BBC4 "Symphony" with Simon Russell Beale

[Barbirollians]

I am looking forward to the BBC4 programme - I enjoyed the Sacred Music series presented by Simon Russell Beale - a good musician and probably the best actor of his generation.

[french frank]

There was a press release (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2011/10_october/28/symphony.shtml) with more details last Friday.

[Chris Newman]

Simon Russell Beale does make the prospect extremely enticing. He is very musical as a singer; as endearing as the thought of Dudley Moore and George Solti.

[Caliban]

Have people noticed that Simon Russell Beale is moving from sacred music to considering the development of the Symphony in a 4 part series starting this Thursday at 9pm on BBC4 TV.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016vgw7/episodes/guide

[Roehre]

Have people noticed that Simon Russell Beale is moving from sacred music to considering the development of the Symphony in a 4 part series starting this Thursday at 9pm on BBC4 TV.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016vgw7/episodes/guide

If he presents that Symphony-series the way he did the sacred music ones, it might be good.
We'll wait patiently.

[gamba]

Wot ! no Charles Hazlewood !

[Caliban]

Wot ! no Charles Hazlewood !

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy057.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

[french frank]

Wot ! no Charles Hazlewood !He's just finished a 6-part series of The Charles Hazlewood Show (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015gq5w) on Radio 2. I'm sort of half interested in what connections he makes between Elbow's Lippy Kids and Schnittke's Concerto for Piano and String Orchestra, but not enough to listen to the programme.

(Isn't this Talking About Music rather than Arts and Ideas?)

[Barbirollians]

Not a bad programme but rather odd to see Sir Mark Elder conducting the OAE from the fortepiano. Felt perhaps too much Haydn and too little Mozart . I trust we will be getting the rest of Beethoven next week .

[Bryn]

He's just finished a 6-part series of The Charles Hazlewood Show (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015gq5w) on Radio 2. I'm sort of half interested in what connections he makes between Elbow's Lippy Kids and Schnittke's Concerto for Piano and String Orchestra, but not enough to listen to the programme.

(Isn't this Talking About Music rather than Arts and Ideas?)

Indeed frenchie, which is why I have had so much trouble finding it (the search 'facility' here I find pretty useless) in order to report that the Beeb appear to have changed the coding for iPlayer "Listen Again" offerings on BBC4. They can no longer be captured by programs such as HiDownload Platinum Edition. Indeed, merely trying to watch via the iPlayer while HiDownload is running (even if no attempt is made to save the programme being played back) can crash the latter.

[salymap]

I just wish he would stand still and talk to camera more. It was too early to see Simon talking while approaching the White Cliffs of Dover, and then various diners and London streets.

I shall try again later but I found it difficult to concentrate on the music.

[french frank]

I'm merging this thread with the one on Talking Abiut Music - but keeping the title.

[gingerjon]

Enjoyed the programme although I imagine that if you already had some knowledge on the subject it might have been a little lightweight.

Had the pleasure of being at St Pancras for the BBCSO performance of Ode to Joy as well which SBR introduced.

[Tapiola]

I agree, gingerjon. I found the programme interesting but thought that the explanation of the origins of the symphony was very sketchy. I look forward to the next instalments though.

I also found intriguing the anecdote about Beethoven weeping during an 1808 performance of Haydn's "Creation". I wonder how much of the music he could actually hear.

[Donnie Essen]

Thought it sucked. A man works hard all day, then he tries to better himself through television on a Thursday evening, he wants to learn about the symphony, but all he gets to see is a big excuse to go on a jolly to foreign towns and chef's houses. Too much on the lives, not enough on the form and such, 'cept the most basic mentions. I don't know squat and I still didn't learn nothin'. I liked seeing Mark Elder, though, and I enjoyed the music, but the musical content there woulda filled like a page and half in a music book.

[Pianorak]

I just wish he would stand still and talk to camera more. It was too early to see Simon talking while approaching the White Cliffs of Dover, and then various diners and London streets. . .

Agreed - very irritating camera work - a one-second shot of this - and another one of that, which is what TV does nowadays and one has got to live with it - or not! :sadface:

[ardcarp]

I haven't seen it yet, but I'll bet there's (a) travelling...i.e. shots in car, train or plane...can't they accept that viewers really can grasp the concept of a presenter going to different places without seeing him do it? and (b) talking to camera and then immediately turning and/or walking away. Where has this fad come from?

[Anna]

I thought the programme was OK but, put it this way, if I'd missed half of it I wouldn't bother catching up with the other half on iplayer. Very lightweight, annoying travelogue but interesting snippet about Haydn and food. It picked up once it got to Beethoven and I enjoyed that section the most but overall it needed far more depth.

[Barbirollians]

I tend to agree Anna. This was a much more lightweight programme than the Sacred Music series .

[gurnemanz]

Not really that well done. Perfectly watchable but no major insights and a bit of a ragbag as it had been edited together.

[french frank]

It's been made in association with the Open University and is currently described on the Radio 3 website as 'a radical reappraisal of the history of the symphony in the modern world'. Perhaps this will be on the Sue Perkins-Tom Service programme rather than the TV series?

[BetweenTheStaves]

zzzzz

[french frank]

Re my comment about the Sue Perkins-Tom Service series: the better bet would appear to be SRB's Saturday afternoon outing.

[Angle]

It was pretty enough to watch but it turned out to be rather better if you simply listened. As an introduction to symphonic form, it wasn't half as good as the Early Music Show today.

If the BBC4 offering was Open University Standard, it was much watered down for a general television audience.

Just what the point of SRB appearing in a hard hat atop a concrete roof in London? Yes, another set of expensive jollies for an over-rated presenter.

[Norfolk Born]

Just what the point of SRB appearing in a hard hat atop a concrete roof in London? Yes, another set of expensive jollies for an over-rated presenter.
Perhaps they were going to do a featurette on Britten's 'The Building Of The House', then changed their minds but forgot to tell SRB? Alternatively: perhaps he wears a hard hat in his current onstage manifestation as Uncle Joe Stalin and forgot/refused to take it off when he popped out during the interval for a quick bit of BBC filming.

[MrGongGong]

Just what the point of SRB appearing in a hard hat atop a concrete roof in London? Yes, another set of expensive jollies for an over-rated presenter.
Its TELEVISION
from what I remember about the programme he was talking about London in Haydns time and the concert hall being exactly in the same place and with the same footprint. Seems perfectly simple to me ? TV is an audio VISUAL medium, music on the other hand is a sonic phenomena, TV works using images , spoken text and sound to communicate.
If you want the hard facts buy a book , there are plenty about
If you just want the music buy a CD or go to a concert

I sometimes teach postgraduate music students and music colleges and universities, I would hardly expect television (or Radio 3 )to be using the same language. I didn't think this was a programme about "Symphonic Form" but rather contextualising the history of the symphony , which it did rather well IMV in "Locating" the music geographically and historically

I seem to remember recommending Dahlhaus to Mr G-rew ? "What is a fact of music history" being pertinent in this case as well !

[Ferretfancy]

MrGongGong

People always seem to forget that not only is television a narrative medium, it is also poor at allowing any back reference, but goes from A toB, B to C and so on. If I read an argument in a book or an article, I can cast my eyes back easily if I have difficulty comprehending, what's more, written material can be shaped to facilitate this. Even though we now have the technical ability to record and spin back television material it is still a relatively clumsy process, and we are not expected to need to do so by the programme makers.
I used to dub programmes such as Horizon, which tried to explain difficult scientific concepts for a general audience. A person being interviewed might say " In these circumstances a certain reaction might occur, but if I change this function another reaction might or might not occur depending on X" On the printed page an equation might be printed with an explanatory text, but this is much more difficult on TV, so directors skipped that bit, or tried to convey it by awkward analogies. The first Open University TV programmes made a complete hash of this, having presenters with little experience of the medium using a blackboard and chalk,as this was in the days before video recorders it was a waste of time where students watching television were concerned, fortunately they were provided with written material for detailed study.

Of course, some types of TV get round the difficulty by having a studio discussion afterwards, so we have the odd spectacle of match analysis in football, which occupies almost as much time as the play itself.

Where classical music is concerned, after many years no adequate visual grammar has been developed for showing symphony concerts, in fact there has been no significant development since these programmes started. I was talking yesterday to a man who was researching how best to present material in 3 D. He was confident that this would open up entirely new ways of viewing and presentation, but I doubt it.

[MrGongGong]

Interesting stuff and well put Ferret
I've heard others comment on the lack of visual grammar in the presentation of music on TV
its a bit like very early cinema simply mimicking theatre or early photography being like paintings of the time ......
should we see the musicians ? in close up ? or something to contextualise the music ?
its an interesting semiotic problem

[Donnie Essen]

Well, at the end of the day, it still sucked.

They could focus less on the lives, I think. There was a line in it about the role of the symphony and collective listening mixing with private, inner experience. I’m totally paraphrasing, but the line was there, as it is in easy-to-read books when they talk about the symphony. The idea of what the symphony is and why it differed from other types of music when it came about could’ve been a springboard for the main content of the show. Get actors to be people from the time, giving real quotes about it. Focus on the thing itself and strive to make it interesting.

Intersperse these scenes with a satire of an old Prof, standing at a blackboard and talking about sonata form. Could be like a Monty Python sketch. He could talk about key and harmony, and how themes develop, fight and reconcile, not just tell us in a matter of seconds that they develop and move on. Use the cooking analogy that they did, but take it further, so the Prof gets covered in food in the development. Pay the Jim Henson company to bring some muppets in and two muppets representing a theme each could dance and fight and the muppet band could play what he’s talking about to illustrate it and then the scene could dissolve into all having a culinary fight when the Prof is done talking. It doesn’t have to be that, but just make it witty and smart enough at the same time and it’d be satisfying on a deeper, more thoughtful level. These shows are too serious about what they’re doing, and at the same time, they ain’t serious enough.

[visualnickmos]

Is this series available on TV only? Or is it on the radio as well? Reason I ask, is that living in France, I cannot get TV i-Player - only radio.
Thanks folks.

[Panjandrum]

Its TELEVISION
from what I remember about the programme he was talking about London in Haydns time and the concert hall being exactly in the same place and with the same footprint. Seems perfectly simple to me ? TV is an audio VISUAL medium, music on the other hand is a sonic phenomena, TV works using images , spoken text and sound to communicate....
I didn't think this was a programme about "Symphonic Form" but rather contextualising the history of the symphony , which it did rather well IMV in "Locating" the music geographically and historically
I disagree entirely. Kenneth Clarke, Robert Hughes, Alastair Cooke, Jacob Bronowski, have all demonstrated how to make television programmes which deal with complex subjets intellectually, while exploiting the medium's visual dimension, WITHOUT resorting to gimmicks.

[amcluesent]

I watched all the way through and, for a modern-day BBC production, it wasn't too dumbed-down. Thankfully, unlike the ruined Horizon et al, there was no faux 'suspense' to the narrative from which I actually learned a little. Seeing the venues where the works were premièred was useful.

Will they get to C20th symphonies, or has that already been "done" by Rattle's 'Leaving Home'?

[MrGongGong]

I disagree entirely. Kenneth Clarke, Robert Hughes, Alastair Cooke, Jacob Bronowski, have all demonstrated how to make television programmes which deal with complex subjets intellectually, while exploiting the medium's visual dimension, WITHOUT resorting to gimmicks.
It was Television last time I looked ?
but you disagree entirely so it must have been something else then ? any ideas what ?
Maybe a Zebra ?

[Mr Pee]

Interesting stiff and well put Ferret


Well, I never knew that Mr. GG and Ferret were so intimately acquainted....

http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys-and-emoticons/wink/smileys-wink-619022.gif (http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/)

[MrGongGong]

ooops is my slip showing Sigmund ?

[ardcarp]

for a modern-day BBC production, it wasn't too dumbed-down.

I've watched it all through now, and yes it wasn't so much dumbed down as full of silly producer-ish mannersims. Mention a city, and you have to see people in a rush-hour with SRB jostling and talking. Luckily SRB has an engaging delivery; and Elder (a slightly manic talker...a sort of younger Patrick Moore!) and the OAE saved the situatopn. I suppose despite all the annoyances, not least the rapid switcjing of camera-shots, we have to be very grateful that a real programme about real music is given air-time on a BBC TV channel. One just wonders whether the inordinate amount of travel and whacky locations...which must have resulted in hours of film (or its equivalent) ending up on the cutting-room floor (or its equivalent)...were entirely necessary to get the message across.

[Boilk]

If this is a survey of the symphony, why was the pre-Haydn era tossed off in a mere couple of phrases? Would have been educational to illustrate how the symphony's seed was sown in the musical preludes/interludes to 17th/18th century opera and ballet. And wasn't Haydn influenced by contemporaries such as CPE Bach, Cannabich, Dittersdorf, et al. He wasn't exactly cocooned within the Esterhazy Palace!

When Beale gets around to Shostakovich you just know it'll centre on the popular 1, 5 and 7, rather than the astonishing 4th ... whose withdrawal probabably saved him from a Siberian labour camp. I guess archive footage of the Leningarad seige lends itself more readily to televisual agendas.

[MrGongGong]

Maybe, but it will give MrP a chance to pop up and say how music has nothing to do with politics !!!

[ardcarp]

...why was the pre-Haydn era tossed off in a mere couple of phrases? Would have been educational to illustrate how the symphony's seed was sown in the musical preludes/interludes to 17th/18th century opera and ballet. And wasn't Haydn influenced by contemporaries such as CPE Bach, Cannabich, Dittersdorf, et al. He wasn't exactly cocooned within the Esterhazy Palace!

Luckily Mesdames Bott and Skeaping avoided any tossing off in the EMS this weekend, and covered just the areas you mention. :biggrin:

[Suffolkcoastal]

I have specifically made a point of avoiding this programme, as the symphony is my chief area of interest in classical music and I expect that if I watched I'd soon be screaming at the TV in frustration and anger and probably give myself a heart attack!

The history of the symphony is probably the most mammoth undertaking in all classical music. The trouble with programmes like this is that they will tend to jump from Haydn/Mozart to Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Mahler and Shostakovich etc as if the history and development of the symphony progressed in a straight line. Beethoven's symphonies weren't accepted universally for many years and he was regarded for a while as the equivalent of a symphonic diversion, what was happening to the symphony between 1820 and 1870 for example. You get Schubert and Beethoven, but the former was hardly known for a while and Beethoven regarded as above. There is Mendelssohn & Schuman, plus the couple of well known Berlioz symphonies but what else? Of course there were literally hundreds of other symphonies being written by other composers, all trying to carve out there own symphonic path, some followed very classical models, others tried to experiment etc. You really need to have a good look at the 'background' to appreciate the development of symphonic form and to place the great/well-known symphonies in context and to understand the symphony as a whole.

[ardcarp]

Suffolkcoastal. One has to remember this is a TV programme designed for Everyman. So one cannot expect a thoroughgoing academic analysis of the subject. Even the term 'Everyman' has to be refined; BBC4 presumably hopes to attract people with some interest in music or maybe just that thing called 'The Arts'. The fact that BBC4 assumes such people to have the attention-span of a gnat is a separate issue. But I think the AIM of the programme, namely an overview of 'the symphony' for Everyman, is a good one. Yes you probably would get cross if you saw it! But go on...have a peek, and do a 'grumpy of Tunbridge Wells' post on The Forum (like most of us do).

[Ferretfancy]

I've just caught up with the first part of the series, and what a mess! OK, the glimpses of original locations look attractive, but I doubt if any piece of music in the programme is heard for more than 5 seconds before Russell Beale or Mark Elder either appear or give us more voice over.

For me, this exemplifies everything that is so often wrong with the treatment of classical music on television, and I will be very surprised if these programmes win over a single viewer. Does anybody remember the studio productions of symphonies and other works introduced and analysed by Bernard Keefe? That was a much better way to do it than this mish mash. It's sad to see such a good opportunity squandered in this way.

[ardcarp]

Ferretfancy. Yes, I agree. SRB's choral series was much better. It's all to do with the producer mind-set. He/she wants to be trendy, has a lot of technical wizardry to play with, probably has a brief not to lecture, and has general contempt for the intelligence/attention span of the Everyman I alluded to. I'm afraid the genuinely informative programmes such as you mention that sought to inform and educate are well and truly a thing of the past.

[Suffolkcoastal]

I think that in various other programmes I've seen on various subjects that 'everyman's level' is in danger of dropping to 'every young child's level'. I was perhaps more thinking of what R3 should have been doing to compliment the series. From what I can see so far, after the programmes of the beginnings of the symphony they largely fall back on the same composers and works. But I suppose its par for the course in the knowledge and imagination free R3 of RW. I would have extended the series for a a period of about 3 months in the afternoon devoting a week chronologically to each c20 year period from the origin to the present day, allowing the listener to contrast the great and well known, with the less well known, to show the developments, side tracks, dead ends etc of this most fascinating of musical structures.

[Osborn]

I would have extended the series for a a period of about 3 months in the afternoon devoting a week chronologically to each c20 year period from the origin to the present day...But only (to use Wil Carling's phrase) 57 old farts (& fartesses) have the time or inclination to listen in the afternoon & they've probably been listening to symphonies for 57 years & would be bored out of their skull, want the controller fired, complain to the Trust, moan that something or other is dumbed down (probably Katie Derham) & the idea would waste a catastrophic amount of money, wouldn't it?

[John Skelton]

Why would it waste any more catastrophic an amount of money than any other broadcasts? Assuming it wasn't presented from outside the existing presenter group, it would take someone to write the scripts: but otherwise the discography of rarer symphonies must be significant by now and the BBC orchestras give concerts which contain some of the better known composers (and slightly more 'marginal' figures like Martinů), so it wouldn't need to be exclusively CDs. If only "57 old farts (& fartesses) have the time or inclination to listen in the afternoon" then the BBC might as well pull the plug anyway :smiley:.

[french frank]

I would have extended the series for a a period of about 3 months in the afternoon devoting a week chronologically to each c20 year period from the origin to the present day, allowing the listener to contrast the great and well known, with the less well known, to show the developments, side tracks, dead ends etc of this most fascinating of musical structures. I know Old Nick wasn't everyone's favourite controller, but when you compare "Fairest Isle" - celebrating the tercentenary of Purcell's death - and "Sounding the Century" which traced the development of music in the 20th century, with All Day Beethoven, All Day Bach, All Day Mozart (heaven preserve us from All Day Breakfast :sadface:) ... There was so much more scope for producers and allowed for a real breadth of creative vision. And I don't think they were tied in to a TV series.

Admittedly, the RW projects could have been cash-limited, but really they were in concept largely the normal schedule and presenters all concentraing on the same composer for a few days.

[Panjandrum]

But only (to use Wil Carling's phrase) 57 old farts (& fartesses) have the time or inclination to listen in the afternoon Many of us now listen through Listen Again so this is not really a valid argument.


the idea would waste a catastrophic amount of money, wouldn't it?Why would it? It might just prove to be a considerable success.

[Chris Newman]

Many of us now listen through Listen Again so this is not really a valid argument.

My listening to Radio 3 is almost entirely through Listen Again (iPlayer). In fact I think I listen to Radio 3 (and some continental stations) more now than I have done for years because I can please myself rather than be tied to the schedules.

I went out with friends last night. I am currently catching up with last night's Halle broadcast of Dvorak, Elgar and RVW.

[MrGongGong]

Stuck on a train that was nearly three hours late last night I remembered that I had downloaded the second programme
and
Oh dear :sadface:
I liked the first for the contextual stuff
but this turned into such a "luvviefest" that it was painful
now i'm not a great enthusiast for programme music but this seemed to wallow in the whole Shakespeare , Harriet stuff with only a passing mention of the interesting things in the orchestra and instruments. I am a bit of an instrument geek (a perfect day out would be the instrument museum in Brussels followed by lashings of trappist ale and seafood :ale:) but don't expect a whole pile of this. Nor would I want analysis (which some seem to be keen on !) , I've done enough of that and theres lots about if you like books.......BUT I was disappointed in this one compared to the first........

[french frank]

It's been made in association with the Open University and is currently described on the Radio 3 website as 'a radical reappraisal of the history of the symphony in the modern world'. Perhaps this will be on the Sue Perkins-Tom Service programme rather than the TV series?Oh, dear. I listened to 10 minutes of Tom and Sue :sadface:

[Serial_Apologist]

Sue, Grabbit and Runne

[Anna]

On seeing ff's reference to Tom & Sue I found it on iplayer. I only listened to 5 minutes of it but, this talk was aimed at new listeners (whether new listeners would have in fact tuned in for the concert is a different matter) so was it of value to them? That's the important point I think, will it draw listeners in and grab their interest so they want to learn more.

I only caught the last half of The Symphony Pt. 2. As Mr. GG said, it was a bit of a luvviefest with SRB climbing the ladder as Romeo to see if Berlioz had got it right or not. (He had) I'm not inclined to catch the part I missed on iplayer

[EdgeleyRob]

I only caught the last half of The Symphony Pt. 2. As Mr. GG said, it was a bit of a luvviefest with SRB climbing the ladder as Romeo to see if Berlioz had got it right or not. (He had) I'm not inclined to catch the part I missed on iplayer
You didn't miss anything.I am not inclined to make the effort with any further instalments.Its bobbins.

[MrGongGong]

it was a bit of a luvviefest with SRB climbing the ladder as Romeo to see if Berlioz had got it right or not. (He had) I'm not inclined to catch the part I missed on iplayer
I thought he definitely had it wrong !
what on earth is the point of a couple of thesps spouting Shakespeare over the music ?
if you want orchestral music that draws on text and the rhythm and spectra of speech then Jonathan Harvey's "Speakings" is all you need IMV
but I doubt that will appear in this series :sadface:

this is well worth going to
http://www.barbican.org.uk/music/event-detail.asp?ID=11882

[johnb]

I would guess that SRB was merely the front man, reciting a script, and the programme structure and material was determined by the producers (Helen Mansfield and Andy King-Dabbs in pt2).

IMO Howard Goodall would have been an ideal person to present and oversee the series. The programmes he has done in the past have been both accessible to a general audience, interesting to those with somewhat more knowledge. It's a pity that such an opportunity for a really good series on the symphony has been squandered.

[french frank]

On seeing ff's reference to Tom & Sue I found it on iplayer. I only listened to 5 minutes of it but, this talk was aimed at new listeners (whether new listeners would have in fact tuned in for the concert is a different matter) so was it of value to them? That's the important point I think, will it draw listeners in and grab their interest so they want to learn more.Well, my first thought at the first question was that Tom Service was set up as some kind of guru, the repository of all wisdom, even when he was expressing a personal opinion. I think I remember the exchange pretty much word for word:

Perkins: So ... to clap or not to clap (between movements)?

Service: Oh, to clap. It's an anachronism not to.


Well, wouldn't it be rather puzzling for new listeners to Radio 3, and new concert-goers, that audiences very seldom clap between movements? What was also puzzling was that he described the idea of not clapping until the end of the work as 'outmoded'. He then referred to the previous practice back in Haydn's time which he regarded as the example to be followed. So, not outmoded.

Now, I don't have a problem with Service thinking people should clap if they feel like it. I do have a problem with him pontificating on Radio 3 and suggesting that it's the thing to do.

Moreover, I was interested in his reply to the question about Haydn's 104/106 symphonies in contrast with Shostakovich's mere 15. Service said that this was Haydn bridging the gap between the symphony as popular entertainment - and composing his own symphonies regularly as part of his court duties - and latter day symphonists with the genre as (quoting from memory) 'serious, philosophical thought', 'an object of contemplation'. I thought perhaps he might have linked his two ideas with that of the development of quiet, attentive listening. But that would have been off-message :smiley:

But this is The Big Question (NOT 'to clap or not to clap'): must you have a celebrity comedienne engaging in jolly banter with a more knowledgeable presenter in order to interest the new listeners who had presumably just sat through the whole of RVW's symphony No 5?

Incidentally, SymphonyQT with Sue Perkins was the nearest we got to Discovering Music last week; and the same this week. A further thinning of the end of the wedge.

[DublinJimbo]

I know Old Nick wasn't everyone's favourite controller

No indeed. In fact, I blame him for the start of the rot which has brought the once-great Third Programme/Radio 3 to the sorry state it's in today. NK also began the tinkering with the Proms, and look where that's brought us: Horrible Histories Prom, Human Planet Prom, Film Music Prom, Spaghetti Western Orchestra Prom, Comedy Prom (!!), Hooray For Hollywood Prom, Audience Choice Prom.

[Barbirollians]

Just got round to watching episode 3 of symphony . Under SRB's rushed travelogue there really might have been a good programme struggling to get out and Sir mark Elder was illuminating whenever he came on but the number of composers and works they tried to cram in to one hour was absurd.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

In today's programme, a real commentary gaff, if my ears didn't deceive me - saying that as Master of the King's Music, Elgar dedicated the Second Symphony to the memory of King Edward VII in 1911.

That was a bit of a gamble as he wasn't appointed to this position until 1924.

[Angle]

Well, that's another bit of Readers' Digest style television that's ended.

[Barbirollians]

Another garbled ill-thought out programme - why so much Ives for crying out loud ? and no real discussion of Mahler at all - meanwhile not a sniff of poor Mendelssohn and Schumann , a few seconds of Elgar ... a programme all over the place - it needed at least double the number of episodes to make any sense .

[Panjandrum]

Another garbled ill-thought out programme - why so much Ives for crying out loud ? and no real discussion of Mahler at all .Really? Sounds like it might be worth giving another go. :whistle:

[Suffolkcoastal]

With the exception of the 4th Symphony, which only really had an impact on the musical scene post 1950's, Ives's symphonies really have little importance even in the history of the American symphony so it would seem rather odd to concentrate so much on him if this was the case. I'm certainly glad I have kept clear of the programmes!

[Norfolk Born]

Worth noting that next Friday SRB is devoting a whole programme to one composer - Victoria.

[Caliban]

Worth noting that next Friday SRB is devoting a whole programme to one composer - Victoria.

:ok: Well worth noting, many thanks indeed, Norfy. Have converted a couple of people to Victoria recently, I must draw it to their attention.

[MrGongGong]

I wasn't going to bother
but the Ives definitely will make me have a listen

hope its not a load of luvvie nonsense again , though Ives is hardly thesp material :smiley:

[Panjandrum]

Worth noting that next Friday SRB is devoting a whole programme to one composer - Victoria.What, Victoria the well known symphonist?

[MrGongGong]

Not that one
I used to be fond of this one !

http://www.victoriapub.net/

very popular with the Cathedral Choir I have been led to believe !

[Norfolk Born]

The programme, not part of the Symphony series, and not a repeat, is entitled 'God's Composer' and is broadcast on BBC 4 at 20.00 on 2nd December with a repeat at 0230 on 3rd December. The Sixteen will be singing in the church of San Antonio de las Alemanes in Madrid.

[MrGongGong]

and afterwards at the Vic for a few pints of Batemans XXXB ? :ale:

Sounds good though :ok:

[Norfolk Born]

There's a preview on page 120 of the issue covering 26 Nov - 2 Dec 2011.

[mercia]

I liked seeing the inside of Ainola. "here is the fireplace where the eighth symphony was destroyed ....... oh it's still warm"

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well it was better than much of what is on the box .. not saying that much is it? .... having watched all four parts i gathered some gossip but no greater or finer understanding of the symphony at all .... just like a murdoch Sunday supplement innit

[makropulos]

Having now watched the whole series, I'm nowhere near as negative about it as most people posting here. It struck me as good telly, covered some of the ground quite well, and didn't just include the usual suspects in terms of repertoire choice. Making something that's compressed into four hour-long programmes is a no-win really - on the one hand it's slated for concentrating too much on the mainstream, and then there are complaints about including Ives 2 (which I thought was actually a nice idea). In four hours, the thing could never be more than a taster of what's out there and while I was sorry not to have Mendelssohn or Schumann, it did whet the appetite for Berlioz's R&J and the Liszt Faust Symphony. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see - nor including some of Vaughan Williams' Pastoral Symphony and the slow movement of Elgar 2. Maybe the last programme had too much Shostakovich, but then again some people can never get too much of him. There were some nice bits done in composers' homes or places they visited. I certainly didn't know about the house where Haydn wrote Symphony No. 98, and it was good to see the houses of Dvorak, Sibelius and such like.

Back to my first point. In the space of four hours I find myself feeling much more positive towards the series than most people here. I was glad that it recognised that symphonies were composed by British and American composers (among others), and it left the way open for any interested viewer and listener to explore further, which is surely all a series lasting a few hours can hope to do.

And finally, I thought SRB and Mark Elder were excellent presenters - enthusiastic and intelligent, even playing piano duets together, which was a charming touch.

[EdgeleyRob]

I only watched the first two episodes.I have learnt more about the symphony from this forum to be honest.

[ardcarp]

Makropulos.

Very good to hear a positive report.


Making something that's compressed into four hour-long programmes is a no-win really

That's probably very true. And it had to appeal to 'Everyman' not just classical music cognoscenti. SRB and ME were I agree most engaging. I feel the series improved as it went on. The first one spent too long giving us an overview of the thing, and what I found annoying was the 'producerish' tactics of quick shots and of moving us from place to place in milliseconds...all quite unnecessary. Sometimes musical extracts were too short and were spoken over...and of course we had to have shots of SRB peering through harp-strings and stuff like that. But I think I'm worrying about my own prejudices; by the end I had come to accept and tolerate the format of the programme. On reflection I wouldn't have missed it. I even went as far as re-playing the bits I'd slept through!

I'm glad you enjoyed it, and I'm sure lots of others did too, cognoscenti or not.

[hafod]

Overall I thought the series was successful not least because it must be a nightmare to strike a balance that caters for the widest possible range of audience knowledge and interest but remain watchable for those at either end of the spectrum. The direction was irritating at times but that seems to be the modern way of doing things. The best part for me was Sir ME. His contributions I thought were pertinent, interesting and provided without affectation. A great pity they were not more extended. Perhaps he should have his own programme?

[Barbirollians]

Give me strength - there is no need to talk down to an audience and not to inform them just to make it accessible . Let alone to cram so much into four hours - Tchaikovsky received three minutes !

The old mantra used to be never over estimate their knowledge or underestimate their intelligence . The latter the BBC seems to have long since forgotten.

It is a shame as the first series of Sacred Music I thought was excellent , the second was not as good and this were evidence of further dumbing down - if that is now going on at BBC4 as well as everywhere else in the BBC there is little hope ...

[ardcarp]

The old mantra used to be never over estimate their knowledge or underestimate their intelligence

Even the old mantra seems a bit patronising to me!

[makropulos]

Give me strength - there is no need to talk down to an audience and not to inform them just to make it accessible . Let alone to cram so much into four hours - Tchaikovsky received three minutes !

I didn't detect "talking down" - do you have specific examples in mind? As for Tchaikovsky, you do the programme makers an injustice. He received nearly 5 minutes (4:43 to be precise), which you may feel is insufficient, but again I would make the point that hearing extracts from the Pathétique, the interview with Temirkanov and seeing the hall where the work was first performed should whet anybody's appetite. That's all a programme like that can do. The same was true of the excellent but even more selective Sacred Music series.

What's the hard evidence for dumbing down? You post gives the impression that you want it to become true by saying "dumbing down" a lot. Widespread appeal in this case seemed to me to be achieved without dumbing down. I suppose the unduly short music examples might be seen as that, but not in the context of a series that had to cram an extraordinary amount into four hours.

[Barbirollians]

If you compare it with Sacred Music series 1 - there were far fewer extended musical examples or illustrations of differences in style and development of the form . As such that is one of the reasons I object to missing out Mendelssohn and Schumann.The dumbing down is exemplified by giving only very short Classic FM style brief biographies of composers and little else .

The series was characterised by endless short pieces to camera by SRB from whichever city he had landed in to discuss a composer extremely briefly . Only Haydn and Beethoven in the whole series received the full treatment deserved.

[makropulos]

If you compare it with Sacred Music series 1 - there were far fewer extended musical examples or illustrations of differences in style and development of the form . As such that is one of the reasons I object to missing out Mendelssohn and Schumann.The dumbing down is exemplified by giving only very short Classic FM style brief biographies of composers and little else .

The series was characterised by endless short pieces to camera by SRB from whichever city he had landed in to discuss a composer extremely briefly . Only Haydn and Beethoven in the whole series received the full treatment deserved.

Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Pabmusic]

In the space of four hours I find myself feeling much more positive towards the series than most people here. I was glad that it recognised that symphonies were composed by British and American composers (among others), and it left the way open for any interested viewer and listener to explore further, which is surely all a series lasting a few hours can hope to do.

And finally, I thought SRB and Mark Elder were excellent presenters - enthusiastic and intelligent, even playing piano duets together, which was a charming touch.

I entirely agree (and I've read your subsequent posts). Not for a moment did I feel this was 'dumbed down', nor was it patronising. Of course, I can list dozens of things I should like to have seen, but I wasn't the producer. I freely admit that I didn't know what to expect before the first episode, being naturally disbelieving of contemporary hype, but in the end it was a good overview of the breadth of mainstream symphonic works. It could not have been much better without extra length.

In particular, it was good to see glimpses of the various composers' personal worlds - it's all too easy to forget, when you're immersed in their music, that that they were real people.

[ardcarp]

Pabmusic. Glad you liked it too. But I suspect the majority of music lovers (the French 'amateurs de musique' expresses it rather better) were irritated by presentation techniques bordering on the silly.

[MrGongGong]

I really liked the final instalment
Great stuff about Ives and some interesting contextual things in relation to recording , the status of the conductor and the whole music and politics issue that still continues to this day.
There was much to discover in this one rather than treading the same old boards and a blessed relief that it wasn't a luvvie fest !

[Boilk]

Why the total exclusion of Prokofiev in the last episode? Because he didn't write as many symphonies as Shostakovich? It's understandable that the latter's Leningrad Symphony was going to be easy fodder for a picture postcard documentary like this, but Prokofiev was also a symphonist every bit as capable as Shostakovich, though admittedly with less tendency for developmental note spinning.

The real tragedy of this serries was that there was no programme devoted to the post-War symphony. It's not for lack of symphonies, but probably that there are almost no symphonies composed post-1950 that have made it to the standard repertory (or at least none that the broad target audience would know). One consolation, far more stimularing than any of these programmes, was Saturday's Music Matters programme, which addressed the symphony since 1945 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017lylx), happily available on Listen Again ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017lylx

[Serial_Apologist]

Why the total exclusion of Prokofiev in the last episode? Because he didn't write as many symphonies as Shostakovich? It's understandable that the latter's Leningrad Symphony was going to be easy fodder for a picture postcard documentary like this, but Prokofiev was also a symphonist every bit as capable as Shostakovich, though admittedly with less tendency for developmental note spinning.

The real tragedy of this serries was that there was no programme devoted to the post-War symphony. It's not for lack of symphonies, but probably that there are almost no symphonies composed post-1950 that have made it to the standard repertory (or at least none that the broad target audience would know). One consolation, far more stimularing than any of these programmes, was Saturday's Music Matters programme, which addressed the symphony since 1945 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017lylx), happily available on Listen Again ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017lylx

Thanks for the reminder, Boilk.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Prokofiev's 6th symphony is one of the greatest composed in the 20th century, finer than any of Shostakovich's symphonies IMO even though I enjoy Shostakovich's symphonies. The greatest period of symphonic activity appears to the years 1940-1965, I now possess recordings of almost 1450 symphonies post 1800 and I think over a quarter come that 25 year period, the sheer variety of symphonies written during this period and the different approaches to the symphonic form, give a total lie to the sometimes held account that the symphony was a dying entity. A few more of these works in the repertoire might help to convince the listening public to the value of these works

[Ferretfancy]

I absolutely agree about the stature of Prokofiev's Sixth, it is profoundly affecting. On the whole Prokofiev for me is a composer to admire rather than to love, a man who masked his emotions behind irony. I once saw him described as a 'wrong note romantic", and I can see what was meant by the phrase. Choosing1940-1965 as a representative period does rather exclude symphonies that to my mind need to be heard more often. I can never understand why Nielsen's symphonies are not in the standard repertory, and although Rubbra's are not the easiest to assimilate they should be part of every listener's experience. Nowadaty we seem to hear Honegger and Roussel more frequently.

[jayne lee wilson]

Broadly I agree with Makropulos - it would be hard to do more without far more time... possibly BBC4 doesn't have the budget for greater length and depth.

Highlight - Sir mark Elder's commentaries, always succinct and striking both expressively and technically. He has a very good screen presence! "An eye like Mars to threaten and command".
Worst omission for me - Nielsen! Pace suffolkcoastal, a far greater symphonist than Prokofiev, Nielsen both took up the classical tradition and developed the form in very original ways. That great Mahlerian Deryck Cooke once described Nielsen's 5th as "the greatest symphony of the 20th Century!

Interesting to know how they decided what to include, possibly they felt that Prokofiev or Nielsen weren't mainstream enough?! But Prok 5 & 6 should have been there, and almost all of Nielsen... the contrasts between Nielsen 4/5, and then the shockingly different 6th, would have been a fascinating narrative within the general context of the 20th century.

But incidentally lovely to see Ives 2 in there, it's a very lovable piece.

[Suffolkcoastal]

I do agree about Nielsen, his 4th & 5th symphonies are also among the greatest of 20th century symphonies I can't see the point in Ives being in the programme with the exception of the 4th which as I've mentioned earlier is only really influential on the post 1950's symphonic scene. Ives's 2nd symphony is a pleasant and enjoyable enough score but marred by the silly last chord, which maybe Ives blowing a raspberry at the romantic symphony but as a joke doesn't really come off.
Ferretfancy, Honegger's symphonies haven'r really featured regularly in the concert halls of this country or on R3, no Honegger symphony been performed on R3 this year and Roussel hasn't featured much since he was COTW in 2009.

[MrGongGong]

I really disagree about Ives
what I got from the focus on his music was as much to do with the changing role of the composer in society as much as the sound of the music itself
furthermore the collision of elements that are so much a part of Ives's music is one of the defining themes of much of the music of the 20th Century
Ives was also very much an outsider as a composer something that has also had a huge influence on many subsequent composers

[Suffolkcoastal]

Yet again my post has been misunderstood! Yes Ives is influential on later composers as I state above, composers post 1950, because very little of his symphonic music was played prior to this, his impact on the symphonic world of his contemporaries and the next generation was non-existant as his orchestral music was virtually unknown to them so placing him chronologically when doing a history of the development of the symphony doesn't come off. Once his symphonies became better known in the 1960's their impact, especially the 4th, was then considerable. So Ives would need to be considered in a programme charting the symphony post 1950/60. You could argue that Mahler didn't have much impact until the 1960's, but his symphonies were at least known to his contemporaries and the next generation and performed though not as frequently as later. Of course the music would have been considered too scary for BBC4 or even R3 daytime listeners so the series has ignored this.

[Bryn]

I can't see the point in Ives being in the programme with the exception of the 4th which as I've mentioned earlier is only really influential on the post 1950's symphonic scene. Ives's 2nd symphony is a pleasant and enjoyable enough score but marred by the silly last chord, which maybe Ives blowing a raspberry at the romantic symphony but as a joke doesn't really come off.


The 'problem' with that final chord is not Ives's, it's Bernstein's. He extended it in every recorded performance of his I have heard. Others then repeated this distortion. Played curtly, as written, it works beautifully. Try, for instance, the late Kenneth Schermerhorn's recording of Jonathan Elkus's critical edition (Naxos).

The performance given by the BBC Symphony Orchestra under Andrew Davis during the Radio 3 Ives Weekend at the Barbican in 1996 is similarly effective with respect to that final chord. Just been spinning it from my CD-R of the 2nd and 4th (ex FM via Dolby S cassette).

[Ferretfancy]

Suffolkcoastal,

I was probably recollecting the number of recordings of Roussel and Honegger that we can find now, rather than the infrequent live performances and broadcasts. Since my last posting, Martinu has sprung to mind, though luckily he has received some good BBC SO performances in the last couple of years.

[jayne lee wilson]

Bryn, it may or may not amuse you to know that Mark Elder recommended it played long, and demonstrated this in the programme!

I'm sure I remember reading - a long time ago in a galaxy far away - that dance bands used to signal the end of the evening by blasting out such a discord - just to say to people on the floor, that's really it, no more!
But I can't trace a reference now...

Long or short (I prefer short), it works for me - one has to ask what else he could have done here? Surely not a safely harmonious shout of American rabble-rousing?! After the gleefully noisy contrapuntal crowning of the symphony ( quite as joyfully fulfilling as the Jupiter Symphony's coda) I think he did the only thing HE could. "That's it, it's over!"

So if you hear it as blowing a raspberry, and I'm not sure I always do, either at the audience or The Symphony - it has to be something more.
(But if Roger Norrington ever conducts it, maybe he should turn to the audience at the end and give a Nelsonesque "Ha-Ha!")






The 'problem' with that final chord is not Ives's, it's Bernstein's. He extended it in every recorded performance of his I have heard. Others then repeated this distortion. Played curtly, as written, it works beautifully. Try, for instance, the late Kenneth Schermerhorn's recording of Jonathan Elkus's critical edition (Naxos).

The performance given by the BBC Symphony Orchestra under Andrew Davis during the Radio 3 Ives Weekend at the Barbican in 1996 is similarly effective with respect to that final chord. Just been spinning it from my CD-R of the 2nd and 4th (ex FM via Dolby S cassette).

[Bryn]

jlw, having missed the earlier transmissions I managed to catch the final showing of the programme in the early hours this morning. I did have to smile when Elder supported Bernstein's 'improvement' on what Ives wrote. The gurn which he then treated us to put RN's in the shade. I suppose that final chaord does lend itself more to the interpretation of 'raspberry' if played in Bernstein's revision, but I do not take the view that Ives was so crass. He would have wanted the listeners to use their ears like mature adults, not to need their aural winks underlined in heavy crayon.

[MrGongGong]

Indeed Bryn , wasn't it Bernstein who recorded the version of Beethoven 7 where the slow movement is almost at 1/2 speed ? (he had obviously been listening to La Monte Young :whistle:)


I think what was so good in having the focus on Ives was the way (and I had forgotten some of this ) in which he really relishes the sounds of the world. Rather than isolating himself in a hut screaming at the world to go away there is a real engagement with the wider sonic landscape, something that is an obvious precursor of so much of the sound art we hear today. The idea that a composer would really love the sound of three brass bands all playing different things at the same time is revolutionary......... embrace the chaos indeed :ok:

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed Bryn , wasn't it Bernstein who recorded the version of Beethoven 7 where the slow movement is almost at 1/2 speed ? (he had obviously been listening to La Monte Young :whistle:)


I think what was so good in having the focus on Ives was the way (and I had forgotten some of this ) in which he really relishes the sounds of the world. Rather than isolating himself in a hut screaming at the world to go away there is a real engagement with the wider sonic landscape, something that is an obvious precursor of so much of the sound art we hear today. The idea that a composer would really love the sound of three brass bands all playing different things at the same time is revolutionary......... embrace the chaos indeed :ok:

I would personally have to draw a line at three brass bands all playing different things at the same time. In fact, I'd probably draw the line at one, maybe even less... :erm:

[MrGongGong]

Come on S_A
live a bit and embrace the chaos
there's that fantastic Berio piece for 4 wind bands that i've completely forgotten the name of that owes much to Ives !
and Cage...... Musicircus etc

and Gruppen (Partly !)
etc
etc

[Serial_Apologist]

Come on S_A
live a bit and embrace the chaos
there's that fantastic Berio piece for 4 wind bands that i've completely forgotten the name of that owes much to Ives !
and Cage...... Musicircus etc

and Gruppen (Partly !)
etc
etc

Oh come on Mr GG! :biggrin: There's surely a big distinction to be made between "Gruppen" and e.g. parts of Ives's "Three Places in New England" in which simultaneities come about without anything approaching the kind of integration Stocky was after in 1954. Mind you, I am on Cage's side where he said (words to the effect of) "Come on, Karlheinz, stop pushing the notes around"! They all (the integral serialists) came to understand the practicable limits of control. Unfortunately those "controlling" the markets have transliterated this notion into another sphere where it doesn't apply!

[Boilk]

From Episode 4 I deduced striking similarities between Mahler and Ives that I'd not really thought about before ... and the programme should have made something of this. The militaristic music of their childhoods creeping into the symphonic works, bold musical irony, the overlap of secular and 'academic' musical idioms (albeit not poly-time signatures in Mahler), deliberate 'wrong-note' dissonances, and the symphony as melting pot for life, the universe and almost everything. And they were near contemporaries too, having been born 14 years apart.

[MrGongGong]

Oh come on Mr GG! :biggrin: There's surely a big distinction to be made between "Gruppen" and e.g. parts of Ives's "Three Places in New England" in which simultaneities come about without anything approaching the kind of integration Stocky was after in 1954. Mind you, I am on Cage's side where he said (words to the effect of) "Come on, Karlheinz, stop pushing the notes around"! They all (the integral serialists) came to understand the practicable limits of control. Unfortunately those "controlling" the markets have transliterated this notion into another sphere where it doesn't apply!

Yes there is
which is why I said (partly)

[Norfolk Born]

I do agree about Nielsen, his 4th & 5th symphonies are also among the greatest of 20th century symphonies I can't see the point in Ives being in the programme with the exception of the 4th which as I've mentioned earlier is only really influential on the post 1950's symphonic scene. Ives's 2nd symphony is a pleasant and enjoyable enough score but marred by the silly last chord, which maybe Ives blowing a raspberry at the romantic symphony but as a joke doesn't really come off.
Ferretfancy, Honegger's symphonies haven'r really featured regularly in the concert halls of this country or on R3, no Honegger symphony been performed on R3 this year and Roussel hasn't featured much since he was COTW in 2009.
....Possibly in the hope that an enterprising US network or station might buy the series? (The BBC tried something similar years ago when they gave Robert Wagner a leading role in 'Colditz' - as far as I know, the place never contained any American prisoners - in the hope of selling the series States-side. The ploy didn't work).

[EnemyoftheStoat]

I recall that Colditz was a BBC co-production with WGBH Boston or somebody so maybe that accounted for the presence of Robert Wagner.

As for the presence of US prisoners, I believe there were some very late in WWII, if only because the Colditz boardgame (does anyone remember playing it?) reflects this with a contingent of pieces representing US POWs.

[gurnemanz]

....Possibly in the hope that an enterprising US network or station might buy the series? (The BBC tried something similar years ago when they gave Robert Wagner a leading role in 'Colditz' - as far as I know, the place never contained any American prisoners - in the hope of selling the series States-side. The ploy didn't work).
The same occurred to me. Also, including Copland gave them a chance to play something American and famous: Fanfare for the Common Man.

I was disappointed to hear Simon Russell Beale refer to a conductor called "Fertwengler".

[Barbirollians]

I don't dislike Ives at all but I think he was given a wholly disproportionate prominence in the series when Mendelssohn, Schumann, Nielsen and Prokofiev were ignored .

[Boilk]

I don't dislike Ives at all but I think he was given a wholly disproportionate prominence in the series when Mendelssohn, Schumann, Nielsen and Prokofiev were ignored .

I think it was more a case of acknowledging America in the 20th century episode (an expansion of the Euro-centric 18th and 19th centuries). If Copland hadn't included his Fanfare in the Third symphony he might have been ommitted altogether (like the other popular guy Bernstein). As good as Copland's Dance Symphony is, there's no way he can be considered a symphonist of the same stature as his contemporary Roger Sessions. But of course the latter - rated by many in America as its finest symphonist to date - isn't exactly mainstream.

[Suffolkcoastal]

After many years of studying the American symphony, I still find it among the most complex and fascinating areas of musical history, the variety of influences on it and the variety of responses it ultimately resulted in. Sessions is among the finest and most interesting symphonists of the 20th century, the evolution of his mature style could be the subject of a very large dissertation and inspite of its complexity is instantly recogniseable. I heard Nicholas Kenyon having a dig at Schuman and Mennin on Saturday, Kenyon's dislike of much less radical American composers has been known for a while, but the little dig I thought was rather silly. Schuman's symphonies are very fine examples of symphonic writing, the 6th and 9th symphonies in particular show a very individual take on symphonic form and Mennin's works have a striking energy and an enviable command of counterpoint.

I am often intrigued by the influence of Roussel on composers such as Piston and Diamond, and Piston's are also very classical (in the 18th century sense). My love of and fascination with Harris's music is well known so I don't need to elaborate here. Then there other very individual composers like Wallingford Riegger whose 3rd and 4th symphonies are again worth further study. I think I could easily put on several programmes on the American Symphony for R3, they of course wouldn't be suitable for BBC4 and the British Symphony too!

[aeolium]

I think I could easily put on several programmes on the American Symphony for R3, they of course wouldn't be suitable for BBC4 and the British Symphony too!

I for one would be very interested to hear such programmes, Suffolkcoastal, as it's a subject about which I'm mainly ignorant.

[Roehre]

After many years of studying the American symphony, I still find it among the most complex and fascinating areas of musical history, the variety of influences on it and the variety of responses it ultimately resulted in. Sessions is among the finest and most interesting symphonists of the 20th century, the evolution of his mature style could be the subject of a very large dissertation and inspite of its complexity is instantly recogniseable. I heard Nicholas Kenyon having a dig at Schuman and Mennin on Saturday, Kenyon's dislike of much less radical American composers has been known for a while, but the little dig I thought was rather silly. Schuman's symphonies are very fine examples of symphonic writing, the 6th and 9th symphonies in particular show a very individual take on symphonic form and Mennin's works have a striking energy and an enviable command of counterpoint.

I am often intrigued by the influence of Roussel on composers such as Piston and Diamond, and Piston's are also very classical (in the 18th century sense). My love of and fascination with Harris's music is well known so I don't need to elaborate here. Then there other very individual composers like Wallingford Riegger whose 3rd and 4th symphonies are again worth further study. I think I could easily put on several programmes on the American Symphony for R3, they of course wouldn't be suitable for BBC4 and the British Symphony too!
:ok:


I heard Nicholas Kenyon having a dig at Schuman and Mennin on Saturday, Kenyon's dislike of much less radical American composers has been known for a while, but the little dig I thought was rather silly.
As I did

About Schuman: SC, have you got a clue whether his pre-third symphonies (nos.1 and 2 therefore) still do exist?

[Suffolkcoastal]

Schuman's 1st & 2nd Symphonies do still exist Roehre. I have an off-air recording of the 2nd Symphony's 2nd performance from 1937. A few years ago to my shock I discovered a score of the 2nd symphony in of all places the Henry Watson Memorial Library in Manchester. I saw it on the reserve catalogue listing, thought it must be an error so asked to look at it and lo behold it was indeed the 2nd symphony. What is more amazing is that the 2nd symphony wasnever published, the copyist must have been one of Schirmer's employees at the time as it has a similar style to some of Harris's scores of the period published by Schirmer. I contacted the Schuman Trust who contacted the family who were happy to have the score remain in Manchester which I hope is still the case. It is quite a compact one movement work lasting around the same length as Harris's 3rd, the note C is sounding throughout almost the entire length of the work. I think one early reviewer said it made him give up on aspirin tablets afterwards (or something to this effect). The C can be very instrusive at times and the largely unrelieved tension could cuase a few headaches! I can understand why Schuman withdrew it after the 2 performances, but still think it is worth reviving. The 1st symphony is I believe still in manuscript and was scored for 18 instruments and I would be very intrigued to hear it.

[Roehre]

Many thanks SC :ok:

[Suffolkcoastal]

I should have mentioned above that this year was the 50th Anniversary of Riegger's death. Nothing by Riegger has been played on R3 in the almost three years I've been conducting my survey. Mind you Hovhaness, whose music is much less 'scary' than Riegger's has has just two pieces played in this his centenary year.

[kernelbogey]

This series is being repeated at present. I missed it before and have just enjoyed the first programme via iPlayer. Rather too much footage of modern cities and traffic, but the OAE sounds in fine form and I liked Simon Russell Beale's commentary. There were several interesting portraits of composers shown that I hadn't seen before, particularly one of Mozart. Looking forward to the rest of this series.

[Roehre]

Watching it now again, after doing so using my skybox recordings, I think it's not bad at all, given the complexity of the subject and the enormous choice of material to decide to be in- or excluded.
Snippets are unavoidable I'm afraid, even in the sometimes very minuscule size as offered here.

[kernelbogey]

Just watched the latest episode (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01778mc/Symphony_New_Nations_and_New_Worlds/) (Wagner (sic), Brahms, Sibelius, Dvorak, Mahler) on iPlayer and enjoyed it very much. Simon R-B is a good presenter, and it's a nice touch that he sometimes picks out a few tunes on the piano.

I wonder what the musicians and conductors on the Boards think of Mark Elder's style of conducting. I'm not a musician - but I'm rather surprised by what appears to be the absence of a clear beat. There are a few seconds of Colin Davis conducting Sibelius and his beat is very clear.

Just asking....

[Chris Newman]

Just watched the latest episode (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01778mc/Symphony_New_Nations_and_New_Worlds/) (Wagner (sic), Brahms, Sibelius, Dvorak, Mahler) on iPlayer and enjoyed it very much. Simon R-B is a good presenter, and it's a nice touch that he sometimes picks out a few tunes on the piano.

I wonder what the musicians and conductors on the Boards think of Mark Elder's style of conducting. I'm not a musician - but I'm rather surprised by what appears to be the absence of a clear beat. There are a few seconds of Colin Davis conducting Sibelius and his beat is very clear.

Just asking....

But they both sing on the beat:laugh:.

[kernelbogey]

But they both sing on the beat:laugh:.
Given the luxury of many close-up shots of Mark Elder conducting, I noticed how expressively he used his face, eyes etc to communicate. I also noticed that some members of the BBCSO really kept their eyes on him, though perhaps that was a bit of a setup for the cameras :winkeye:.

After my previous post I read the whole thread. I thought Mark Elder an engaging, if somewhat intense, exponent of the music in his one-to-ones with SRB (I wouldn't want to get stuck in a corner at a party with ME :smiley:). Disagreeing with those who found the series disappointing, I think it was quite good entertainment for a non-specialist audience, and I learned a few things despite decades of interest in the symphony. I found the visit to Dvorak's house particularly moving.

[MrGongGong]

Just watched the latest episode (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01778mc/Symphony_New_Nations_and_New_Worlds/) (Wagner (sic), Brahms, Sibelius, Dvorak, Mahler) on iPlayer and enjoyed it very much. Simon R-B is a good presenter, and it's a nice touch that he sometimes picks out a few tunes on the piano.

I wonder what the musicians and conductors on the Boards think of Mark Elder's style of conducting. I'm not a musician - but I'm rather surprised by what appears to be the absence of a clear beat. There are a few seconds of Colin Davis conducting Sibelius and his beat is very clear.

Just asking....

I'm not a professional conductor BUT my experience of directing ensembles is that giving a "clear" beat is not always essential.
A few years ago I directed a huge ensemble mostly comprised of over 100 teenage players. After the gig I was puzzled about how much my arms were aching until I realised that I was having to make such huge gestures conducting them. When I directed a performance with the Philharmonia I quickly realised in the rehearsal that they would play brilliantly even if I danced around randomly :biggrin: giving a "clear beat" was not really necessary at all as they are more than able of staying together without me.

(I did have one of the players remark that I was easier to follow than Gurgiev which was taken as a massive compliment but sadly not reflected in my fee :sadface:)

[Pabmusic]

I'm not a professional conductor BUT my experience of directing ensembles is that giving a "clear" beat is not always essential.


Very true. I think it all depends on how well the orchestra know you. To a (moderate) extent, exaggerated gestures at the concert itself are not that important (the orchestra should know the piece and your interpretation by now - if they don't it's your own fault). I remember that I stopped beating completely at one point in the finale of the Beethoven Pastoral - but I was just showing off, of course, and the orchestra knew me very well. It kept them on the edge of their seats!

[Roehre]

I remember that I stopped beating completely at one point in the finale of the Beethoven Pastoral - but I was just showing off, of course, and the orchestra knew me very well. It kept them on the edge of their seats!

something Eduard van Beinum did in Amsterdam in the 5/4 waltz in Tchaikovsky 6. It went perfectly.

[Pabmusic]

something Eduard van Beinum did in Amsterdam in the 5/4 waltz in Tchaikovsky 6. It went perfectly.

I can imagine. That movement would be very suitable for a bit of showmanship, because it is very regular with that 5/4 beat, and once you start it almost plays itself. Do you notice how Tchaikovsky alternates the 3:2/2:3 bars? Brilliant.