Mr Grew is surprised at the inclusion of "some sort of violoncello". We would remind him that these are often used in "modern" performances of baroque music for violin (or whatever) and basso continuo, even if contemporary scholarship leads us to think that they may well not have been used in that way so often in the, ahem, early 18th century.

I'd never heard any of Vivaldi's op.2 before. This snatch does motivate me to explore further.

As far as I'm concerned you can have as many of my points as you like, but I think Mr Grew will claim that he mentioned the actual piece (op.2 no.1 in G minor) before I did, so I'm afraid you'll have to ask him. 

We are indeed flattered. If our guesses had hitherto mostly hit the mark it has, however, nothing to do with infallibility. Rather, the rules as they stood until recently did tend to discourage wild stabs to the arras such as my proffering of Schoenberg above...

I must say it sounds a lot righter to me now than it did when I first heard it though.

If you mean 159, richard, I would advise that it is described on the recording's booklet as being the product of an ultramodernist. If, as seems more likely from the timing of your message, you mean 158, then do not be fooled by the text. I chose that section and that recording to try and throw people off the scent.

158 sounds a lot more Tippett than Britten to me. Child of Our Time, thought I. But it isn't.


Is it?

It's certainly no Tippett I've ever heard; I've an idea it might be a rather extreme example from someone we normally consider rather more simplistic...