|
HtoHe
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: 14:32:45, 03-08-2008 » |
|
Thanks, Stanley. I'll certainly bear that in mind. I misread the Proms booklet which does, indeed, give the BBC4 broadcast as a live relay on 28th July; but it also mentions a BBC2 repeat on 6th Sep. I couldn't record the Radio 3 repeat as I was on my way to Prom 19; so if I can't get the BBC2 programme I might well take you up on your kind offer.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Turfan Fragment
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 15:13:10, 03-08-2008 » |
|
about ten years later I attended a revelatory concert of Carter's music at the Concertgebouw conducted by Oliver Knussen (of whom I am no fan at all!) in which everything suddenly made sense to me. I find it pretty hard to resist the conclusion that, whatever one thinks of Knussen in general, one thing he's undeniably the best in the world at is interpreting the music of Elliott Carter. I've never heard a performance that was less than revelatory! I couldn't disagree more. Every performance/recording of Carter by Knussen I've heard sounds thoroughly calculated, antiseptic, impersonal, self-conscious to the extent that it becomes little more than an anoraky collection of patterns and sound, void of any emotional content I can perceive (I don't count the equally calculated use of certain mannered forms of 'expressivity'). Well, it could still be 'revelatory', though, even as it's impersonal, etc. What it reveals to me is the degree to which structures can be liberated from their rhythmic dependence upon one another or upon a common pulse, through, presumably, careful rehearsal and listening -- and composition, for that matter. I do not separate this structural hearing from expressivity. They are aspects of the same thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 15:26:55, 03-08-2008 » |
|
Well, it could still be 'revelatory', though, even as it's impersonal, etc. What it reveals to me is the degree to which structures can be liberated from their rhythmic dependence upon one another or upon a common pulse, through, presumably, careful rehearsal and listening -- and composition, for that matter. I do not separate this structural hearing from expressivity. They are aspects of the same thing. Structural listening is a rather loosely-defined term, I find. I prefer to think in terms of the temporal unfolding, development, etc. of a piece of music. But even then, many aspects of timing, proportion - the finest details of these, especially - can equally be about issues of spontaneity, intuition, or whatever, those things that cannot be reduced simply to a set of rationalisable principles. The tendency towards rationalisation of all aspects of music-making is one of the most impersonal things. It's certainly not incompatible with 'expressivity', but that's not the ultimate measure - after all, propaganda can be 'expressive' as well. But I don't believe the processes of communication can be wholly rationalised, either. I think I can tell when someone's words, gestures, etc., etc., are thoroughly calculated for effect - and many others can do the same, that's how we can have a sense if someone's lying - and the same goes for artistic communication. Note that the opposite of depersonalisation (Adorno is very good on this) is by no means some sort of 'authenticity'. But to me, something that is impersonal is almost never revelatory, in terms of music. A scientific discovery can be revelatory, but I look for something different from a work of music. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 15:48:17, 03-08-2008 » |
|
Well, it could still be 'revelatory', though, even as it's impersonal, etc. What it reveals to me is the degree to which structures can be liberated from their rhythmic dependence upon one another or upon a common pulse, through, presumably, careful rehearsal and listening -- and composition, for that matter. I do not separate this structural hearing from expressivity. They are aspects of the same thing. Structural listening is a rather loosely-defined term, I find. I don't think TF's comment rested on any definition of that term, loose or otherwise, since he wrote 'structural hearing' - which to me implies something rather different. to me, something that is impersonal is almost never revelatory Isn't impersonal a rather loosely-defined term, too?! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 15:52:06, 03-08-2008 » |
|
Well, it could still be 'revelatory', though, even as it's impersonal, etc. What it reveals to me is the degree to which structures can be liberated from their rhythmic dependence upon one another or upon a common pulse, through, presumably, careful rehearsal and listening -- and composition, for that matter. I do not separate this structural hearing from expressivity. They are aspects of the same thing. Structural listening is a rather loosely-defined term, I find. I don't think TF's comment rested on any definition of that term, loose or otherwise, since he wrote 'structural hearing' - which to me implies something rather different. Well, how would you define the difference between the two (not denying there is one)? to me, something that is impersonal is almost never revelatory Isn't impersonal a rather loosely-defined term, too?! It's a perception, and a concept as such which has a wide currency outside of the musical world (maybe less so in an anti-individualistic culture like that in the UK), which could not be said of structural listening/hearing. But in musical terms, I'd define what's impersonal as that which can be reduced to a finite set of codes and processes that can be rationalised and potentially reproduced. Very little of the music or performances that I value, from any era, could that be said of - for the reasons that attempts to write mock-Mozart or mock-anything else simply by 'following the rules' invariably fail. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 15:55:02, 03-08-2008 by Ian Pace »
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 15:57:36, 03-08-2008 » |
|
Well, how would you define the difference between the two (not denying there is one)? I took TF to mean simply something like 'hearing (aspects of) the structure', whereas 'structural listening' to me implies trying to hear a certain (e.g. Schenkerian) kind of structure, even if doing so involves bringing in structural concepts from outside the piece in question, or going against ways of hearing a piece that come more 'naturally' (to use another loaded term). Isn't impersonal a rather loosely-defined term, too?! It's a perception, and a concept as such which has a wide currency outside of the musical world (maybe less so in an anti-individualistic culture like that in the UK) My worry about 'impersonal' is not based on anti-individualistic grounds, but on the grounds that it risks being a transhistorical concept. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Turfan Fragment
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 16:04:43, 03-08-2008 » |
|
What is expressive about Carter's music, on a structural level, is how he dissociates metrical implications of melody from their position relative to the general meter, and relative to other simultaneously occurring melodies, and relative to expectations they set up in and of themselves. This dissociation can be brought to the fore, and I think Knussen does so in a remarkably careful, consistent way.
I don't find it mannered, but perhaps he has fooled me. I am so easily fooled, and I know that Ian Pace is not.
I am happy to leave the term 'impersonal' completely to one side with regard to this discussion. I took it to mean lacking in self-indulgence, though I agree that is not what it means at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 16:07:17, 03-08-2008 » |
|
Well, how would you define the difference between the two (not denying there is one)? I took TF to mean simply something like 'hearing (aspects of) the structure', whereas 'structural listening' to me implies trying to hear a certain (e.g. Schenkerian) kind of structure, even if doing so involves bringing in structural concepts from outside the piece in question, or going against ways of hearing a piece that come more 'naturally' (to use another loaded term). Well, that depends on what is defined as 'the structure' - is it something that has a definitive existence over and above individual perceptions? And why are certain structural concepts somehow from 'outside' of the piece? As far as impersonality is concerned, I don't particularly want to get into another argument about that - it's something I perceive very strongly in most aspects of British middle and upper class culture, in music, theatre, literature, whatever, and that perception is widely shared outside of the UK (including in America, though I'm not sure the Hollywood-ised alternative they present is much of an improvement). So I choose on the whole not to engage very much with that culture, as it is of little interest to me for that very reason. If those things aren't apparent to you, or they are but don't bother you, absolutely fine. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 16:14:14, 03-08-2008 » |
|
I don't find it mannered, but perhaps he has fooled me. I am so easily fooled, and I know that Ian Pace is not. No, I'm not saying that. Those aspects of Carter's music you mention are to me just the building blocks, tools, means to larger ends, in the best works. I tend to start with the wider impact the work has upon me and then try to analyse it (sometimes). Same reason I still don't really know much about the particular row techniques in various serial and post-serial works, but don't feel this impinges upon my appreciation of them. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 16:18:04, 03-08-2008 » |
|
In some ways, maybe I am wrong in this, it very much reminded me of the Richard Strauss con certo, dunno why. But what the heck!
Because it's another of the very few 20th century oboe concertos? I don't know how many major oboe concerti there are from the 20th century (Maderna wrote no less than three such concerti, but...). That said, I seem to recall (though I cannot now place the source or date) that Carter himself said that, in writing that piece, he wanted to compose something specifically unlike the Strauss concerto; I suspect that the very fact of him making such a comment is suggestive that he was acutely conscious of that work and, to me, he has by no means succeeded in such an aim, for the melodic richness and lyrical impulses evident in Carter's oboe concerto seem to me to be not a million miles from the kind of thing that motivated Strauss in his concerto, for all that the music obviously sounds utterly different. Indeed, those particular characteristics strike me as more sharply defined in the oboe concerto than in any of his other concerti that I have so far heard, apart from the violin one (although I admit to not yet having heard his flute or horn concerti). By the way, do let's give Elliott his full quota of "t"s... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jennyhorn
Posts: 76
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 17:51:19, 03-08-2008 » |
|
hi Ian!
yes,i did hear the Laitner/Leindsorf recording once- -alas,it has never appeared on CD...there`s something very exciting about some of those earlier recordings of `contemporary music`- -with the passing of time it`s unfortunate how things can occasionally get a bit routine: compare the 60`s Dorati recording of Chronochromie with Boulez`s sedate DG from the 90`s. in the former,the BBCSO play like their lives depend on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
harmonyharmony
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 18:24:28, 03-08-2008 » |
|
Ian-do you like the piano concerto? i first became attracted to Carter via the Oppens/Gielen recording...many years later,it`s the one piece i still have a fondness for.
The piano concerto doesn't really grab me. My first acquaintance with the piece (and, actually most of Carter's output) was via reading David Schiff and I don't think that the concept really convinced me then. I'd much rather listen to the Double Concerto again and again and again and again and... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'is this all we can do?' anonymous student of the University of Berkeley, California quoted in H. Draper, 'The new student revolt' (New York: Grove Press, 1965) http://www.myspace.com/itensemble |
|
|
|
George Garnett
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 18:26:04, 03-08-2008 » |
|
hi Ian!
yes,i did hear the Lateiner/Leindsorf recording once- -alas,it has never appeared on CD...there`s something very exciting about some of those earlier recordings of `contemporary music`- -with the passing of time it`s unfortunate how things can occasionally get a bit routine.
Oi, less of the 'passing of time', jennyh: the word contemporary will do very nicely without the quotation marks, thank you  . I'm going to be my usual irritating self and say that I heard that very combo (Lateiner/Leinsdorf) back in 1970 at the Festival Hall. It was the first UK performance I think. It was certainly my introduction to Carter and I've liked the work ever since. And yes, the lack of concessions was rather annoying. Not even for impoverished students.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 18:34:05, 03-08-2008 » |
|
Oi, less of the 'passing of time', jennyh: the word contemporary will do very nicely without the quotation marks, thank you . Well, is a work written 44 years ago really 'contemporary' any longer? Before my lifetime, and whilst I may be younger than some, I have spent 40 years on this planet. In 1964, half of Europe was run by communist governments, a wall separated Berlin (partially inspiring the work in question), the US was just starting large-scale involvement in Vietnam, the majority of married women were housewives in most of the West, homosexuality was still illegal or deeply ostracised in most Western countries, etc., etc. - all seems a long time ago now. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
jennyhorn
Posts: 76
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 18:40:51, 03-08-2008 » |
|
HH-
interesting to hear that you prefer the double concerto- - -that`s a piece i`ve never got the hang of.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
