|
ahinton
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: 14:07:17, 24-08-2007 » |
|
I agree that popular/industry use of sex is, indeed, as with many other aspects, overused and tending towards cliché. All very tame, in any event (is that by definition of its popularity though?).
But yes, back to PMC, by all regards.
...
I don't assume that you don't think this, Ian, but I think it worth making the distinction between
a: no sex
b: bad sex
c: good sex
and to assert that, insofar as it is possible, c is preferable to b, not a. (that is to say that saying "people just toss in loads of fellatio and hope it'll sell" carries connotations that "it'd be better without sex". Which, I don't think is your point, but thought worth saying anyway. )
I ws about to respond to the end of your original post here, only to find that you've edited it out before I could get to it(!), but I'll endeavour to do so anyway (since I think that what I'm about to write holds good in terms of what you have not edited out of your post) that using sex in some form to advertise or otherwise draw attention to something which does not of itself embrace something sexual as its principal characteristic might be argued to be about as inherently meaningful in principle as getting a violinist to play Elliott Carter's Oboe Concerto. As we all know, however, if advertisers thought that they could find some means to do something like this in order to generate money from sales better than using sexual imagery, they'd do that instead, for the more important word in "sex sells" is surely not "sex" but "sells". Now - Lord Macca of Port Sunlight, anyone?... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #76 on: 14:09:59, 24-08-2007 » |
|
I don't assume that you don't think this, Ian, but I think it worth making the distinction between
a: no sex
b: bad sex
c: good sex
and to assert that, insofar as it is possible, c is preferable to b, not a. (that is to say that saying "people just toss in loads of fellatio and hope it'll sell" carries connotations that "it'd be better without sex". Which, I don't think is your point. No, it certainly isn't. Actually I have more in mind this British attitude that comes from an underlying prurience, thinking that having some token sex in anything is somehow 'naughty' and 'subversive'. Ian, I never thought I'd find myself saying this - and I know you'll not at all thank me for it - but here you sound almost exactly like - yes, I'll name him - Sorabji! There are far deeper expressions of sexuality deeply embedded in a wide range of music than shilling-shocker tactics can achieve.
But on the other hand, not all music, nor everything else in the world, is solely about sex, nor need it be, And sex can be a destructive as well as productive force, as, for example, various expressionist writers and artists have explored.
All of this is, of course, beyond argument. Come in - or rather go out - Paul McCartney - your time was up some posts ago!... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #77 on: 14:15:10, 24-08-2007 » |
|
I ws about to respond to the end of your original post here, only to find that you've edited it out before I could get to it(!), but I'll endeavour to do so anyway (since I think that what I'm about to write holds good in terms of what you have not edited out of your post) I edited it out because I was repeating myself I think  that using sex in some form to advertise or otherwise draw attention to something which does not of itself embrace something sexual as its principal characteristic might be argued to be about as inherently meaningful in principle as getting a violinist to play Elliott Carter's Oboe Concerto. As we all know, however, if advertisers thought that they could find some means to do something like this in order to generate money from sales better than using sexual imagery, they'd do that instead, for the more important word in "sex sells" is surely not "sex" but "sells".
I agree that this is an important distinction (though not a dichotomy), one worthy of making between sexual analogies and posters of cleavage; heaven forbid people should conflate the two! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #78 on: 14:26:18, 24-08-2007 » |
|
that using sex in some form to advertise or otherwise draw attention to something which does not of itself embrace something sexual as its principal characteristic might be argued to be about as inherently meaningful in principle as getting a violinist to play Elliott Carter's Oboe Concerto. As we all know, however, if advertisers thought that they could find some means to do something like this in order to generate money from sales better than using sexual imagery, they'd do that instead, for the more important word in "sex sells" is surely not "sex" but "sells".
I agree that this is an important distinction (though not a dichotomy), one worthy of making between sexual analogies and posters of cleavage; heaven forbid people should conflate the two! Quite so - though nothing would surprise me on this front!... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Watson
Guest
|
|
« Reply #79 on: 14:27:20, 24-08-2007 » |
|
Operas with tits and bums? I don't know much about that but I know that Britten's opera A Midsummer Night's Dream has got Titania and Bottom in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Chafing Dish
Guest
|
|
« Reply #80 on: 15:09:22, 24-08-2007 » |
|
Tony Watson: I was at a performance by the Berkeley Symphony some years ago and a piece was played by a composer under the pseudonym 'Allerton Small' A prize to anyone who can guess the composer. And explain the pseudonym. PS The piece was truly awful. In fact, the orchestra and Nagano had decided during the rehearsals to cut parts of the piece to make it at least remotely palatable. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kittybriton
|
|
« Reply #81 on: 15:16:41, 24-08-2007 » |
|
heaven forbid people should conflate the two!
Or even, inflate the two! BAD BAD Kitty! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Click me -> About meor me -> my handmade storeNo, I'm not a complete idiot. I'm only a halfwit. In fact I'm actually a catfish. |
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #82 on: 15:31:09, 24-08-2007 » |
|
Tony Watson: I was at a performance by the Berkeley Symphony some years ago and a piece was played by a composer under the pseudonym 'Allerton Small' A prize to anyone who can guess the composer. And explain the pseudonym. PS The piece was truly awful. In fact, the orchestra and Nagano had decided during the rehearsals to cut parts of the piece to make it at least remotely palatable. Well, that's rather less than Barry Wordsworth did to Andrew Gant's A British Symphony or whatever it is/was, where the entire work was cut for the same reason; I've never heard that piece, of course, nor have I seen its score, so I cannot judge, but one might nevertheless wonder, in the light of pertinent remarks made by Ian earlier today in the Meeting Life's Challenges and Upsets thread, whether it might in fact be An Emotionally Stunted British Symphony... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #83 on: 15:44:28, 24-08-2007 » |
|
Andrew Gant's A British Symphony or whatever it is/was, where the entire work was cut for the same reason;
Was that in fact the reason given for the non-performance of Gant's piece? I believe there was intense speculation that there might have been other reasons (linked to the identity of the work's commissioner, and that gentleman's political affiliations... and another story that Wordsworth didn't get a finished score and parts in time to rehearse the work adequately) at the time, but I confess to not knowing the final story on that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #84 on: 15:52:11, 24-08-2007 » |
|
Ian, I never thought I'd find myself saying this - and I know you'll not at all thank me for it - but here you sound almost exactly like - yes, I'll name him - Sorabji! In terms of what Sorabji identified in British society and culture, I am in some measure of agreement (and also with respect to predominant neo-classical approaches to music). But in terms of what he offered in its place - idealised, mystical, visions of archaic societies with firm hierarchies based on race and the aristocratic principle - then certainly not. One needs to look forwards, not backwards. What he missed, I believe, is that in this society the process of industrialisation was not accompanied by a through-going removal of the aristocratic principle (one needs only look at the monarchy and the House of Lords to see that). Far from being insufficiently aristocratic, this society remains still too founded upon such a principle. And if that means some sort of move away from various archaic ideals upon which high culture was founded, then so be it (in that sense, I have no intrinsic problem with the fact that society values Paul McCartney more than Brian Ferneyhough, say, whatever my own personal preferences). Though I believe some aspects of high culture can still be redeemed. |
|
|
|
|
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 #85 on: 16:05:42, 24-08-2007 » |
|
Andrew Gant's A British Symphony or whatever it is/was, where the entire work was cut for the same reason;
Was that in fact the reason given for the non-performance of Gant's piece? I believe there was intense speculation that there might have been other reasons (linked to the identity of the work's commissioner, and that gentleman's political affiliations... and another story that Wordsworth didn't get a finished score and parts in time to rehearse the work adequately) at the time, but I confess to not knowing the final story on that. I don't claim to know the truth of the story either, but it seems that what Barry Wordsworth himself put about as the reason was that the work was considered inappropriate for public performance in the concert in which its première had been scheduled; now whether that was because he thought the work of too low a standard, or whether, as you suggest, he might not have got a finished score and parts on time, or both, I do not know, although I have heard no evidence that late delivery was any part of the issue. None of the players seems to have come forward with any comment and, unless under contractual obligation to secrecy on this, they presumably could have done so, since they had apparently rehearsed the piece. Gant himself (who I do not know personally) has similarly remained publicly tight-lipped about it, too. What puzzled most people who heard about it was why the work was withdrawn so soon before the scheduled première was supposed to take place; any speculation along the lines you suggest that there genuinely been "reasons linked to the identity of the work's commissioner, and that gentleman's political affiliations" would surely be doubtful since it would not be unreasonable to assume that the concert promoters would have had advance awareness of these two facts and accordingly not even accepted the piece for première had they considered that either or both might constitute a sufficient disincentive. That said, I suppose that there may nevertheless be some kind of potential homily tucked away in such a speculation and I should perhaps bear it in mind in the somewhat unlikely event that Alessandra Mussolini or Tony Benn ever commission a work from me. But again we digress from Mr Heather Mills and his composerly competence or otherwise; now if only Derek Hatton (anyone other than Ian remember him?!) had commissioned a symphony from him, we could bring this back on topic with abit of what was once called Radio 4 linkspeak... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #86 on: 16:21:18, 24-08-2007 » |
|
Ian, I never thought I'd find myself saying this - and I know you'll not at all thank me for it - but here you sound almost exactly like - yes, I'll name him - Sorabji! In terms of what Sorabji identified in British society and culture, I am in some measure of agreement (and also with respect to predominant neo-classical approaches to music). Can I have that in writing? Oops, sorry - I just have, haven't I! But in terms of what he offered in its place - idealised, mystical, visions of archaic societies with firm hierarchies based on race and the aristocratic principle - then certainly not.
Now that's a very narrow and by no means accurate view of what he did, but let's not get into that here, since I invoked Sorabji only in the specific context of the commonality of your remarks and his on the constrictedness of emotional expression found in certain British people. One needs to look forwards, not backwards.
Better still, one surely needs to do both. What he missed, I believe, is that in this society the process of industrialisation was not accompanied by a through-going removal of the aristocratic principle (one needs only look at the monarchy and the House of Lords to see that).
MUST we look at "the monarchy and the House of Lords"? (I know that Paul McCartney, like Elton John, Michael Jagger and others are knights of the realm, but...). Again, whilst Sorabji did indeed accept that fact that Britain had the monarchy and second chamber that you mention, I would no more claim that he was a devout monarchist than I would suggest that he saw the House of Lords as representative of an "aristocracy" that meant anything much to him; in fact, he once told me that he thought that the paintings of a local ex-railway employee suggested that he was arguably more of an aristocrat than the Lord Beeching who, by reason of his position in that second chamber, actually was regarded as a so-called "aristocrat" but whose cuts had resulted in the loss of his employment. I believe some aspects of high culture can still be redeemed.
Do they need to be? - by which I mean do you really mean "redeemed" or do you mean merely rescued from the pompous snobs and the Classic-FMmers? Now, come on, Ian - let's get off Sorabji and back to Sir James P McCartney (ye gods, I never thought I'd say that, either!)... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #87 on: 16:27:29, 24-08-2007 » |
|
Oh, I remember Councillor Derek Hatton alright As I say, I know rather less than you do about Gant's piece and its mysterious non-appearance... perhaps it turned-out to be a case of caveat emptor? Following on from the logic of your linkage, Alistair, are you hinting that you can get low-quality mulch performed if you are a former OBE-refusing luvvable moptop, but not if you take the shilling of tub-thumping nationalists? Whilst the terms "frying-pan" and "fire" come to mind, I have to say that if these are our stark choices, I'd prefer Sir Macca any day of the week... And people ask me why I am always smiling happily when sitting in the Departure Lounge at Heathrow, headed eastbound?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
HtoHe
|
|
« Reply #88 on: 16:55:34, 24-08-2007 » |
|
But again we digress from Mr Heather Mills and his composerly competence or otherwise;
I'm afraid I already found McCartney tedious even before my interest in rock music began to wane. I don't have the technical expertise to comment on his competence per se, but I honestly can't think of anything of his that I found interesting after the break-up of the Beatles. I generally agree with the cynical but memorable observation that the Beatles seem to be dying in the wrong order. Bad news for Ringo, I should think. I always had the impression that money was top of McCartney's agenda. Nothing particularly bad about that: "We're only in it for the Money" was a not entirely ironic album title by an altogether more interesting rock musician. But McCartney seems to lack the genuine interest in music that other commercially-motivated artists have. I seem to remember Ravi Shankar commenting on George Harrison's deep and sincere interest in Indian classical music. Since the other three Beatles also went to Shankar for enlightenment we must assume he was less favourably impressed by their attitude. I have come across some of McCartney's 'compositions' such as 'Standing Stone' and 'Liverpool Oratorio' and found very little to like about them. But then a) I didn't expect to like them given my views on his pop work and b) I tend not to like such stuff: I'd much rather listen to Soft Machine Six than to any of Karl Jenkins's 'classical' pieces and, when I went to the RFH performance of Chick Corea's Piano Concerto, while I found the concerto tolerable, I was happier in the second part of the concert when he got down to what he's really good at with his jazz ensemble. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #89 on: 16:59:54, 24-08-2007 » |
|
As I say, I know rather less than you do about Gant's piece and its mysterious non-appearance... perhaps it turned-out to be a case of caveat emptor?
Who can say? Maybe we'll find out eventually. Perhaps it was a case of cavernous emptiness (of content, that is)... Following on from the logic of your linkage, Alistair, are you hinting that you can get low-quality mulch performed if you are a former OBE-refusing luvvable moptop, but not if you take the shilling of tub-thumping nationalists? Er - um - it would, I fear, require a mental virtuosity and connotational legerdemain well above mine to manage to extrapolate this suggestion from anything that I'd written which, as far as I'm aware, offers no comment or even implication one way or the other on such issues at all... Whilst the terms "frying-pan" and "fire" come to mind, I have to say that if these are our stark choices, I'd prefer Sir Macca any day of the week... Well, I think that, whatever our choices may or may not be, I'd personally prefer to leave the compositions of Lord Macaroon of Toxteth for others' delectation or otherwise. And people ask me why I am always smiling happily when sitting in the Departure Lounge at Heathrow, headed eastbound? So they do? Well, however understandable your smiling may be on such occasions, there are surely other things for which it is worth spending time in Britain, for all its faults including but by no means limited to those hinted at here. And in any case, would you not be smiling more broadly still if your ticket was a one-way one? Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
