assistance if I indicate the thought-processes of sensitive and cultured persons in relation to your question: 1) "Joe" [ sic] Venuti. Never heard of him. Look him up in Grove's. Not there. Almost certain amercian, and unworthy of any further consideration. 2) Gherkschwipe. Heavens above! It is indeed my misfortune to have heard of him, but surely these days the name should not be mentioned in polite society. What a welter of degradation! The sort of vulgarity one - figuratively - pokes with a stick. "Much admired by Schönberg" Mr. H. tells us; but is it not clear as day that there Schönberg was "having a laugh" as the phrase goes? Jolly old Schönberg's sarcasm - he was renowned for it was he not! Take Von Heute auf Morgen! Poor old boy; stuck in America all that time. ". . . if it is Art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not Art" he once in more serious vein said. 3) Art Tatum. Never heard of him or her. Look up Grove's, where we find an "Arthur Tatum." Grove's does not say whether he was a negro; should or should not that be a point of interest? Anyway, he too was indubitably an amercian, and therefore I have no further interest. Puffed up nonentity no doubt. 4) Stéphane Grappelli (who worked with Menuhin). I have heard of this one. Menuhin thought it would be a charming novelty to go on the stage together. Not so! It turned out to be the biggest mistake of Menuhin's life, and his reputation never ever recovered. In fact it is not the first time, and will not be the last, that a "child prodigy" in his or her adult life quite suddenly shows a lamentable lapse of taste. Perhaps it is something in the strictness of their youthful training from which they in the end want to escape. Nevertheless no good ever comes from it, as we see in the Menuhin case. Thank goodness Elgar did not live to see it! As for M. Grappelli himself, the less said the better. Grove's does not grant his "e" an accent, and informs us that "his playing remained rooted in the swing idiom and continued to be characterized by his sweet tone." Well that's nice; even Brahms would have appreciated a sweet tone in a performance of his violin sonatas, but - the "swing idiom": what a disgraceful insult to the art of music! 5) Oscar Peterson. Never heard of him, though there is a remarkable Swedish symphonist named Pettersson. Look him up in Grove's. Seems to have been a Canadian negro - are there many such? Another puffed up nonentity, and unworthy of any further consideration. 6) Nikolai Kapustin. Never heard of him. Look him up in Grove's. An Ukrainian. "His work largely belongs to the 'third stream', a stylistic trend associated with experiments to synthesize jazz and more formal music. In the works he wrote during the 1960s there was a perceptible attempt to interpret the traditions of George Gershwin . . . " Ugh - wrong way - go back - enough! "Stylistic trend" - serious music does not deal in "stylistic trends" - they are for charlatans. Serious music is form, melody, harmony, development, and every note significant. Truly musical persons rightly see "jazz" as no more than an impertinence. 7) Richard Rodney Bennett. Why is that "Rodney" thrust upon us? Why not simply Richard Bennett? Or even Richard Rodney-Bennett? Middle names - sign of a pseud - intentional confusion - another impertinence. If we look up William Bennett in Grove's, we read that "Bennett never treated the name Sterndale as part of his surname, though it has been adopted as such by his descendants." That is clear is it not. Sydney Grew the elder was accustomed to write of "Dr. Williams" - and they were acquainted - not of the oh so fashionably ambiguous "Vaughan Williams." There were it is true a number of Vaughans in Williams's history, but they should all correctly have been spelled "Vaughan-Williams" with a hyphen. Fischer-Dieskau is the example to follow here. Anyway I don't know anything of this Bennett, so again I have looked him up in Grove's. In his case "jazz" seems to have been some kind of appalling "hobby" - just as some men enjoy throwing paint at each other, attending horse races, or riding mountain bicycles. Nothing to do with music. "In composition as in performance," Grove's tells us, "he has always insisted on a clear separation between these two fields of endeavour and his concert music yields little evidence of stylistic seepage." A relief that at least. Even Schönberg wrote cabaret items, and they too are of no interest to serious persons. Bennett's "operas and symphonies" then contain no contagion or taint of "jazz," just as Schönberg's operas and chamber symphonies and concertos contain nothing of his many hobbies. Well, all this will have been worth while if only it helps Mr. H. to escape being swallowed up in that sink, never to emerge. (And I am glad to say that I don't think he has ever admitted ever having attempted to write any of the dreadful sneering and cynical stuff himself.)
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 29, 2013 5:55:55 GMT -5
I'll content myself with mentioning just a few names at random in the (probably vain) hope that they might encourage such an answer. Joe Venuti (of whom Heifetz spoke highly), George Gershwin (much admired by Schönberg), Art Tatum (much admired by Horowitz and Rachmaninov), Stéphane Grappelli (who worked with Menuhin), Oscar Peterson, Nikolai Kapustin, Richard Rodney Bennett (composer of operas, symphonies et al). Over to you (or not)... Well it is a distasteful task you have set me Mr. H., and the subject is more than a little beneath me; but it may be of assistance if I indicate the thought-processes of sensitive and cultured persons in relation to your question: 1) "Joe" [ sic] Venuti. Never heard of him. Look him up in Grove's. Not there. Almost certain amercian, and unworthy of any further consideration. 2) Gherkschwipe. Heavens above! It is indeed my misfortune to have heard of him, but surely these days the name should not be mentioned in polite society. What a welter of degradation! The sort of vulgarity one - figuratively - pokes with a stick. "Much admired by Schönberg" Mr. H. tells us; but is it not clear as day that there Schönberg was "having a laugh" as the phrase goes? Jolly old Schönberg's sarcasm - he was renowned for it was he not! Take Von Heute auf Morgen! Poor old boy; stuck in America all that time. ". . . if it is Art, it is not for all, and if it is for all, it is not Art" he once in more serious vein said. 3) Art Tatum. Never heard of him or her. Look up Grove's, where we find an "Arthur Tatum." Grove's does not say whether he was a negro; should or should not that be a point of interest? Anyway, he too was indubitably an amercian, and therefore I have no further interest. Puffed up nonentity no doubt. 4) Stéphane Grappelli (who worked with Menuhin). I have heard of this one. Menuhin thought it would be a charming novelty to go on the stage together. Not so! It turned out to be the biggest mistake of Menuhin's life, and his reputation never ever recovered. In fact it is not the first time, and will not be the last, that a "child prodigy" in his or her adult life quite suddenly shows a lamentable lapse of taste. Perhaps it is something in the strictness of their youthful training from which they in the end want to escape. Nevertheless no good ever comes from it, as we see in the Menuhin case. Thank goodness Elgar did not live to see it! As for M. Grappelli himself, the less said the better. Grove's does not grant his "e" an accent, and informs us that "his playing remained rooted in the swing idiom and continued to be characterized by his sweet tone." Well that's nice; even Brahms would have appreciated a sweet tone in a performance of his violin sonatas, but - the "swing idiom": what a disgraceful insult to the art of music! 5) Oscar Peterson. Never heard of him, though there is a remarkable Swedish symphonist named Pettersson. Look him up in Grove's. Seems to have been a Canadian negro - are there many such? Another puffed up nonentity, and unworthy of any further consideration. 6) Nikolai Kapustin. Never heard of him. Look him up in Grove's. An Ukrainian. "His work largely belongs to the 'third stream', a stylistic trend associated with experiments to synthesize jazz and more formal music. In the works he wrote during the 1960s there was a perceptible attempt to interpret the traditions of George Gershwin . . . " Ugh - wrong way - go back - enough! "Stylistic trend" - serious music does not deal in "stylistic trends" - they are for charlatans. Serious music is form, melody, harmony, development, and every note significant. Truly musical persons rightly see "jazz" as no more than an impertinence. 7) Richard Rodney Bennett. Why is that "Rodney" thrust upon us? Why not simply Richard Bennett? Or even Richard Rodney-Bennett? Middle names - sign of a pseud - intentional confusion - another impertinence. If we look up William Bennett in Grove's, we read that "Bennett never treated the name Sterndale as part of his surname, though it has been adopted as such by his descendants." That is clear is it not. Sydney Grew the elder was accustomed to write of "Dr. Williams" - and they were acquainted - not of the oh so fashionably ambiguous "Vaughan Williams." There were it is true a number of Vaughans in Williams's history, but they should all correctly have been spelled "Vaughan-Williams" with a hyphen. Fischer-Dieskau is the example to follow here. Anyway I don't know anything of this Bennett, so again I have looked him up in Grove's. In his case "jazz" seems to have been some kind of appalling "hobby" - just as some men enjoy throwing paint at each other, attending horse races, or riding mountain bicycles. Nothing to do with music. "In composition as in performance," Grove's tells us, "he has always insisted on a clear separation between these two fields of endeavour and his concert music yields little evidence of stylistic seepage." A relief that at least. Even Schönberg wrote cabaret items, and they too are of no interest to serious persons. Bennett's "operas and symphonies" then contain no contagion or taint of "jazz," just as Schönberg's operas and chamber symphonies and concertos contain nothing of his many hobbies. Well, all this will have been worth while if only it helps Mr. H. to escape being swallowed up in that sink, never to emerge. (And I am glad to say that I don't think he has ever admitted ever having attempted to write any of the dreadful sneering and cynical stuff himself.) Well, your having conducted this exercise should at least have taught you something, though I'm not confident that it has. Four out of seven of these musicians you claim not to have heard of, you deliberately mis-spell a fifth and spend most of your time quibbling about a missing hyphen in a sixth. It is accordingly clear that, as your bald pronouncements on the subject were based on very limited knowledge of some of its practitioners, they are to be accepted accordingly for what they clearly are. Schönberg was not "having a laugh" at Gershwin, as should be ovbvious not only from the evidence of the friendshp and mutual respect but also in the warm and fulsome tribute that he gave to him shortly after his death (you can find a recording of that on YouTube). The two enjoyed playing tennis together and Gershwin wasn't "having a laugh" at Schönberg when he funded the worl première recording of his fourth string quartet just a year or so before he (Gershwin) died. You'd not heard of Art Tatum. Rackmaninov and Horowitz went to hear him play, more than once. Their knowledge would accordingly appear to be gretaer than yours and they, too, knew a thing or three about piano playing. Words (apart from the above) fail me! As to what I write, that's got nothing to do with any of this, any more than has Brahms but, for the record, I understand that some people have detected what they believe to be occasional jazz influences in my piano music but I'm not at all conscious of this apart from a brief passage marked "Quasi Art Tatum" in my Variations and Fugue on a Theme of Grieg.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2013 6:02:59 GMT -5
Perhaps Sydney is feigning ignorance, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 30, 2013 1:53:38 GMT -5
Perhaps Sydney is feigning ignorance, ahinton? Well, one might well hope so - but, if so, why? - and why resort to presenting untruths in the process of so doing (if indeed that is what actually happened in terms of his claims not to have heard of a number of people before looking them up in a lexicon)? This, however, is hardly the point; ignorance of a subject, genuine or feigned, hardly justifies the holding, let alone the presenting, of such trenchant opinions as SG has given here on the subject of jazz.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 2:30:07 GMT -5
. . . the holding . . . of such trenchant opinions as SG has given here on the subject of jazz. But Mr. H. do not forget that they are the opinions of Lord Reith, Percy Scholes, and a host of other discerning men: well-placed and respected authorities whose views easily trump yours! I expect you picked up your own at some music school; such places are notorious for their free and easy atmosphere, where "anything goes." I do sympathize you know because it must be something of a disconcerting shock at last to come up against a set of rigid and well-founded standards.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 30, 2013 6:19:25 GMT -5
. . . the holding . . . of such trenchant opinions as SG has given here on the subject of jazz. But Mr. H. do not forget that they are the opinions of Lord Reith, Percy Scholes, and a host of other discerning men: well-placed and respected authorities whose views easily trump yours! Whether or not any of those two people's views might "trump" mine, I was not only not playing a hand of cards but also not expressing a view; I merely commented on and questioned the view that you had expressed. John Reith has been dead for more than 40 years and his fascistic "views" on other matters are hardly likely to endear many people to his other views these days, let alone mark him out as "discerning"; Percy Scholes died 55 years ago and, at least as a lexicographer (the profession in which he was best known), his principal duty was less to express "views" than to present facts. Who in any case is to say that these were necessarily "discerning men" in all particulars and on what grounds? Why and on what basis should any of their opinions necessarily be regarded (and by whom) as more "discerning" than those of Rachmaninov, Horowitz, Schönberg, Krenek, Carter et al? I expect you picked up your own at some music school; such places are notorious for their free and easy atmosphere, where "anything goes." I do sympathize you know because it must be something of a disconcerting shock at last to come up against a set of rigid and well-founded standards. You have - and indeed can expect to have - no idea where, when, why or how I "picked up" or formed any views on anything, since you do not know me personally, may not be acquainted with any or much of my work, know nothing of my music education and once again ignore the salient fact that I was not expressing "views" in the first place but responding to yours! Your "sympathy" is thus unnecessarily expressed and misplaced on this occasion. I don't know about "rigid" standards but have certainly noted the ample rigidity of some of your views; as to "well-founded" ones, consider for a moment those about which Schönberg wrote copiously in his Stil und Gedanke (with its massive chapter Brahms the Progressive) and upon which so much of his teaching was based and then remember how highly he thought of Gershwin; remember also that the young Elliott Carter, who enjoyed some of the jazz around him in the 1920s (as well as admiring and befriending at the same time such luminaries as Ives and Varèse), sat next to Gershwin at the US première of Wozzeck by another composer who much admired Gershwin, of whom Ravel also thought highly. You account for jazz composition and performance as a mere hobby of Richard Rodney Bennett purely because jazz is not found in his stage and symphonic works; RRB himself would not have found these things incompatible (although I imagine that he must be the only Boulez student who sang and played jazz!). Krenek was not a jazz performer and jazz is to be found very rarely in his vast output but Jonny Spielt Auf was still his work! Gershwin, as I mentioned earlier, admired Schönberg enough to fund the first recording of his Fourth String Quartet. The problem with your view is that its sheer rigidity brooks no possibility that anyone might confortably inhabit the worlds of jazz and of "Western classical music". Why not just accept that you deplore all jazz (a view to which you are of course as entitled as are those who disagree with you to their contrary ones) and leave it at that?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 6:47:12 GMT -5
I am enjoying mixing radio 3 with a selection of my own cds, variety is indeed the spice of life !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 9:46:46 GMT -5
I suppose that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom (UK) would never listen to BBC Radio 3, Jason, so the Radio 3 (R3) schedule is totally irrelevant to almost everyone. The majority of UK Classical Music listeners prefer Classic FM to R3, probably by a ratio of 3:1 (6 million listeners: 2 million listeners), so R3 is clearly minority taste. I occasionally listen to Classic FM and CDs, too, Jason, although I tend to prefer the unique combination of classical, jazz and world music and speech programmes broadcast by R3. I also realise that different genres of music and speech attract very different audiences anyway, so it is unsurprising that Sydney would listen to classical music in preference to jazz, for example. Of course, it is easy to dismiss the music we don't like, which is why most people dismiss R3 in the first place. And Guidobaldo, when he made that mirror-school of courtesies, where wit and beauty learned their trade upon Urbino's windy hill, had sent no runners to and fro that he might learn the shepherds' will?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 30, 2013 11:34:52 GMT -5
also realise that different genres of music and speech attract very different audiences anyway, so it is unsurprising that Sydney would listen to classical music in preference to jazz, for example. Of course, it is easy to dismiss the music we don't like, which is why most people dismiss R3 in the first place. But far more people simply don't listen to Radio 3 because they don't think it offers what they think that want to listen to than actually actively dismiss it. Of course it's unsurprising as well as unproblematic that Sydney prefers to listen to "Western classical music" than jazz, but that makes his remarks on jazz noe more excusable than damning comment about "Western classic music" from those who merely think that they dislike what they believe it to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 11:44:09 GMT -5
Out of interest, ahinton, what pop music do you like?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Sept 30, 2013 12:53:35 GMT -5
Out of interest, ahinton, what pop music do you like? None that I can think of; I wonder why you'd be interested, though...
|
|