Brits revealed as Classically Clueless

[jimmosk]

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

[Sid]

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...

[some guy]

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.

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.

[karlhenning]

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.

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.

[Florestan]

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.)

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.

[karlhenning]

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.

[Florestan]

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?

[karlhenning]

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?

[Florestan]

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.

[karlhenning]

Well, we don't. And it doesn't matter anyway.

That's fair ; )

[Lethevich]

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.

[springrite]

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.

[jochanaan]

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.

[False_Dmitry]

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.[/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...

[drogulus]

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?

[PaulThomas]

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.

[karlhenning]

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.

[False_Dmitry]

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

[Florestan]

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. 

[karlhenning]

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?

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. 

Perfectly refuted!  The piece did not become a condemnation of Buonaparte until Beethoven made what adjustment? Striking out the dedication!