Brass Band Logo

NJH Music Logo

Some of the contents of the pages on this site are Copyright © 2016 NJH Music
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Musical snobbery (was Re: Songs for BL)

D.LANCASTER@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Peter (Monkey) wrote:
>
> > D.LANCASTER@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > > Surely art (sorry, Art) works on a number of levels and the more you
> > > listen to a piece of music the more those deeper levels are revealed.  The
> > > reason I enjoy a work such as Paganini Variations, for example, is because
> > > every time I listen to it I can find something new.
> >
> > But nevertheless, you like listening to it beacuase it is pleasant on the ear.
>
> Initially perhaps, but that's only one aspect of it.  I expect more
> from music than 'just being pleasant on the ear', I want it to
> express something and possibly even to challenge my expectations.

Isn't that what I described about emotions and painting pictures created by perception?

> I don't have a problem with elephants!  I've heard it said that beauty is in
> the eye of the beholder so if my eyes (or ears) tell me that something
> is art, I trust them.

So does that mean you wouldn't be embarrassed admitting that you thought the painting
was wonderful then finding out it was painted by the elephant?

> > > More commercial music (pop, musicals, Edrich Seibert arrangements
> > > etc.) is intended to be more immediately accessible so generally speaking
> > > doesn't have so many layers to grasp.  It is less complex and more
> > > likely to drive you insane after four or five hearings.
> >
> > I disagree. It is the 'clever' stuff that drives me insane - not Siebert etc.
> >
> I don't see why a contemporary work such as BL is any more 'clever'
> (I presume you use the word in a pejorative sense)

Dont know - don't know what it means!

> than any other
> piece of serious music.  I enjoy Grimethorpe Aria not because it is
> clever - it is a fairly straightforward statement in many respects -
> I simply enjoy the sounds.

Mmmm...........sounds is a very important word I think there Dave. I would go so far as
to say that sound and music are two very different things. (I know that music is defined
by 'organised sound' BTW)

> > The word 'little' seems to be very appropriate. A great in depth knowledge is not
> > required. Therefore - good music!
>
> I think (and hope) that you can enjoy good music whether you have a
> considerable degree of knowledge or none.

Agreed !

>   >  If some
> > > musicians choose to delve further to try to discover what makes
> > > music tick, or what binds those layers of meaning together it doesn't
> > > necessarily follow that they are being snobbish or trying to get one
> > > over on everyone else - perhaps they are just curious.
> >
> > Maybe - but how can you call John Cage's 'Silence' music for example?
>
> Why bring JC into it?

Why not?

>  If I enjoy a piece of music I might go and
> look at a score to find out more about it.  Cameron says I'm being
> snobbish.  I say "no Cameron, knowing more adds to my enjoyment".

I agree with your last comment. I have a personal 'fetish' for chord sequences and often
delve to find more. I wouldn't say that it helps me enjoy the music more though. I would
be enjoying anyway if I was listening. Just curious I suppose.

> Actually I perform 4'33" every year with my first year students!  It may
> not be everyone's cup of tea but at least it makes them ask the question
> for themselves: 'is this music and if not, why not?'  Sometimes it
> works really well!!!   ( And isn't it interesting that Eric Ball borrowed
> small sections of it to use in Resurgam...).

I hope that's a TIC remark Dave!

> > > Actually, and being fairly honest, I must confess that I didn't enjoy
> > > Songs for BL very much but not because it was too modern - I just
> > > didn't find the musical ideas particularly interesting.
> >
> > What ideas? I didn't know therre were any. Other than the soprano bit that goes
> > like 'What a load of rubbish.....'
>
> Yes...that's the bit I remember too...but didn't he talk about a
> march and a scherzo?  I'm not going to try to defend BL - as I said,
> I didn't enjoy it so much either.
>
>  (Elgar
> > > Howarth is a brilliant musician - formerly a great trumpet player and
> > > now a genius with the baton, but outside the band movement he isn't
> > > known as a composer...)
>
> > Why not?
>
> Good question!  I did enjoy Fireworks - in my opinion he's at his best when
> he has a clear model - in the case of Fireworks it was Benjamin
> Britten;  by his own admission BL was more of a personal statement.
> I don't blame Elgar Howarth for writing it but since we have so many
> brilliant composers around at the moment (I seem to remember that
> Alec G mailed a 'wish list' of names a few months ago) I would like to see those
> responsible for commissioning test pieces looking further afield and
> requesting music from someone who is first and foremost a composer...

Interesting point.

> > Each to their own as said before. But if I were you - i'd start taking 2 tablets a
> > day!!!
> >
> Just the two???
>
> > :-)
> >
> Thanks for the discussion;

no worries - good fun.

> I'd buy you a beer if I could afford the
> air fare.

Pretty cheap I believe these days!

Monkey


--
unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help' to
listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Services] [Contact Us] [Advertise with us] [About] [Tell a friend about us] [Copyright © 2016 NJH Music]