[kevmusic]

I have long accepted the dearth of actual humour at the heart of current British 'comedy' - "Little Britain" and the like - as symptomatic of a society which is just getting dumber and dumber; but I didn't think serious music would be getting that way too.

Now one of my pupils has gone a bundle on a particular pianist whose work he's heard on youtube. I sought this guy out and I was depressed. The pianist is George Winston, and his music, which a lot of people really like, I find to be dreary, repetitious and of no depth whatsoever. My pupil has now bought an album of his and he's learning 'Bamboo', an alleged set of variations on a theme. The theme is two bars of pentatonic melody with two-chord harmony. And that's it. There are no variations; just plain repetition with barely perceptible changes to the texture.

I've heard quite a bit of this stuff with a few simple chords, a melody chucked on top - the whole thing being mildy attractive - and then repeated ad nauseam for about fifteen minutes; but I just consigned it to the kind of audience that listens to it with their latte and paninis, while laughing hysterically at 'Little Britain'........................then I heard some on Radio 3. The elements were all there: bland chords, banal melody, vacuous repetition....

I was in too much shock to get the name of the composer, or why he was on the R3 playlist (if any reason was given) but why? Are we going down the route of having across-the-board mediocrity feted at the highest levels?

[Jim and Pat Dalton]

I guess in this stressed out more/now world people like a bit of mediocrity and don't want to think sometimes.

I guess also that with R3's audience, they feel are having to compete with a radio station that has nearly 3 times the number of listeners. They may also be under pressure from some committee to appeal to a bigger audience (after all its the bigger audience that pays them)

Anyway, If your student doesn't explore every avenue how can you expect him to appreciate what he is learning. Most people have to be a prat at some stage....I know, hopefully I'll pull out of it before I die.

Whilst writing this,I listened to this guy on you tube (Thanksgiving and Carol of the Bells). I can see why people like him, Pleasant no brainer stuff; just like the Beatles were to pop. I happen to quite like Einaudi for the same reasons (doesn't mean I don't like lots of other stuff tho. My piano teacher used Einaudi to get me to explore more (currently learning some Kuhlau for grade 5) and it was(is) good to play his stuff.

If it gets people listening, then perhaps instead people like yourself despairing and being in shock,I would be better to grab it and start being more positive. Buy yourself a Latte. sit down and say its wonderful and then guide him to what is. I used to call it "left footing" when I was running projects with people who could have an independent opinion beyond what the Sunday papers told them to think on board.


Jim


Jim

[Steve D]

I went to hear Philip Glass perform some of his own music, a week or so ago.

I also found that banal and repetitive. He has this sort of musical 'tic', (some might call it a signature motif, me I found it profoundly irritating) where he plays a rocking chord on a major or minor triad. But he does it all the bluddy time.

He played pieces from the '60s and '70s, as well as more recent stuff (his etudes). The etudes were more varied than the earlier stuff, so there was an obvious element of progression there, but that same rocking chord motif still prevailed.

I went, excited to hear a world-famous composer performing his own music in a small, fairly intimate venue.

I left, having learned something, I think. The emperor wasn't naked, but I think he shops at Primark.

Still miles better than Michael Nyman, though...

[Pianorak]

Driving along and listening to R3 - and missing the beginning - an uncharitable thought occurred: What on earth is this doing on R3? Went through the usual suspects: Einaudi, Nyman? - hmmm, no - but who the heck was it! Turned out to be Philip Glass. Another composer one is supposed to like but certainly does not. Primark indeed - although at the price . . .

[Morley]

Reminds me a bit of Mike Oldfield. I wasnt a fan of him but I cant really get up any strong emptions about it.

I can see why people like it. To describe it as vaculous is a bit harsh. Bland and banal, although rather extreme terms, are probably what he intends to do. Rather like a fiff in pop music.

The Stones "Satisfaction" has a "bland banal and repetetive" series of 8 notes. A A, A B C, C C, B and so on throughout each verse (or chorus and verse, it spans the two). It's a great song though, one of the most exciting pop songs from that decade.

Its all about the rhythm which some officianados of classical think is a nasty little thing. I am thinking of Orff's Carmina Burana which has drums and rhythm and involves the orchestra and choir in a very unorthodox way. Not banal though but still heavily criticised at the time and still is.

[DRJADewar]

One certainly does not think rhythm is "... a nasty little thing." A precise appreciation of rhythm is vital to music-making, together with an appreciation of its effects, on construction, on phrasing, etc..

My own musical education started with strict harmony and counterpoint, especially fugue and so on. To be without a (growing) sense of rhythm at that point would have been a great handicap. It would be even more of a handicap now as an instrumentalist and conductor.

[Morley]

One wasnt referring to one so one should get so defensive should one?

[DRJADewar]

Sorry, one (I) thought it was normal in speech, so used it here!

I suppose I would be what could be called an afficionado of Radio 3 because I never listen to any other station*. However, I don't like its seemingly head long rush into "dumbing down", and hastily deploy the "Off" switch when the chat becomes banal or seems to pander to the ignorant. I preferred the good old "Third Programme". I didn't only listen to it for music, but also for the erudite lectures and talks available. I'd go so far as to say that it was that stimulus more than others which set me on a path to a triple career. (Though note, not a triple salary or stipend!)


* The one thing about the knobs and gadgets in the car which I have learnt to do is to set all the selector buttons on the radio to Radio 3, so a 'stab in the dark' is more likely than not to produce something listenable. Even though it often conforms to the Radio 3 stereotype of one always selecting it when they are broadcasting a silence between movements. (Much better that than applause, though!)

[Morley]

Dumbing down and pandering to the ignorant is, again, strong language. As one gets older (see, not the first person for a reason as I include everyone) tastes change and generally they get narrower. I am not surprised you dont like R3 as much as you did. My in laws dont like all that punk and Jonothan Ross on R2 and would prefer some nice Tony Bennett but the demographic is set for each station and as we get older we leave one and enter another. I have suggested Smooth to them and they like it. There is nothing wrong with that music and only a snob would say there is. If one doesnt like it, one probably doesnt understand it. (its good all this oneing innit)

May I suggest R4 as your araldited station with R3 on standby if it gets too lefty or you miss the music?

[DRJADewar]

I used to have Radio 4 on sometimes, but it has 'gone off' a bit. Just a personal perception, I know. I, and Mrs DRJAD, now find that silence (also known, in the car, as the roar of the tyres on the road) is preferable to searching the airwaves.

Over the years, in that portion of life which concerns music, I've tried to gain as much knowledge and experience as possible of what is loosely called "classical" or serious music. Though I know that 'popular' music exists (to use that equally loose term), and has many subdivisions, I have no experience of it. In other words, I would not know where to start. If I recall correctly, the Beatles were popular in the mid-sixties? But I did not knowingly hear any of their oeuvre, and would not, I suspect, recognise any. I'm aware that tastes and enthusiasms change, so I imagine that their output is rather "old hat" nowadays. I suspect the nearest I ever got to popular music was playing in a recording session once which included the "Desert Island Discs" theme for re-recording - and then I only recognised it after the slow introduction!

In any endeavour, in my personal experience, whether it be music, or the other aspects of learning in which I have engaged, the impetus for acquiring knowledge, understanding, and the ability to take it further, has only come when a traction has been exerted by exposure to superior learning. This is why I have such fond memories of those lectures and talks on the Third Programme which were at the time over my head, but exerted that traction - making me want to acquire the understanding which could take me further. It was the obvious erudition displayed, unapologetically, and without talking down to the audience, which was so impressive.

So, all in all, my musical tastes incline, and my musical experience inclines, towards the serious - and there is a lot in the "classical" repertoire which seems banal. Often music which has been written to order - though there is also a great deal of music, written to order, which is fine, inventive, and, crucially, engages the intellect on many levels. In thinking this through, then, I share the view that each piece of music, in whatever genre one specialises, has to be taken, considered, and judged on its own merits.

[kevmusic]

Thought I'd re-visit this thread as I consciously heard some Philip Glass (for the first time) the other day. Not only was the same chord sequence repeated over and over but what was that chord sequence?..... I - VI - IV - V, I - VI - IV - V, I - VI - IV - V, ad infinitum! Aaaargh!!!

[Rupert S]

Something I found repetitive but certainly not boring and banal was Steve Reich's Different Trains. It kind of reminds me of a lot of Shostakovich. A fantastic piece!

I'm not sure of the composer mentioned in this thread but he sounds like that Ludovico Einaudi chap who just doesn't do it for me. Sounds like a 12 year old with half a lesson in classical harmony sitting at a piano whose pedals he can finally reach. Bah.

[Keef]

Interesting! Same thoughts have been meandering through my brain.
I have similar reaction to Gorecki and that "symphony" that was all the rage about ten years ago.

Curiously, Ravel's Bolero doesn't strike me the same way - maybe it's thinking of a certain film...

[Rupert S]

I love Ravel, but always heave a sigh of pain when I sit down in a concert to discover that I'll have to sit through Bolero.

[Steve D]

Repetitiveness can, when done well, lead to a build-up of tension - as the Bolero shows to very good effect.

Repetitiveness can also be compelling even without a build-up of tension, I agree with Rupert, Steve Reich is repetitive, but far, far more satisfying than much of Philip Glass or Einaudi which are, on the face of it, somewhat less repetitive. I'd suggest that is a reasonable measure of their relative musical merits.

Sorry, Keef, I disagree with you about Gorecki. It has a certain quality which I also perceive in, say, Barber's Adagio for strings, or much of Arvo Part's music.

DRAJD, I'm slightly shocked that you, as a musician, profess to know nothing of popular music, to the extent that you have not knowingly heard the Beatles. I don't know you, so forgive me if I misunderstood. Given the fuss over their recent remastered reissues, I have to dispute that they have lost relevance or currency. I can accept that a serious musician would have no truck with, say, Britney Spears or Boyzone, but no knowledge of the Beatles? A bit like a literature scholar knowing Jane Austen by heart, but not having read a word of Orwell, or Umberto Eco?

I realise your comments were not pejorative, you just have no experience of popular music and no desire to acquire any. I do think you have missed something interesting and vital as a result, however.