[Article Discussion] Why classical programmes need to be more readable

[Opus106]

I came across this article about the state of concert programmes in the U.K.

If the rest of the arts are happy to use the concept of a programme as an introduction and not a piece of study text – Flood refers to the "very worst" sort of programme note as reading like "poor A-level teaching" – then why can't the classical music world?

If I understand her correctly, she wants to associate some sort of programme with the music even when it does not necessarily have one. Does that sound right?

I don't know anything about music theory and most of the Italian (and English) terms go over my head, but I can certainly understand what "here the strings return to the rhythm they introduced themselves with" means if I pay attention to the music and had bothered to learn or, at least, have some intuitive idea of some basic terminology. (Theme, rhythm and so on.)

I don't have the opportunity to attend (m)any concerts, but I'd appreciate the views of those who do and also those interested in this topic. Do you have any ideas on how it could possibly be made simpler and the music more "understandable" to lay-people? Thanks. 

[Renfield]

I believe the complaint regards the intention behind the concert programme, the printed essay you can buy in the concert hall.

The author seems to think the concert notes are unnecessarily scholarly, at present, for the level of information they attempt to convey. And she suggests they should instead be more descriptive of the big picture of what one is going to the concert-hall to hear, rather than whether on the 55th bar there is a fascinating rhythmic modulation that seems in line with the disquieting nature of the work, etc.

Key passage:

The point is that breaking down a piece of art, opening it up on an operating table and shining a light on its body parts is not the way to introduce it. To study it, yes, but not to present it to somebody for the first time.

So it's not about adding semantic content, it's about less pedantic focus on structural elements at the expense of, for example:

"This is a symphony in four parts that people think is very good, although they didn't really like it when it was first premiered in 1858. The first movement, a quick-paced allegro has soaring brass chorales interspersed with woodwind solos that bring to mind composers X, Y, Z of the era, and ultimately link to the final movement's big theme. The second movement is based on a folk dance, and includes some variations of the first movement's second theme. Interestingly, it was written before the other four when the composer visited Swizerland, and likely served as the inspiration for the rest of the symphony. The third movement is..." This is a simplistic sketch, of course - but I hope you get the picture

[Kuhlau]

A terrific article that talks much sense - and in response to which, I just posted this:

Nicola, this is an excellent article and one which supports an idea that I, as a listener to classical music who lacks technical knowledge of the same, am experimenting with through the reviews in my blog: www.aneverymanforhimself.com

I remember how complicated it all seemed when I first began listening back in 1991. Where to start? What to buy? I couldn't make sense of the learned language of magazine and newspaper reviews, so I just fumbled my way around a minefield - stuff going off in my ears alarmingly (I wasn't immediately ready for Berg), and my wallet becoming a desperate casualty.

So now, many years on, I've started writing reviews for folk like me: those who want to appreciate art music aesthetically, not analytically. Judging by the comments my blog reviews are garnering - and the number of visits my site is receiving - I can take it that such an approach is welcome.

Now, if we could only translate such an idea to concert programmes ...

FK

[mahler10th]

www.aneverymanforhimself.com

I visited this and read through a Mozart review.  Splendid!
When the Proms are on, they have (on BBC Digital) a running text commentary of the music and what's happening with it and whats about to happen...in a very similar way to the review(s) posted above.  I absoloutely love this stuff, and feel the same way as opus67 about the need for these things.  The above weblink is a great start, it's EXACTLY what I had in mind when I was writing a Mahler 1st 'walkthrough' posted somewhere elsewhere on this forum (can't remember where).
Radio 3 in the UK has composer / works walkthrough programmes, but there is nothing better than following the programme (or outline) AS IT PLAYS.  It opens up a greater understanding for the regular listener, and for sure opens up the floodgates for complete Classical non-entities to 'connect' with Classical Music.  Classical Music then becomes something not difficult to understand, not for an alleged elite, but open to easier interpretation by EVERYBODY.
This is a great post.
It has got me buzzing.
There may be some commercial value in a release of major works with:
1.  The Symphony or whatever on its own as usual.
2.  The same work with voice over explaining background, what is happening, etc.
Might try a little teaser of this idea myself later on today.
Anyway, it's a great site above, and I'm sure it will develop into something much bigger.  Opus67 and I are not the only ones out there who need a little more tuition in a commentary, so I wish your site Friedrich (now bookmarked) every success for the future.

EDIT:  15 Mins later:   Oh!  I recognise you 'Friedrich'   - our old buddy Mark, from whom I was inspired to use my own face in posts instead of hiding behind an avatar!

[Kuhlau]

Thank you, John, for such glowing praise. I'm blushing slightly - but also excited, because you've demonstrated that what I'm attempting to do has a real value for those not 'technically equipped', shall we say, to understand the nuts and bolts of music.

With your permission, I'd like to append a short, edited version of your positive feedback above to the comments section of the Mozart review you read. Would that be okay?

FK

[Florestan]

www.aneverymanforhimself.com

I visited this and read through a Mozart review.  Splendid!

Might that be the review of Herreweghe's rendition of Gran Partita? I second the appreciation.

[Kuhlau]

Thanks, Florestan.

Do please consider commenting on the review - it'll be helpful to others, especially those completely new to classical music.

FK

[Florestan]

Thanks, Florestan.

You're welcome. I really liked it.

Do please consider commenting on the review - it'll be helpful to others, especially those completely new to classical music.

My only comment is: read the review while listening to the music.

[mahler10th]

Thank you, John, for such glowing praise. I'm blushing slightly - but also excited, because you've demonstrated that what I'm attempting to do has a real value for those not 'technically equipped', shall we say, to understand the nuts and bolts of music.

With your permission, I'd like to append a short, edited version of your positive feedback above to the comments section of the Mozart review you read. Would that be okay?

FK

By all means.  Anything at all I can do to advance the cause is worth it.  And it's good to communicate with you again...er...Kuhlau.   

[Kuhlau]

Thanks, Florestan.

And good to re-engage with you, too, John.

FK

[Opus106]

Thank you all for the responses.

[DavidW]

I agree completely with the article.  When a program is written that way, it confuses the trees with the forest and is not informative or enlightening.  Now, the kind of program I enjoy reading is one in which the historical context of the works are discussed, the lives of the composers and performers are discussed, and if there any notable connections between the works and the performers and so forth...

When a program is written in the form mentioned in the article, you're not even learning anything that you would not gain from listening to the music.  So what's the point?

[Kuhlau]

John, not sure if Renaissance music is your thing, but I've now posted up a review of Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli.

Now, the kind of program I enjoy reading is one in which the historical context of the works are discussed, the lives of the composers and performers are discussed, and if there any notable connections between the works and the performers and so forth ...

My favourite kind, too, David.

FK

[mahler10th]

I left my comments on your site, where there is a very useful provision for comments!

[Kuhlau]

As I see, John (I suspected it was you ).

Thank you very much for that. You'll see I've responded to your kind words.

Incidentally, I've been in touch with Jeremy Summerly, who conducted the performance (he and I are on MusBook - a network I strongly urge all classical music lovers to join), to let him know about my review. I'm sure he'll be delighted when he reads what you wrote.

FK

[Wanderer]

I'd opt for two different essays if possible: one introductory, one more scholarly. The best of both worlds. And something about the composer(s) would be good, too.

[Kuhlau]

A good compromise, Wanderer. As long as the same author produced both essays (concert venues would want to keep down the costs of paying freelancers to write programme notes), I see no reason why that couldn't work.

FK

[Opus106]

Do the performers themselves ever write the notes? I realise that they would be busy rehearsing, but wouldn't it be nice if you, the listener, were able to know what the soloist/ensemble/conductor has in store beforehand?

[Kuhlau]

I know performers sometimes write their own CD liner notes.

FK

[Opus106]

I know performers sometimes write their own CD liner notes.

FK

Yes. My copy of the WTC has liner notes written by Angela Hewitt. Sadly, it's mostly written for the pianist, rather than the listener.

And regarding my previous post, I just want to add that I would probably not want to read an essay when the concert involves two or more stars (read egomaniacs), as in a concerto, for example. (I was just reading about how Nathan Milstein sometimes used to walk away from rehearsals when he wasn't in complete agreement with orchestra musicians or the conductor. )