Sydney - just a quibble with your terminology - am I not correct in thinking that the seconda prattica monody was always accompanied?
Yes Mr. Harmony is right - we were insufficiently systematic when looking up "monody" in the
Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, and we now see that it does not actually mean "monophonic music" at all. We thank both him and Madame Pianiste for giving members their impressions of these compositions.
To-day we wish to add a little about the second work in the concert, namely "Chris" Litherland's "
Funferall." The first thing to say is that a great many composers - from Bach and Mozart downwards - have written funeral music, and the general acceptation is we may assert without fear of contradiction that
funerals are sad occasions. Or is that viewpoint perhaps restricted to Christians? Mr. Litherland refers us to ancient Roman funeral rites and we confess they constitute a subject that has not until now attracted our interest. We wonder at least whether they were anything like those of the ancient Greeks do we not? It may be a worthwhile subject but we regret to say that we are uninclined to get it up simply for Mr. Litherland's pleasure.
And then there is drunken revelry and the Dionysiac - again the inspiration of a good many composers. But the great question is
why the composer might wish to shrink from the traditional sadness (with which most modern people seem happy) and cheer us - or is it himself? - up. Perhaps - if we may for a moment descend to individual psychological speculation - the poor lad suffered a recent death in the family and he found himself guiltily enjoying the post-exequial imbibitions.
Let us list one final quibble before moving on to the positive: it is the name "Joyce" which is frightfully off-putting! (We will shortly post in another thread what Wyndham Lewis had to say about him.) Can there be any one who has read right through "
Finnegans Wake" for pleasure? And in respect to Joyce's stupid word "funferall" may we not again ask our youthful composer - despite his written and spoken commentaries - "
Why?"
Now when we listen to the actual music - like that of his contemporary Charlie the work is too short! - we hear absolutely nothing that suggests a funeral! Funerals come to our mind only when we are told the curious title. All we in fact
hear is revelry. The music is mostly Dukas of course with an admixture of Schoenberg around the Golden Calf. (It is in fact rather better than Schoenberg's rather cumbersome effort.)
In his spoken interview the composer mentions "
joy" which must in our new century be an admirable motivation, but he rather spoils the effect by invoking in the same breath the name "Nancarrow" with its sordid air. Nevertheless the work provides pleasant listening all the way through. Mr. Litherland's xylophone has much more point and effectiveness than silly old Boulez's vibraphones; and he demonstrates an adequate feeling for harmony and rhythm. Triple time is an immemorial tradition in such music, and indeed we detect a touch of the rumpty-tumpties, even, which cannot be a bad thing. The musical world of England has long been crying out for a successor to the great Dr. Williams! - Alas there are now no longer any folk songs for young Mr. Litherland to collect . . . .
