International Women's Day

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by kernelbogey View Post
    Fortunately, my capacity for taking offence is not subject to anyone's view of my naivety, credible or otherwise.

    I thought the post itself ticked two boxes: (possibly unconscious) racism and (possibly unconscious) misogyny.
    For which I am grateful.

    Comment


      #32
      Jayne, the first four composers in your second paragraph are all broadcast more often, much more often , than Lutyens, Rainier and (apart from 'Sea Sketches') Grace Williams.

      Comment


        #33
        The main issue on life chances is social class, and , connected to it , inherited wealth.

        A problem that the media overlook far too much of the time....which is understandable given the provenance of many working in those areas.
        I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

        I am not a number, I am a free man.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
          The main issue on life chances is social class, and , connected to it , inherited wealth.
          I'm not sure how one quantifies the 'life chances' of women v. working class.
          It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
            The main issue on life chances is social class, and , connected to it , inherited wealth.

            A problem that the media overlook far too much of the time....which is understandable given the provenance of many working in those areas.
            This is a crucial point. When institutions talk about "diversity" they are almost never talking about class diversity, because it's not something that can be addressed with quotas, but only by a more fundamental restructuring of society in general and education in particular.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by RichardB View Post
              This is a crucial point. When institutions talk about "diversity" they are almost never talking about class diversity, because it's not something that can be addressed with quotas, but only by a more fundamental restructuring of society in general and education in particular.
              Many modern media organisations do have targets on social class. Typically they ask on a job application what job the parents did when the applicant was aged 14. Thing is you can’t solve the problem by targets. The career process is structured to favour the middle classes especially in regard to the whole graduate Ponzi scheme.

              When I first started many if not most journalists had left school and 16 or 18 and started as apprentices at the local paper - maybe doing day release to get shorthand.Many had working class backgrounds . Now they are all graduates with all the expense and debt that entails . Some Uni journalism courses are three years long and don’t even give you a BCJT certificate at the end. Total waste of time. You don’t need to be a graduate to do 90 per cent of the jobs in the media. The exception might be specialist long form journalism and even that has plenty of non graduates who’ve been successful.

              The BBC was once full of people who’d work their way up from the post room, freelance PA work, Assistant film editing , Assistant floor managing to the top of their profession - directors , exec producers even controllers. The route is still there but those entry jobs are now often done by graduates not 18 year olds - though I believe some sort of apprentice system is now in operation - long overdue.
              And as for unpaid work experience - a complete con that favours the monied middle class and excludes every one else. Some of the abusive practices in the independent TV and film sector are borderline illegal.

              Apologies - rant over.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by kernelbogey View Post
                I thought the post itself ticked two boxes: (possibly unconscious) racism and (possibly unconscious) misogyny.
                It was, sadly, almost predictable that raising the issue of just how many broadcasts Florence Price’s music now gets on R3 would cause someone to come out of the woodwork and perceive it as “(possibly unconscious) racism and (possibly unconscious) misogyny”. Wrong on both counts.

                As Pulcinella pointed out in #24, producers and programmers alike have diktats from high above that necessarily cascade down to each department and sub-department. The publicly-funded BBC is effectively under a microscope for inclusivity in every aspect of its output. It is right that hitherto neglected composers be broadcast, and the recent surge in CDs of Florence Price’s (as with other marginalised composers) of course makes that an easier task. But the sheer frequency with which some composers are now broadcast seems to be wholly disproportionate vis-à-vis other composers, which suggests that for the BBC there are indeed inclusivity targets to be met…

                Does anyone recall Suffolk Coastal’s 2021 Survey of Classical Music on Radio 3? According to the data therein there were more chunks of Florence Price broadcast (139) than even Bruckner (123), Nielsen (128), Walton (119) or Smetana (89). Good for her, but I think this data demonstrates that there are, in the equation, certainly extra-musical factors at play regarding R3 playlists, and pointing this out does not make anyone a misogynist or racist.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Boilk View Post
                  It was, sadly, almost predictable that raising the issue of just how many broadcasts Florence Price’s music now gets on R3 would cause someone to come out of the woodwork and perceive it as “(possibly unconscious) racism and (possibly unconscious) misogyny”. Wrong on both counts.

                  As Pulcinella pointed out in #24, producers and programmers alike have diktats from high above that necessarily cascade down to each department and sub-department. The publicly-funded BBC is effectively under a microscope for inclusivity in every aspect of its output. It is right that hitherto neglected composers be broadcast, and the recent surge in CDs of Florence Price’s (as with other marginalised composers) of course makes that an easier task. But the sheer frequency with which some composers are now broadcast seems to be wholly disproportionate vis-à-vis other composers, which suggests that for the BBC there are indeed inclusivity targets to be met…

                  Does anyone recall Suffolk Coastal’s 2021 Survey of Classical Music on Radio 3? According to the data therein there were more chunks of Florence Price broadcast (139) than even Bruckner (123), Nielsen (128), Walton (119) or Smetana (89). Good for her, but I think this data demonstrates that there are, in the equation, certainly extra-musical factors at play regarding R3 playlists, and pointing this out does not make anyone a misogynist or racist.
                  This Guardian review by Rowena Smith of the YNS / Philadelphia Orchestra performance of Florence Price’s first symphony (I think a parallel recording was played yesterday) strikes me a pretty fair summation .

                  “The Philadelphia Orchestra’s Edinburgh residency hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons before the orchestra had even crossed the Atlantic due to the Beethoven Nine mask fiasco. This, the second full-scale concert of the orchestra’s residency, largely passed under the radar, although it too was not without controversy. The very belated Scottish premiere of Florence Price’s First Symphony was never likely to be a big draw to the seemingly increasingly unadventurous EIF classical music audience. Even the pulling power of one of America’s great orchestras and conductor of the moment Yannick Nézet-Séguin, with the added sweetener of violinist Lisa Batiashvili (playing Szymanowski’s gorgeous but hardly super popular First Concerto) failed to tempt the Edinburgh audience who stayed away in large numbers.


                  This was a pity as Price’s First Symphony is definitely worth hearing, particularly when it finds a loving advocate such as Nézet-Séguin. The conductor is fond of championing the underdog and his advocacy of Price (the first half of a planned complete symphony cycle was released last year) is bringing her music out of the shadows and on to the international stage. Her First Symphony is a landmark work in being the first symphony by a Black woman to be performed by a major American orchestra (the Chicago Symphony in 1933). With its heavy allusions to Dvořák’s New World Symphony and rather wayward structure – two meandering movements followed by two so short they barely seem to get going - the symphony is certainly no neglected masterwork. Yet, historical significance aside, with its African tribal-inflected drum rhythms and luminous orchestration it has its moments, particularly the gorgeous brass chorale of the slow movement.

                  With the Philadelphia Orchestra lavishing all the gloss and polish you’d expect from one of America’s premier orchestras Price has found a persuasive champion. “

                  The symphony does indeed draw heavily from Dvorak , African American folk tunes or spirituals , and American dance rhythms like the cakewalk. But it doesn’t really add up to a coherent symphonic work. Definitely worth an occasional outing as it has some lovely moments but I don’t think it will establish itself in the repertory. It all really hangs on whether conductors and orchestras really believe in it .

                  Comment


                    #39
                    'Worth hearing' isn't very high praise, though. Over the years I recall several forgotten symphonies unearthed on Radio 3, including examples by Ebenezer Prout and Walford Davies, both impeccably constructed and orchestrated but utterly lacking in inspiration. 'Worth hearing' , yes, if only to say 'well,we gave it a fair hearing; you can't say we ddin't give it a chance'. But only once, surely; the attention given to Florence Price in relation to the quaility of her music is getting excessive. Time to go back on the shelf, I think, as Natalie Wheen used to say.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by smittims View Post
                      'Worth hearing' isn't very high praise, though. Over the years I recall several forgotten symphonies unearthed on Radio 3, including examples by Ebenezer Prout and Walford Davies, both impeccably constructed and orchestrated but utterly lacking in inspiration. 'Worth hearing' , yes, if only to say 'well,we gave it a fair hearing; you can't say we ddin't give it a chance'. But only once, surely; the attention given to Florence Price in relation to the quaility of her music is getting excessive. Time to go back on the shelf, I think, as Natalie Wheen used to say.
                      Just don’t think we should end on a negative note . There was some really interesting stuff yesterday. If it’s “tokenism” let’s have more rather than Scheherazade and Lark Ascending for the thousandth time.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View Post
                        Many modern media organisations do have targets on social class. Typically they ask on a job application what job the parents did when the applicant was aged 14. Thing is you can’t solve the problem by targets. The career process is structured to favour the middle classes especially in regard to the whole graduate Ponzi scheme.
                        Agree with most of this post. Even on such things as listening figures, respondents are asked about their social background. Radio 3 is keen to get C2 and D listeners listening. It's far easier (and within their control) to decide how R3 programming can be changed to attract the C2/Ds. Beyond their paygrade to wrestle with the problem of why R3's standard programmes don't already appeal to C2/Ds.

                        On variations in perceptions of quality: why is it that people repeatedly gravitate towards what is 'best' or what is their 'favourite'? Stay inside your own four walls and order exactly what you want from the internet. Once outside you come up against other people's preferences and priorities. Boosting marginalised minorities is part of the Zeitgeist, whether that produces what every individual wants or not.
                        It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by french frank View Post
                          Agree with most of this post. Even on such things as listening figures, respondents are asked about their social background. Radio 3 is keen to get C2 and D listeners listening. It's far easier (and within their control) to decide how R3 programming can be changed to attract the C2/Ds. Beyond their paygrade to wrestle with the problem of why R3's standard programmes don't already appeal to C2/Ds.

                          On variations in perceptions of quality: why is it that people repeatedly gravitate towards what is 'best' or what is their 'favourite'? Stay inside your own four walls and order exactly what you want from the internet. Once outside you come up against other people's preferences and priorities. Boosting marginalised minorities is part of the Zeitgeist, whether that produces what every individual wants or not.
                          I just don’t think it’s possible to demographically target classical music on a radio station. If we want to get a broader mix of people interested in classical music surely the place to start is in the schools. In my very limited experience when young children hear classical music they like it. They also like painting , playing with clay, making up stories, acting - all sorts of creative things which our highly structured curricula perhaps slightly discount . But something happens during growing up - classical music becomes uncool.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View Post
                            I just don’t think it’s possible to demographically target classical music on a radio station.
                            I agree again. But Radio 3 seems just as intent on getting people to listen to R3, not listening to classical music. Hence all the new late night listening strands.
                            It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X