The Reader's Digest survey of 1,516 people also found that most were unable to link composers to their masterpieces. Three out of four (75%) did not know that Elgar wrote Pomp and Circumstance, and 27% did not even know he was a composer. Sixty-eight percent did not know Tchaikovsky wrote the 1812 Overture.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/aug/23/classical-music-survey-britons-clueless (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/aug/23/classical-music-survey-britons-clueless)
I think it's the same everywhere. In fact I'm a bit surprised that 32% of them actually know that Tchaikovsky wrote the 1812 Overture.
Quote from: Gill Hudson, editor-in-chief of Reader's DigestClassical music at its best can be moving, life-enhancing and uplifting.
And at its worst? :)
"Brits" are not a homogenous group of people who all act and think the same. Indeed, no such group exists, anywhere. (Something our dear friend JdP might try to consider next time he thinks about women composers, eh?)
Lumping people together like this is called racism, and racism is not one of the pretty things.
Besides, Reader's Digest??? (I'd like to know more about these 1,516 people (what a strange number) and how they were chosen, too. "Do you know anything about classical music?" "Not really." "Good, I have a bunch of questions about Elgar and Tchaikovsky for you!")
Quote from: some guy on August 23, 2010, 12:29:26 AMLumping people together like this is called racism, and racism is not one of the pretty things.
Twaddle.
Quote from: some guy on August 23, 2010, 12:29:26 AM
Lumping people together like this is called racism, and racism is not one of the pretty things.
Only if it is tied to racial generalisations.
And what you are basically saying in the rest of your post is that generalisations are useless. I disagree. They are useful if you understand the characteristivs of the group they are applied to (eg all britons).
As Sir Thomas Beecham once quipped, "It is quite untrue that British people don't appreciate music. They may not understand it but they absolutely love the noise it makes."
Quote from: erato on August 23, 2010, 01:28:05 AM
Only if it is tied to racial generalisations.
And what you are basically saying in the rest of your post is that generalisations are useless. I disagree. They are useful if you understand the characteristivs of the group they are applied to (eg all britons).
Yes, exactly. What ties "Brits" together is being citizens/subjects of the United Kingdom - an accident of birth over which they have choice whatsoever. Welsh, Cornish, Scots, Irish (N Ireland), Manx and many other peoples are citizens of the UK, whether willingly or otherwise. To suggest there is some "racial" element about being a Brit is ignorance of the most woeful kind, and displays a love of gob-opening to zero effect (other than offence and ridicule).
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 23, 2010, 04:56:06 AM
To suggest there is some "racial" element about being a Brit is ignorance of the most woeful kind, and displays a love of gob-opening to zero effect (other than offence and ridicule).
British
culture is very much dependent on the racial element of the British people. If you were to magically replace every single native born Englishman with an Arab or an African, everything you know about Britain, its culture, history, its literature, it would all just fizzle out of existence, lock, stock and barrel. This is
reality. But then, i understand truth doesn't matter much to the ideologue. All it matters is your own distorted point of view, and any dissenting opinion must be met with no less then offense and ridicule.
Quote from: the article"Classical music [...] should be accessible to all."
Because those Naxos CDs in shops are so often kept within locked cages, surrounded by dangerous traps that only those in the know can navigate through ::) Elitist bastards!
I think pretty much the entire world is classically clueless. With the emergence of so many different styles of music in the last 60 years, it's no surprise that a big name composer like Beethoven or Brahms is seldom talked about in today's time. Times are different now, people's tastes have evolved into other fields of music. Thankfully, there are still folks that believe in this music and forums like this one are only further evidence of this.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 22, 2010, 11:54:35 PM
The Reader's Digest survey of 1,516 people also found that most were unable to link composers to their masterpieces. Three out of four (75%) did not know that Elgar wrote Pomp and Circumstance, and 27% did not even know he was a composer. Sixty-eight percent did not know Tchaikovsky wrote the 1812 Overture.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/aug/23/classical-music-survey-britons-clueless (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/aug/23/classical-music-survey-britons-clueless)
How surprising is this considering how efectively people are made by media to think Lady Gaga is the most important thing that has happened in music?
Whatever. The UK has the BBC which not only broadcasts a lot of classical music over several stations and webstreams but actually maintains its own symphony orchestra(s) (I can't figure out if it's one or two.) Show me another nation which does as much for the music. So how about laying off the Brits?
(The main problem with the BBC websites is the difficulty of wading through all the sections to find out what is actually available for listening currently and how to turn it on.)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 07:10:08 AM
British culture is very much dependent on the racial element of the British people. If you were to magically replace every single native born Englishman with an Arab or an African, everything you know about Britain, its culture, history, its literature, it would all just fizzle out of existence, lock, stock and barrel.
Bravo. Go and repeat that nonsense in a bar in Edinburgh or Cardiff, and you'll find yourself very short of people offering to stand you drinks afterwards.
Using "British" and "English" interchangeably is the first mistake of the casual visitor. It's a mistake they quickly unlearn - sometimes forcibly.
I honestly don't stand in any need of your "lessons" about who the Brits are, or about their culture - since I was born there myself, thanks.
I depend on GMG for keeping me up to date on the racist perspective on all sorts of musical questions.
Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2010, 08:57:36 AM
How surprising is this considering how efectively people are made by media to think Lady Gaga is the most important thing that has happened in music?
I
like Lady Gaga. I like Hummel. I like Harrison Birtwistle. I like Verdi. I like Ockeghem. I like John Zorn. I like Berg. I like Philipoctus da Caserta.
I like gorgonzola - but I don't eat it for every meal :)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 07:10:08 AM
If you were to magically replace every single native born Englishman with an Arab or an African, everything you know about Britain, its culture, history, its literature, it would all just fizzle out of existence, lock, stock and barrel.
And if we were to replace every single native born Englishman with, say, a white Italian, Russian, Frenchman, or German, that wouldn't happen???
Quote from: 71 dB on August 23, 2010, 08:57:36 AM
How surprising is this considering how efectively people are made by media to think Lady Gaga is the most important thing that has happened in music?
The media do not affect me in that way, for I am a freethinker.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 23, 2010, 10:14:02 AM
I like Lady Gaga. I like Hummel. I like Harrison Birtwistle. I like Verdi. I like Ockeghem. I like John Zorn. I like Berg. I like Philipoctus da Caserta.
I like gorgonzola - but I don't eat it for every meal :)
Cultural decline in a nutshell. By definition, a
discriminating person always begins with "I
dislike".
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 10:54:20 AM
By definition, a discriminating person always begins with "I dislike".
Nah. A discriminating person knows that an umbrella is not needed in the sunshine, nor shaded glasses at night. There isn't any imperative for dislike in him who is discriminating, but in perceiving contexts and suitability.
Actually, insisting that the filtration of culture is a matter of dislike is an icon for insufficient cultivation.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 10:54:20 AM
Cultural decline in a nutshell. By definition, a discriminating person always begins with "I dislike".
I don't see how this is a good thing. Just ignore what you dislike (after honestly giving it a try or two) and find more stuff to like.
I tend to view not liking something to be a defficiency on my end, not on the end of the composer, writer, etc.
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 23, 2010, 11:01:21 AM
I tend to view not liking something to be a defficiency on my end, not on the end of the composer, writer, etc.
I do, too, with the exception of nearly anything that you hear on an average radio station.
Quote from: Greg on August 23, 2010, 11:04:32 AM
I do, too, with the exception of nearly anything that you hear on an average radio station.
I apply it with a more broad stroke. I don't really see a clear and distinct line between the 'high' and 'low'.
For instance, today I've been listening to the piano music of Brahms, and it just sounds like a lot of banging to me.
And yet, when I turn on the cd player in my car, I'll be enjoying Milk Inc. , Sylver, and Lasgo. I much prefer them to much that takes up residence in the genus classical.
Quote from: Wendell_E on August 23, 2010, 10:20:47 AM
And if we were to replace every single native born Englishman with, say, a white Italian, Russian, Frenchman, or German, that wouldn't happen???
Think of it this way. Imagine you had a brother, and instead then growing up together you were separated at birth, only to meet later in life. Do you think he would still be the same person? What about yourself. Imagine you had born in a foreign culture. Would it still be you? And what if your parents never did conceive you, but decided instead to adopt another child, and gave him the same name, the same upbringing. Would it still be you?
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 23, 2010, 10:04:42 AMUsing "British" and "English" interchangeably is the first mistake of the casual visitor. It's a mistake they quickly unlearn - sometimes forcibly.
Forcibly, huh? I always knew the Brits, er, the English, er uh, whatever they call themselves were über-sophisticated.
Quote from: Greg on August 23, 2010, 11:04:32 AM
I do, too, with the exception of nearly anything that you hear on an average radio station.
Then you are already discriminating, where as Philoctetes refuses to do so. Which proves my point. Discrimination always occurs in a negative sense, or rather, it occurs both in a negative and positive sense at the same time but it is only in a negative that discrimination generally brings attention to itself.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 11:18:46 AM
Think of it this way. Imagine you had a brother, and instead then growing up together you were separated at birth, only to meet later in life. Do you think he would still be the same person? What about yourself. Imagine you had born in a foreign culture. Would it still be you? And what if you your parents never conceived you, but decided instead to adopt another child, give him the same name, the same upbringing. Would it still be you?
Please, fer
chrissake, stop giving advice about MY country, when you haven't the
first clue ???
You are
utterly, utterly wrong, and are just making yourself look a fool.
To the contrary, of all the major European nations, Britain is the one in most need of advice, since it is the most decadent, the most utterly and hopelessly deranged.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 11:35:44 AM
To the contrary, of all the major European nations, Britain is the one in most need of advice, since it is the most decadent, the most utterly and hopelessly deranged.
Having now insulted every visitor to this forum, who hails from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, maybe you'd like to explain the basis for such an outrageous statement! Oh, and if it makes any difference, I am half Greek.
May I ask where you
Gosh, tact is just so un-civilized.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 10:54:20 AM
Cultural decline in a nutshell. By definition, a discriminating person always begins with "I dislike".
And JdP, you are
famed for your discrimination.
I tried to find the method used by 'Readers Digest' to produce their sample, but I can't. I had wondered whether the results arose from a sample of their subscribers, which would not be a cross section of the UK population. But as they mention young people, I doubt it. Not much to go on, but it leads me to doubt that their sampling is from their readers.
http://www.bpi.co.uk/assets/files/Reader's%20Digest_Feb%2009.pdf
What the link
does show is the musical tastes of their readers, a review that is unconnected with the survey. 'Classical' is not even specified, though 'light classical' is as is 'opera' The latter gets almost no real support.
Once upon a time, their classical issues were well regarded and popular, but I guess there has been a change over time in the demographics of the readers.
The only time I see the magazine is in the dentist's waiting room. I saw it there last month. Wasn't it awful about the Lusitania! >:D
Mike
Quote from: Tsaraslondon on August 23, 2010, 11:44:08 AM
Having now insulted every visitor to this forum, who hails from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, maybe you'd like to explain the basis for such an outrageous statement!
He's full of outrageous statements, so just get used to it. :D I don't have any problem with his stance on the United Kindom. If he wants to live in ignorance and make such absurd statements which hold no kind of weight whatsoever, that is, indeed, his right. This said, he'll have a hard time making friends with anyone from these countries with this kind of attitude that's for sure.
I think the British look at Italy and think that prize goes to them.
Mike
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 11:35:44 AM
To the contrary, of all the major European nations, Britain is the one in most need of advice, since it is the most decadent, the most utterly and hopelessly deranged.
Would that be Britain... or England? Or do you know the difference? Perhaps you could pop out for an atlas to the nearby shop in Guam, or Mexico, or Hawaii, or wherever it is in "America" you live?
ROFL!! I told you that you were making a fool of yourself - and now you've played your joker!!
At least Brits are only clueless about Classical Music.. and not Elementary-Class Geography!
Quote from: knight on August 23, 2010, 12:30:40 PM
The only time I see the magazine is in the dentist's waiting room. I saw it there last month. Wasn't it awful about the Lusitania! >:D
Mike
Since it recently went ito liquidation (!), Reader's Digest can't even figure the taste of its own readers - let alone their knowledge of Classical Music! I think they were bought-out by some other owners and are stumbling on?
If they have indeed polled their own readers (!) on the topic of Classical Music, it clearly doesn't bode well for the sales of Readers Digest Edition box-sets of "All The Classical Music You Will Ever Need" that have been toted in this miserable magazine for decades past.
Quote from: Mirror Image on August 23, 2010, 12:37:37 PM
He's full of outrageous statements, so just get used to it. :D I don't have any problem with his stance on the United Kindom. If he wants to live in ignorance and make such absurd statements which hold no kind of weight whatsoever, that is, indeed, his right. This said, he'll have a hard time making friends with anyone from these countries with this kind of attitude that's for sure.
Sometimes when I read "JdP" putting his feet in his mouth (on many occasions, both at the same time), I am apt to recall John Cleese asking Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, "Are you totally deranged?"
There is a US site with subscription options, can't see a UK site. As I suggested, my dentist does not exactly provide recent magazines.
I am surprised it still exists in any country; the format is about 30 years out of date.
Mike
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 23, 2010, 01:06:50 PM
Sometimes when I read "JdP" putting his feet in his mouth (on many occasions, both at the same time), I am apt to recall John Cleese asking Kevin Kline in A Fish Called Wanda, "Are you totally deranged?"
Lol....yep the guy definitely is good at putting his feet in his mouth. :D
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 23, 2010, 01:01:59 PM
Readers Digest Edition box-sets of "All The Classical Music You Will Ever Need" that have been toted in this miserable magazine for decades past.
Actually they did serve a purpose. My father gave me two of those box sets when I was a mere child (still at primary school), so they became my introduction to the classics. I used to play the records on an old portable record player (the sound must have been terrible), whilst I played with my toy horses. Mostly light classics of course (I remember being rather fond of the overture to Herold's
Zampa, though I couldn't sing it to you now), but they did get me interested in classical music.
Don't get me wrong, I entered my teens with a healthy love of pop and rock music, but the classics never left me in all that time. So I guess I have the Readers' Digest to thank; and my father of course.
Quote from: jhar26 on August 23, 2010, 12:18:40 AM
I think it's the same everywhere. In fact I'm a bit surprised that 32% of them actually know that Tchaikovsky wrote the 1812 Overture.
Since 1812 Overture is performed in every 4th of July celebration, I will not be surprised if most Americans actually think it was composed by an American ...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 07:10:08 AM
British culture is very much dependent on the racial element of the British people. If you were to magically replace every single native born Englishman with an Arab or an African, everything you know about Britain, its culture, history, its literature, it would all just fizzle out of existence, lock, stock and barrel. This is reality. But then, i understand truth doesn't matter much to the ideologue. All it matters is your own distorted point of view, and any dissenting opinion must be met with no less then offense and ridicule.
Certainly the last 2 sentences are true, and amusingly ironical in the context.
You can't take a bundle of contingent factors like "culture" and attach it to genetic lines, which cross every possible way regardless of prevailing ethnic/national ideologies, to prove differences. Not only is it racist in the formal sense (you know, truth doesn't matter, etc.), it's Lamarckism, in that it maintains that these learned behaviors are somehow inherited. How do these behaviors "know" that the person who gets them is the right ethnic type to express them properly? Of course it's a silly question since the premise is faulty both because no such inheritance occurs and no stable race/ethnicity is demonstrated
particularly by the people of the British Isles. Anyway, why couldn't a "mongrel" people like the Brits develop a "mongrel" culture to suit them? I think they did, and many cultures are like that. The Japanese culture is not like that, to be sure, though I'm not sure it confers an advantage in any meaningful sense.
"The Welsh were more likely to own a Vivaldi or a Wagner"
Well, what can I say but God bless the Welsh 0:) 0:) 0:)!
As an Englishman I am quite unhappy about this article but let's face it folks we are the minority here, sad but utterly true!
marvin
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 11:35:44 AM
To the contrary, of all the major European nations, Britain is the one in most need of advice, since it is the most decadent, the most utterly and hopelessly deranged.
lol I forgot what Sean thought about his native country... was it the opposite (that it was too repressed or something)?
I don't really think it's a problem if a person can't "pin the tail on the donkey" & (say) name a composer whose music is being played. I have many friends who know the most popular (& some not so popular) classical pieces, but they might not be able to say who the composer is. As long as they enjoy the music, I don't really care if they can or cannot name a certain piece. That is beside the point.
I would also look at who they asked the survey questions to. Many children in school nowadays (at least here in Australia, but I'm sure it's similar in the UK) play instruments as part of a school orchestra, or sing in choirs, etc. I'm pretty sure that they (the younger generation) have a good basic knowledge of the famous classical pieces & composers. I think that (as some above suggest) this "survey" was done to get such a negative outcome. Appreciation of anything, not only classical music, entails more than just naming names, but enjoying and engaging with the thing in question on some level. For example, I often go to concerts were I know nothing about the composer's works being played, or very little (some of these have been premieres). Would you call me ignorant as a result?
Now, of course 1,516 people selected by Reader's Digest are highly representative of the other 60,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom. :D
Statistical methodology aside, though, I think that if you pick 1,516 people anywhere in Europe the results would be pretty much the same.
Quote from: Todd on August 23, 2010, 11:25:57 AM
Forcibly, huh? I always knew the Brits, er, the English, er uh, whatever they call themselves were über-sophisticated.
He wasn't talking about the uber-sophisticated English, that's precisely the point. He was talking about those hairy savages north of Hadrian's Wall and west of Offa's Dyke who for some reason resent being called English. >:D it tends not to bother the English themselves so much, funnily... (personally, I have to say, I don't think of myself as specifically English, even though born here, because my roots are elsewhere too - British will do me, as it's a broader category)
Quote from: Coopmv on August 23, 2010, 01:45:10 PM
Since 1812 Overture is performed in every 4th of July celebration, I will not be surprised if most Americans actually think it was composed by an American ...
Yeah, like that graduation piece you play....and that My Country Tis of Thee song....and the Star-Spangled Banner...and Hail to the Chief... ;D
Quote from: Sid on August 23, 2010, 11:32:19 PM
I don't really think it's a problem if a person can't "pin the tail on the donkey" & (say) name a composer whose music is being played. I have many friends who know the most popular (& some not so popular) classical pieces, but they might not be able to say who the composer is. As long as they enjoy the music, I don't really care if they can or cannot name a certain piece. That is beside the point.
Good point, Sid
I would also add that like History, knowing the names and dates of things isn't terribly important in the grand scheme of things, what would be more interesting was if they played certain pieces of music and asked of they could roughly estimate what century or style the music was composed in, this would be far more useful as a guide to people's general appreciation of European art music (ie 'classical') than simply naming a composer and a date, as removed from any historical context the knowledge is meaningless.
To go back to the historical example, knowing that a battle took place at Waterloo in 1815 is pretty meaningless unless you know the context, likewise identifying a piece of music as by a man called Bach is useless in itself unless you know when it was written and appreciate the style in which it was written.
Quote from: PaulThomas on August 24, 2010, 03:32:24 AM
I would also add that like History, knowing the names and dates of things isn't terribly important in the grand scheme of things, what would be more interesting was if they played certain pieces of music and asked of they could roughly estimate what century or style the music was composed in, this would be far more useful as a guide to people's general appreciation of European art music (ie 'classical') than simply naming a composer and a date, as removed from any historical context the knowledge is meaningless.
To go back to the historical example, knowing that a battle took place at Waterloo in 1815 is pretty meaningless unless you know the context, likewise identifying a piece of music as by a man called Bach is useless in itself unless you know when it was written and appreciate the style in which it was written.
Excellent points.
This could provide even more embarassing conclusions, though.
Thanks to films, I am sure that a lot of people think that Wagner is what medieval music sounded like.
Quote from: Lethe on August 24, 2010, 03:37:39 AM
This could provide even more embarassing conclusions, though.
Thanks to films, I am sure that a lot of people think that Wagner is what medieval music sounded like.
If you put it this way, then films have corrupted
anything, not just classical music --- thanks to them, one could think that Roman Emperors descended in the arena themselves to fight gladiators, or that most rocket scientists are gorgeous blondes with long legs, or that a barbarian can travel across the desert for a week and still display a freshly-shaved face. :D
EDIT: adverbial error corrected.
Not to forget that "let's get out of here" is a valid phrase that real people use all the time ;)
Quote from: Lethe on August 24, 2010, 03:49:56 AM
Not to forget that "let's get out of here" is a valid phrase that real people use all the time ;)
Hollywood revealed as reality clueless. :)
Quote from: Sid on August 23, 2010, 11:32:19 PM
I don't really think it's a problem if a person can't "pin the tail on the donkey" & (say) name a composer whose music is being played. I have many friends who know the most popular (& some not so popular) classical pieces, but they might not be able to say who the composer is. As long as they enjoy the music, I don't really care if they can or cannot name a certain piece. That is beside the point.
And in fact some of such people know (or, knew) large stretches of the literature which some of us may not.
Quote from: Florestan on August 24, 2010, 03:52:32 AM
Hollywood revealed as reality clueless. :)
Of course! Hollywood is about reality escape.
In reality, Roman Polanski had to escape to Switzerland.
Quote from: Florestan on August 24, 2010, 03:44:00 AM, or that most rocket scientists are gorgeous blondes with long legs,
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Hedy_Lamarr_in_The_Conspirators.jpg)
Hedy Lamarr patented a device that could jam enemy submarine radar, during WW2.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 24, 2010, 06:20:44 AM
In reality, Roman Polanski had to escape to Switzerland.
Good one! :)
BTW, that's another Hollywood misrepresentation of reality: in the films the paedophile finally lands in jail. ;D
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 24, 2010, 06:30:20 AM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Hedy_Lamarr_in_The_Conspirators.jpg)
Hedy Lamarr patented a device that could jam enemy submarine radar, during WW2.
Oh yes... engineers are brunettes, for variation. :P
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 24, 2010, 06:30:20 AM
Hedy Lamarr patented a device that could jam enemy submarine radar, during WW2.
Hey, keep it classical! Hedy Lamarr
and George Antheil patented that device -- which grew out of Antheil's expertise with player pianos from his
Ballet Mecanique days. And it wasn't for jamming radar, but guiding torpedos in a way that made the guidance signal harder for the enemy to jam (or even detect).
http://www.suite101.com/content/hedy-lamarr-not-just-another-pretty-face-a160318 (http://www.suite101.com/content/hedy-lamarr-not-just-another-pretty-face-a160318)
Quote from: PaulThomas on August 24, 2010, 03:32:24 AM
Good point, Sid
I would also add that like History, knowing the names and dates of things isn't terribly important in the grand scheme of things, what would be more interesting was if they played certain pieces of music and asked of they could roughly estimate what century or style the music was composed in, this would be far more useful as a guide to people's general appreciation of European art music (ie 'classical') than simply naming a composer and a date, as removed from any historical context the knowledge is meaningless.
To go back to the historical example, knowing that a battle took place at Waterloo in 1815 is pretty meaningless unless you know the context, likewise identifying a piece of music as by a man called Bach is useless in itself unless you know when it was written and appreciate the style in which it was written.
Yes, I think that knowing the historical context in which an artwork was created, or what was going on in the personal life of the artist, is very important. It just enriches one's whole experience of the work in question.
But getting back to my earlier point, I think there are many different types of classical listeners, on a kind of linear scale from "very deep" to say "casual." I think it's silly, especially in this day and age of complexity, to expect people to be highly with it when it comes to classical (except perhaps if they are a classical musician, but even they have their niches and specialties, their stronger and weaker suits). I have been listening to classical music (& jazz) for more than 20 years, but there are still vast tracts of these artforms that I'm totally (or near) clueless about. Like I haven't listened to all of Shostakovich's symphonies, only the key ones. Does that make me ignorant, if I can't (say) "name the tune" from the opening movement of this or that symphony? I think what it boils down to is your level of engagement with a particular piece of music at a given point in time, not whether you have listened to all 15 of Shostakovkch's symphonies or something like that...
Quote from: Sid on August 24, 2010, 06:19:27 PMI think that knowing the historical context in which an artwork was created, or what was going on in the personal life of the artist, is very important. It just enriches one's whole experience of the work in question.
Hmmmm. I must say, I find it often impoverishes my experience of the work in question. At the very least, it is a distraction. But then, I find the longer I listen (going on for fifty years, now) the more I'm focussed on the sounds themselves. Maybe I don't pay much attention to historical context because I already know it, though. And it's now just part of the unregarded background. I can't be sure. I do know that when it moves out of the background, it becames a distraction for me from the sounds themselves, which are all important and all sufficient.
For me.
Quote from: some guy on August 25, 2010, 05:18:39 AM
Quote from: SidI think that knowing the historical context in which an artwork was created, or what was going on in the personal life of the artist, is very important. It just enriches one's whole experience of the work in question.
Hmmmm. I must say, I find it often impoverishes my experience of the work in question. At the very least, it is a distraction. But then, I find the longer I listen (going on for fifty years, now) the more I'm focussed on the sounds themselves. Maybe I don't pay much attention to historical context because I already know it, though. And it's now just part of the unregarded background. I can't be sure. I do know that when it moves out of the background, it becames a distraction for me from the sounds themselves, which are all important and all sufficient.
For me.
It's a tangle, but I am apt to agree with Michael on this. We hardly know anything about Shakespeare's life, and that doesn't affect the fact that his dramaturgy is one of the great monuments in English letters. (If anything, it's made for the playground for a "Did he really write his own plays?" game.) The backstory to Beethoven's Sinfonia eroica is of genuine historical interest, but I am apt to doub that it really essential value added to the music. In fact, my argument would be that its greatness is reflected in the fact that you don't need the backstory, to own the piece as a great symphony. This is exactly one of my points viz. Shostakovich. His biography is fraught with interest, drama, tragedy and near-tragedy. It seems a natural argument that this is what makes the music great; but I have felt exactly the opposite: either the Leningrad Symphony is a great piece on purely musical merits (and I believe it is), or it is not a great piece — the dramatic circumstances of its composition and first performances do not, cannot be the foundation of its artistic worth.
QuoteIt's a tangle, but I am apt to agree with Michael on this. We hardly know anything about Shakespeare's life, and that doesn't affect the fact that his dramaturgy is one of the great monuments in English letters. (If anything, it's made for the playground for a "Did he really write his own plays?" game.)
True, but then again Shakespeare's plays and poetry are full of "esoterica" that can only be properly understood in their historical, social and intellectual context.
IMO, both approaches are equally fruitful, since enjoyment can be had both by simply listening / reading / watching a work of art and by studying its historical context. It's a matter of personal taste and interest, not one of valoric hierarchy.
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2010, 05:43:23 AM
True, but then again Shakespeare's plays and poetry are full of "esoterica" that can only be properly understood in their historical, social and intellectual context.
Yes . . . though (to peel away slightly) that is a matter of detail, in a verbal medium. Music is by its nature more abstract, less "tied" to the context, though the context does mean . . . something.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2010, 05:52:42 AM
Yes . . . though (to peel away slightly) that is a matter of detail, in a verbal medium. Music is by its nature more abstract, less "tied" to the context, though the context does mean . . . something.
You're of course right. Had one listened for the first time to a certain Richard Strauss tone poem without knowing its name, would it have still evoked Till Eulenspiegel, I wonder?
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2010, 06:28:49 AM
You're of course right. Had one listened for the first time to a certain Richard Strauss tone poem without knowing its name, would it have still evoked Till Eulenspiegel, I wonder?
Exactly; same question of his Don Quixote; all that colorful tone-painting. How do we know that's what it's about, without verbal suggestion which is outside the music itelf?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2010, 06:38:17 AM
Exactly; same question of his Don Quixote; all that colorful tone-painting. How do we know that's what it's about, without verbal suggestion which is outside the music itelf?
Well, we don't. And it doesn't matter anyway. :)
Quote from: Florestan on August 25, 2010, 06:44:01 AM
Well, we don't. And it doesn't matter anyway. :)
That's fair ; )
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 23, 2010, 11:35:44 AM
To the contrary, of all the major European nations, Britain is the one in most need of advice, since it is the most decadent, the most utterly and hopelessly deranged.
Still awaiting elaboration on this with some interest. As silly as I find this country to be, all it takes is a cursory glance at what the rest of the world is doing to realise what fools everybody else are as well. Perhaps look at a recent situation so that we are up to date: the response to the financial crisis - rioting in the south of Europe, a concerted interest in fixing the problem in the English speaking islands: obviously the reaction of decadent and deranged people.
I personally know some classical musicians playing at major orchestras who are almost equally clueless. Why should everyone be clued? Many of the people here who are classically clued music-wise don't know who wrote The Dream of the Red Chamber. It's just not the subject they chose to be clued in, and no one has enough time to get clued in everything.
Quote from: springrite on August 25, 2010, 07:56:02 AM
I personally know some classical musicians playing at major orchestras who are almost equally clueless...
Hey, give the poor players a break! They probably are so busy practicing, rehearsing and performing that they don't have time to listen to anything they're not actually going to play. :D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2010, 05:34:53 AMeither the Leningrad Symphony is a great piece on purely musical merits (and I believe it is), or it is not a great piece — the dramatic circumstances of its composition and first performances do not, cannot be the foundation of its artistic worth.[/font]
Perhaps, too, its hijacking as "The Leningrad" by the Committee Of Composer of the USSR... when it was intended and titled as "The Legendary" by the composer - and already in sketches long before WW2 had begun, ehem - is another point we have to step over? The "enemy" DSCH had in mind in the first movement was not of Austrian birth...
Quote from: Lethe on August 25, 2010, 06:56:47 AM
Still awaiting elaboration on this with some interest. As silly as I find this country to be, all it takes is a cursory glance at what the rest of the world is doing to realise what fools everybody else are as well. Perhaps look at a recent situation so that we are up to date: the response to the financial crisis - rioting in the south of Europe, a concerted interest in fixing the problem in the English speaking islands: obviously the reaction of decadent and deranged people.
The utterly and hopelessly deranged are in need of advice. What could be clearer than that?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 25, 2010, 05:34:53 AM
Hmmmm. I must say, I find it often impoverishes my experience of the work in question. At the very least, it is a distraction. But then, I find the longer I listen (going on for fifty years, now) the more I'm focussed on the sounds themselves. Maybe I don't pay much attention to historical context because I already know it, though. And it's now just part of the unregarded background. I can't be sure. I do know that when it moves out of the background, it becames a distraction for me from the sounds themselves, which are all important and all sufficient.
For me.
It's a tangle, but I am apt to agree with Michael on this. We hardly know anything about Shakespeare's life, and that doesn't affect the fact that his dramaturgy is one of the great monuments in English letters. (If anything, it's made for the playground for a "Did he really write his own plays?" game.)
The backstory to Beethoven's Sinfonia eroica is of genuine historical interest, but I am apt to doub that it really essential value added to the music. In fact, my argument would be that its greatness is reflected in the fact that you don't need the backstory, to own the piece as a great symphony.
This is exactly one of my points viz. Shostakovich. His biography is fraught with interest, drama, tragedy and near-tragedy. It seems a natural argument that this is what makes the music great; but I have felt exactly the opposite: either the Leningrad Symphony is a great piece on purely musical merits (and I believe it is), or it is not a great piece — the dramatic circumstances of its composition and first performances do not, cannot be the foundation of its artistic worth.
I wouldn't say that knowing the
historical context is vital, but knowing the
musical context is.
For example knowing the backgrounds to the 'Eroica' and 'Leningrad' are not as important as being able to recognise that the Leningrad was written 150 years later than the Eroica.
Perhaps a better test than completed by Reader's Digest or the one I suggested earlier would simply to play for example, the Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Beethoven's 5th and Schoenberg's Orchestral Variations and ask to place in historical order, eg Early, Middle, Late.
No musician would fail this test, and any member of the public who failed I think could clearly be described as 'classically clueless' because they would not be able to discriminate between completely different styles of the western classical tradition.
In the same way I would probably be unable to do the same for music in the Indian or Chinese musical traditions, because while I might like or even identify the pieces of music I lack any musical context of these traditions.
Quote from: PaulThomas on August 26, 2010, 03:05:43 AM
I wouldn't say that knowing the historical context is vital, but knowing the musical context is.
For example knowing the backgrounds to the 'Eroica' and 'Leningrad' are not as important as being able to recognise that the Leningrad was written 150 years later than the Eroica.
Emendation heartily adopted.
Quote from: PaulThomas on August 26, 2010, 03:05:43 AM
I wouldn't say that knowing the historical context is vital, but knowing the musical context is.
For example knowing the backgrounds to the 'Eroica' and 'Leningrad' are not as important as being able to recognise that the Leningrad was written 150 years later than the Eroica.
I don't think Shostakovich woke up one morning, looked in his diary, and found a note saying "150 years after Eroica, must write new groundbreaking symphony for own age!".
Nor was Beethoven overwhelmed with creative guilt when he noticed he'd not yet thrown down the glove to Monteverdi's works of 200 years previously.
But both DSCH #7 and Beethoven #3 are passionately-considered condemnations of real & actual acts of tyranny.Trying to "catch out" the general public on a "look-how-clever-I-am" test about musical styles in different periods is exactly the kind of know-all elitism which has alienated people from classical music for years. It teaches nothing that is worth knowing, or that reveals anything at all about the music or its creation... it's merely there to prop-up our own egos as "the clever people who know".
I dare say cartographers clasp their hands over their foreheads in frustration when laymen fail to recognise elementary differences in map projections too. But does it advance general understanding of geography? No, it certainly doesn't :(
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 26, 2010, 04:58:28 AM
But both DSCH #7 and Beethoven #3 are passionately-considered condemnations of real & actual acts of tyranny.
This might be true about DSCH 7 but certainly not true about Beethoven 3 --- which was originally a glorification of a tyrant in the making. :D
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 26, 2010, 04:58:28 AM
I don't think Shostakovich woke up one morning, looked in his diary, and found a note saying "150 years after Eroica, must write new groundbreaking symphony for own age!".
Nor was Beethoven overwhelmed with creative guilt when he noticed he'd not yet thrown down the glove to Monteverdi's works of 200 years previously.
But both DSCH #7 and Beethoven #3 are passionately-considered condemnations of real & actual acts of tyranny.
Trying to "catch out" the general public on a "look-how-clever-I-am" test about musical styles in different periods is exactly the kind of know-all elitism which has alienated people from classical music for years. It teaches nothing that is worth knowing, or that reveals anything at all about the music or its creation... it's merely there to prop-up our own egos as "the clever people who know".
I dare say cartographers clasp their hands over their foreheads in frustration when laymen fail to recognise elementary differences in map projections too. But does it advance general understanding of geography? No, it certainly doesn't :(
Much to what you say, of course, though I don't think you necessarily refute Paul Thomas's remarks.
The bold-face notwithstanding, a "passionately-considered condemnation of real & actual acts of tyranny" is too Procrustean a bed to force even the Shostakovich Opus 60 into. In the first place, the whole canvas of the piece is much richer than that proposed agenda. In the second, even those bits (and what bits are they, please?) of the piece which might be construed in some such way . . . I don't think we can get past "they might be so construed." Mapping words/ideas onto music is awfully slippery (though that does not protect people from calcification of the opinion). A Polish acquaintance of mine once commented that he believed that Shostakovich was "never so happy as when he was composing the Seventh Symphony." I think there's something to that; and it does not well harmonize with the idea that the piece is a "passionately-considered condemnation of real & actual acts of tyranny." How shall we sort this out? Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2010, 05:01:40 AM
This might be true about DSCH 7 but certainly not true about Beethoven 3 --- which was originally a glorification of a tyrant in the making. :D
Perfectly refuted! The piece did not become a condemnation of Buonaparte until Beethoven made what adjustment? Striking out the dedication!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2010, 05:13:43 AMPerfectly refuted! The piece did not become a condemnation of Buonaparte until Beethoven made what adjustment? Striking out the dedication!
So in your opinion, neither Beethoven nor Shostakovich had any businesss writing about dictators at all?
Even though tyrants are, in both cases, what caused them to pick up the pen?
You're clearly unfamiliar with "The Legendary" and its meaning for Shostakovich.
I know people who think Pachelbel's Canon is about penguins, and CARMINA BURANA is about an Australian beer. Perhaps you are one of them.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 26, 2010, 05:24:24 AM
Even though tyrants are, in both cases, what caused them to pick up the pen?
I will state it again: in the case of "Eroica", Beethoven picked the pen to glorify the exploits of a man which he perceived as a champion of liberty. When Napoleon disappointed his expectations, he only striked out the original dedication, replacing it with another. In the symphony as such he did not change a iota.
"Eroica" has absolutely nothing to do with a "passionately-considered condemnation of real & actual acts of tyranny", period.
Quote
You're clearly unfamiliar with "The Legendary" and its meaning for Shostakovich.
For the time being, it is you who are obviously unfamiliar with "Eroica" and its meaning for Beethoven.
Quote
I know people who think Pachelbel's Canon is about penguins, and CARMINA BURANA is about an Australian beer. Perhaps you are one of them.
Being sarcastic without any grounds will not make your false ideas come true.
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2010, 05:31:39 AM
Being sarcastic without any grounds will not make your false ideas come true.
But it is a concession that he has no substantive argument ; )
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2010, 05:31:39 AM
I will state it again: in the case of "Eroica", Beethoven picked the pen to glorify the exploits of a man
Exactly, He didn't get up and write a symphony because it had been 200 years since the last one.
He was impelled to write about what was going on in the world around.
QuoteFor the time being, it is you who are obviously unfamiliar with "Eroica" and its meaning for Beethoven.
I doubt you'd recognise a note of EROICA, frankly. You're an utterly ignorant man.
QuoteBut it is a concession that he has no substantive argument ; )
One day you'll grow up, Henning. Perhaps. Meantime, stay in the
gutter where you and your paucity of ideas belong.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 26, 2010, 06:07:10 AM
I doubt you'd recognise a note of EROICA, frankly. You're an utterly ignorant man.
One day you'll grow up, Henning. Perhaps. Meantime, stay in the gutter where you and your paucity of ideas belong.
Actually, it's the fellow whose "argument" is little more than ad hominem snarls, who suffers from a paucity of ideas, isn't it?
Thanks for the laugh!
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 26, 2010, 04:58:28 AM
I don't think Shostakovich woke up one morning, looked in his diary, and found a note saying "150 years after Eroica, must write new groundbreaking symphony for own age!".
Nor was Beethoven overwhelmed with creative guilt when he noticed he'd not yet thrown down the glove to Monteverdi's works of 200 years previously.
But both DSCH #7 and Beethoven #3 are passionately-considered condemnations of real & actual acts of tyranny.
Trying to "catch out" the general public on a "look-how-clever-I-am" test about musical styles in different periods is exactly the kind of know-all elitism which has alienated people from classical music for years. It teaches nothing that is worth knowing, or that reveals anything at all about the music or its creation... it's merely there to prop-up our own egos as "the clever people who know".
I dare say cartographers clasp their hands over their foreheads in frustration when laymen fail to recognise elementary differences in map projections too. But does it advance general understanding of geography? No, it certainly doesn't :(
I didnt pick the 'Leningrad' and 'Eroica' deliberately, just the works that had previously been cited, could be any 2 pieces that are substantially different in styles, and besides the 'Leningrad' isnt a 'groundbreaking symphony' anyway.
Anyway the whole point of my argument was that the original survey was flawed because simply knowing names of composers is of no use in musical appreciation, and the ability of knowing x and y piece and composer is one of those 'look how clever I am' things that I agree puts people off, far more than identifying types or styles.
For example I own very little Vivaldi, so I wouldn't recognise every Vivaldi concerto, but I probably would recognise the composer and certainly recognise the style.
Replacing the 'knowing composer names' quiz with a very general ability to recognise musical styles is less elitist as it requires no in depth or prior knowledge, just a general appreciation of classical ie 'art' music.
While I am all for people just enjoying 'classical' music as it is, the poll was established to find out how much people
know about it, not just whether they like it or not.
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 26, 2010, 06:07:10 AM
I doubt you'd recognise a note of EROICA, frankly. You're an utterly ignorant man.
That's true, I am --- I just put you on my "ignore' list.
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2010, 06:23:57 AM
That's true, I am --- I just put you on my "ignore' list.
Well I think that's pretty petty.
You'll miss butt loads of fun by doing that.
I am sure you would recognize a note of the Eroica, Andrei. (I mean, fellow whackjob.)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2010, 06:25:31 AM
I am sure you would recognize a note of the Eroica, Andrei. (I mean, fellow whackjob.)
I listen to a fair amount of classical, and have a sizeable but limited knowledge base in it, but I doublt I could recognize the Eroica or most pieces, outside of the truly famous and the composers I simply adore.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2010, 06:25:31 AM
I am sure you would recognize a note of the Eroica, Andrei. (I mean, fellow whackjob.)
I really don't get the whole
kerfuffle. :P
Expert use of the newly gained vocabulary word! : )
Blimey what a interesting thread this is, missed that totally. What a original this False Dimitri is, fire in his mouth, venom in his conviction, he clearly was out to hurt someone. Did not succeed though :D
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 26, 2010, 06:24:29 AM
Well I think that's pretty petty.
You'll miss butt loads of fun by doing that.
In this case, agreed!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2010, 06:25:31 AM
I am sure you would recognize a note of the Eroica, Andrei. (I mean, fellow whackjob.)
The E flat is very distinctive... ::)
8)
Quote from: PaulThomas on August 26, 2010, 06:23:07 AM
I didnt pick the 'Leningrad' and 'Eroica' deliberately, just the works that had previously been cited, could be any 2 pieces that are substantially different in styles, and besides the 'Leningrad' isnt a 'groundbreaking symphony' anyway.
Anyway the whole point of my argument was that the original survey was flawed because simply knowing names of composers is of no use in musical appreciation, and the ability of knowing x and y piece and composer is one of those 'look how clever I am' things that I agree puts people off, far more than identifying types or styles.
For example I own very little Vivaldi, so I wouldn't recognise every Vivaldi concerto, but I probably would recognise the composer and certainly recognise the style.
Replacing the 'knowing composer names' quiz with a very general ability to recognise musical styles is less elitist as it requires no in depth or prior knowledge, just a general appreciation of classical ie 'art' music.
While I am all for people just enjoying 'classical' music as it is, the poll was established to find out how much people know about it, not just whether they like it or not.
I posted this, I then I saw that False_Dmitry has now left the board... does that mean I win the argument by default?
Only just joined and im already driving people away -great :D
Quote from: PaulThomas on August 26, 2010, 07:04:34 AM
Only just joined and im already driving people away -great :D
No, it was Forum Bully Karl Henning that drove him away.
Could be a character in your next novel, Dave!
(Dave?)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2010, 07:11:17 AM
Could be a character in your next novel, Dave!
(Dave?)
Dave isn't here.
Quote from: MN Dave on August 26, 2010, 07:08:30 AM
No, it was Forum Bully Karl Henning that drove him away.
Well he's not getting my lunch money ;D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 26, 2010, 07:02:30 AM
The E flat is very distinctive... ::)
8)
We whackjobs are especially fond of Eb (and its enharmonic equivalent D#).
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2010, 06:23:57 AM
That's true, I am --- I just put you on my "ignore' list.
Quote from: Philoctetes on August 26, 2010, 06:24:29 AM
Well I think that's pretty petty.
You'll miss butt loads of fun by doing that.
Quote from: Harry on August 26, 2010, 06:59:12 AM
In this case, agreed!
It was only a joke, gentlemen. Never in my GMG life have I ignored anyone nor will I ever do. :)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 26, 2010, 07:15:40 AM
We whackjobs are especially fond of Eb (and its enharmonic equivalent D#).
Wait a minute! Do you mean that those two E-flat opening chords that are stuck in my head for years are from "Eroica"? Man,
for twenty years I've been writing prose without knowing it. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2010, 07:19:28 AM
Wait a minute! Do you mean that those two E-flat opening chords that are stuck in my head for years are from "Eroica"? Man, for twenty years I've been writing prose without knowing it. ;D
Yep. This would almost make a nice avatar, next time Dave is looking...
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa159/Gurn_Blanston/Eroicaopens1.jpg)
8)
And then, of course, there's the problem of how a fully-instrumental symphony can be about anything...! ??? :o
Quote from: False_Dmitry on August 23, 2010, 04:56:06 AM
Yes, exactly. What ties "Brits" together is being citizens/subjects of the United Kingdom - an accident of birth over which they have choice whatsoever. Welsh, Cornish, Scots, Irish (N Ireland), Manx and many other peoples are citizens of the UK, whether willingly or otherwise. To suggest there is some "racial" element about being a Brit is ignorance of the most woeful kind, and displays a love of gob-opening to zero effect (other than offence and ridicule).
Some places in the world certainly do look at nationalism in a racial way, I don't think that is really the case in western countries though.
It's certainly pointless to define the whole musical listenership of a country as the same just like it would be doing that to the composers. Art knows no boundaries and the audience is freer than ever to explore it's own individual interests.
A couple of years ago, I asked three people at work (was an IT dept.) if they've ever heard of Bruckner. 3: Never. One: "It's a comedian?"
BTW I think Tchai/1812 really isn't common knowledge. I can't believe more than 30% of the Brits have ever heard of it.
A divided highway (http://mapq.st/h/1-TjeuOxcZ).
I'm not British, but I can certainly be clueless. I love Beethoven's symphonies and have heard them a zillion times. Playing one on cd I would certainly go "I know and love this music." Yet just this week in the car I heard his fourth symphony and what I thought was "which Beethoven symphony is that?" :D :D :D So this cluelessness is not strictly for those that eat black pudding. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on August 26, 2010, 07:17:23 AM
It was only a joke, gentlemen. Never in my GMG life have I ignored anyone nor will I ever do. :)
Same here. Those who do use the ignore function just reveal a weakness.
A friend of mine calls England the "Das Land ohne Musik" (http://www.musicweb-international.com/dasland.htm). Or as Sir Thomas Beecham explained, "The English may not like music, but they absolutely love the noise it makes."