Howard Goodall's Story of Music

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: GUEST,Silas
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 05:17 AM

I think the programmes are brilliant.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 05:46 AM

Oh, indeed: I watched them all fascinated. But not perfect ~~ must say again that I think total neglect of Britten a big minus.

~M~

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: Will Fly
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 06:44 AM

One hour devoted to the whole of 20th century music - impossible to get in all our pet loves, I'm afraid.

He didn't mention Conlan Nancarrow, Havergal Brian, Peter Maxwell Davis, Michael Tippett, Gustav Holst, Cécile Chaminade - all of them influential in their own way. So... c'est la vie.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 07:14 AM

Agreed, Will; but my point re Britten is that he asserted that opera as a form became entirely irrelevant to and disconnected from mainstream music in the 2nd half of C20: he made a big point of this proposition, which the exceptionally prominent and important work of Britten at precisely that time, which he completely ignored, entirely refutes by its very existence.

~M~

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 07:56 AM

I entirely agree with you about the opera point and his neglect of Britten. He also failed to include Sibelius (how could he!!), Rachmaninov, Vaughan Williams, Ravel, Tippett - pivotal figures, all. He couldn't include everything but his choice of what to completely ignore was questionable to say the least. He did give Stravinsky his due, which was on the mark, and I agreed with him about the dead-end nature of Wagner and of serialism. I think he got Mahler all wrong though. Much of it music to slit your throat to (but that's just me innit). The series got better as it got into the 20th century - he seemed to be on much firmer ground there. Annoying that the charlatan Dylan got a (brief) mention but Woody didn't. Grr.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 08:08 AM

My recollection is that Sibelius, Ravel & Rachmaninov had been mentioned in some earlier episodes where they fitted thematically if not quite chronologically. V-Williams, along with Walton, however, seemed to have fallen by the wayside

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 13 - 07:03 PM

Goodall has compiled a list of the "ten most important pieces" of all time (in chronological order):

1: Hildegard von Bingen: Ave, Generosa
2: John Dowland: Flow my tears (pub. 1600)
3: JS Bach: St Matthew Passion (1727)
4: Mozart Serenade 'Gran Partita', iii Adagio (1781)
5: Beethoven: Symphony No. 3 Eroica, funeral march (1805)
6: Schumann: Kreisleriana (1838)
7: Verdi: La Traviata, Addio del passato (1853)
8: Liszt: Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 (1847)
9: Stravinsky: Les Noces (1923) excerpt
10: Steve Reich: Music for 18 Musicians (1974-6)

Two and a half of those are in my desert island discs and two I wouldn't visit on my worst enemy...

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 02:26 PM

So I thought despite my BOF's credo which I quote here so oft, I must put away prejudice & listen to the last one on that list. So I found the first ten minutes on youtube -- the full version at 1hr 6mins is available also, but I opted for the first.

Well, there's 10 minutes of the not all that many minutes that must be left to me by now which won't come again.

With the best will in the world...

Oh, wot's the use!

Was this one of those refd in your last observation, Steve? I know we have had our differences from time to time, but I should hope not to be your worst enemy.

☹☹☹☹☹~M~☹☹☹☹☹

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 08:14 PM

No it wasn't! OK, here are my two and a half out of that lot: Mozart's Serenade for 13 Wind Instruments, K.361 (Gran Partita me arse!), The Eroica and Kreisleriana. Remembering, of course, that they're in my desert island list cos I love 'em and cos they mean a lot to me, not because I think they are in the top ten most important pieces of all time (though I reckon the Eroica definitely is). I count the Eroica as my "half" because I desperately want to take Carlos Kleiber's "Pastoral" with me, I have to have a late quartet (if you ask me which one you might end up with a ruminative essay and no conclusion), and I can't really stuff my "eight" with a surfeit of Ludwig. Robert Schumann is, to me, one of the most underrated romantic composers, too much overshadowed by the rather cold (to me) Chopin. Kreisleriana is an amazing fantasy. I had a record of Martha Argerich's version, which I loved, but I once heard, on the Beeb, an old recording of Benno Moiseiwitsch playing it that almost had me crying into my owld wireless. In spite of his name he was a British national and his playing on the wireless during the war did a massive amount for the boosting of morale. His performances were incredibly "human" and it's odd, and sad, that he hardly ever gets a mention these days. The Mozart serenade is just an amazing masterpiece of his early maturity, along with Gawd knows how many sublime piano concertos and (almost the best of the lot for me) the Sinfonia Concertante for violin and viola, with its frank homage to Bach. Right up there with Bach's concerto for two violins it is. I hope this meets with your approval. I tried listening to the Turangalila Symphony once, and I did get through it, but I needed a stiff malt to purge me poor overstimulated brain afterwards.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Mar 13 - 11:27 PM

So you rate the vile Reich then?

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: Will Fly
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 04:44 AM

Michael, I do find it odd that you use the word "vile" to describe a composer - presumably referring to his music and not the man.

"Vile": morally bad, wicked.. Knowing you, I'm sure you don't mean that.

I don't think any music is vile - it just is. Whether one likes it or not is another matter. As for Reich, it has been said of him by one very influential critic, that he is by "general acclamation, America's greatest living composer". Now you may think that statement is truth or piffle, depending on your musical taste. You may also believe the fact that Reich as been awarded the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Music to be a travesty.

But... whether he meets with your approval or not, there just may be some justification for his being considered an important star in the musical firmament by the musical establishment. He was certainly innovative in the classical world - 40 years ago, by the way - in his looping musical segments to create a collage of sound. (The pop world had been doing this for some time). He's certainly a thoughtful and intelligent composer who creates his own audio world in his own way. I recall driving a long distance in the early hours of the morning and finding Reich's "Different Trains" being played on the radio. Nothing else to do, so I listened - and found it fascinating to listen to. I can't say I'd have it on my desert island - but it was worth a listen. I don't have any of Reich's music in my collection, but I wouldn't dismiss him.

I recall the first time I heard Conlan Nancarrow's music for player-piano - startling and weird. But worth a decent listen. As you probably know, he used to perforate piano rolls to create piano music that was unplayable by a human - anticipating the use of computers in music by several years! Once again, fascinating stuff... perhaps not suiting everyone's ears!

But not vile.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 05:00 AM

"Vile" was probably by assonantal attraction to "Reich": an ill-chosen adjective I admit, and hereby withdrawn. But indeed not to my taste whevs ~~ the sort of œuvre that always brings back to my mind the great Punch cartoon from the 1920s, of the little boy pointing to the chinless wonder and saying, "Mummy, what's that man for?" What are atonal music, abstract art, nonlinear literature for?, I constantly ask myself. I reiterate my BOF Credo: "Boring·Old·Fart credo: to which, at age of 80, feel self entitled:   viz that my Literature shall be Comprehensible;   my Art Representational;   my Music Tonal: naught else shall penetrate my perception-zone."

The Pulitzer judges can of course do what they will; others may be, as I see it, taken in by what I view as outright pseudery on the parts of creator and professedly admiring consumer, and no obloquy or scorn from the Establishment or elsewhere will convince me otherwise; and I am less than delighted that Mr Reich's lucubrations, such as they are, have contrived to penetrate my perception zone, whither they shall never again be suffered to enter.

~M~

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 05:21 AM

What is it for? What is any music for? What is Folk for? A bunch of upper-class old Tory farts earnestly singing the recreational songs of the lower classes. I would have though that pips it in the outright pseudery stakes.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 08:06 AM

No, I don't rate the vile Reich, but I rate the right Weill.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 10:42 AM

A fine, if somewhat Kurt, response!

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Mar 13 - 08:56 PM

I wouldn't give you tuppence for his opera though. Same old two-and-fourpence if you ask me.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: GloriaJ
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 06:36 AM

Swerving a little from the main thread and onto Steve Reich.I can take or leave most of the work of his that I've heard but there's one piece, called Different Trains, which, when I heard it first on Radio 3 I just found absolutely stunning and unforgettable.You probably wont want to risk another 20 minutes of your life wasted Mr MtheGM but I'd give it a go if you can find a recording somewhere.And its definitely "about" something.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 11:54 AM

Thank you, Gloria J. I looked it up on wiki and it did indeed sound an interesting concept. Google index shows some youtube versions available, but, alas, when I tried to play them I found they had been withdrawn for copyright reasons. Thank you for the hedzup [no aesthetic experience is ever really wasted, I suppose]; shall keep searching.

Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Mar 13 - 12:21 PM

Yes ~~ thank you. Managed to track down another recording. Yes, it is an interesting work ~~ a 'concept' work, as they call them, as I said. The use of the voices reiterating phrases under the string quartets phrasing is interesting, and Reich's use of ostinato, which seems to be something he makes a sort of leitmotif or trade-mark of his insofar as I can see [or hear], is obviously appropriate for the 'trains' motif in this work; far more so than the same technique in '18 Instruments' which I found so barren and unsatisfying. I can now see, for which many thanks, that he is an interesting artist, which the other work [tho the one Mr Goodall includes in his "ten most important pieces of all time" list cited above] gave me no inkling of whatever. I don't think he is ever going to be a favourite composer of mine, or one whose work I shall seek out much further. But I will admit I was clearly over-dismissive on insufficient evidence ~~ for which insight, and expansion of my musical experience and horizons, I remain greatly in Gloria J's debt.

So, Gloria, many thanks again. My conscience tells me that I must return now & play the whole work [you will gather from the timings of these posts that thus far I have only dipped and sampled, though I have found some of each of the work's three parts to listen to] ~~

Laters!

Mebbe!

~M~

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: GloriaJ
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 04:29 AM

I thought you would appreciate it Michael.There is nearly a tune (root and minor third interval played on the strings and repeated in the manipulated voices). I think it needs to be heard in full to get the full impact because of the modulation of the sounds - so the train siren is gradually slowed down until it becomes another kind of siren, and the voices almost grind to a halt too.He succeeds in conveying a real sense of horror.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 04:51 AM

Yes, indeed. Highly effective. However, makes its effect by being what used to be known by such names as "programme music", or "tone poem", etc; i.e music telling a specific story, whether based on stories already known like Tschaikowsky's Shakespearean "Fantasy Overtures", Strauss's "Til Eulenspiegel" &c., or, as the first name above implies, needing a programme note to explain the 'story'. Still, this one does work as you say.

But it does, as all the work of his I have listened to, rely primarily on the ostinato, the obstinate [which of course is what the word means] repetition of the same phrase. It works in Difft Trains because it supports, and is supported by, the explicit narrative, with the wind-down effect at the end & so on. But the use of ostinato to represent train journeys is surely something of a cliché [cf Honnegger &c]. & can anyone point out how the, to my ears, tedious ostinato atonality in 18 Musicians qualifies that work for inclusion in Howard Goodall's list of "most important of all time"? To me it comes over as both meaningless and ballsachingly boring. Who will defend it, and justify Mr Goodall's respect & admiration for it?

I will hold my breath! ~~

~M~

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 05:48 AM

I frankly think it's impossible to comment on the "10 most important works of all time". Important in who's eyes and for what reasons? In fact I suppose it's perfectly possible for Howard G to label Reich's piece as "important" without him personally having any respect and admiration for it whatsoever. Whitehead & Russell's "Principia Mathematica" is hugely important, but you won't find it on my bookshelf. :-)

Perhaps the reasoning goes thus:

1. Sound looping in classical music was a huge innovation in the 1970s.

2. Reich was a founder member of the group that pioneered that form of innovation.

3. The "18 musicians" piece was the exemplar of the style.

QED - perhaps...

As I said, the idea of "importance" in music is utterly subjective, and I can understand, Michael, your irritation at Britten being left out of HGs final programme.

You made a reference, earlier on in the thread, about the role of the critic (e.g. Mr. Puff) and the Emperor's New Clothes view of people like Reich. In the end, I don't pay any attention to critics either, tendentious, pretentious or otherwise. With musical composition, what matters is whether you think the composer sincerely believes in what he's doing. Reich has stuck to his style through thick and thin, for nearly 50 years, weathering the sort of scorn and that we've seen here and there in this thread - and probably not making a huge amount of money from his work either. In that sense, I'd rather have Reich on my music shelves than, say, anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber who - to me - is the epitome of tedium. Every one of his operas famous for having just one tune which is repeated over and over again ad nauseam. "Cats" - "Moonlight". "Evita" - "Don't Cry For Me Argentina", etc.

Hey ho. How much more fun this conversation would be sitting by the fire in the Lord Nelson at Southwold, with a pint of Adnams in front of us!

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 07:41 AM

Will - Absolutely with you re Lloyd Webber. I had occasionally, in the days I was an active theatre critic and not just a v occasional one as now, to sit thru some of his tedious one-tune works, and am greatly relieved not to have to do so any more. BTW, I found Les Mis on stage had the same single-tune format, apart from the one obvious funny song, and hated it in just the same way.

I am not sure that "what matters is whether you think the composer sincerely believes in what he's doing". It's a vital starting-point, to be sure; but certainly not all, or even the main thing, that matters. I am sure Reich believes in the value of what he is doing: so did McGonagall! But... You take my point, I am confident.

Yes; I used to review Jill Freud's Southwold Summer Theatre for The Guardian & Plays&Players year after year from 70s-90s; and that was back in the days I used to drink a bit, and have happy memories of the Lord Nelson ~~ and another pub in the High Street, not far back from the sea-front, whose name eludes me. Used to visit Clement & Jill's house at Walberswick occasionally also, where most of the actors were based; but we avoided becoming too close because it was agreed that it doesn't do for a critic to be, or appear, too close to the company. I do tho remember once beating their 16-y-o son, who was at the time London Schools Judo Champion, at table tennis. I know that judo & table tennis are not the same sport, but still, the's glory for you... These days I wouldn't have the pint in front of me, but would gladly sit and converse with you over mineral water or whatever; but, alas, not so mobile as I was and Southwold rather further than I generally venture these days! Still, who knows, perhaps when summer comes & if Emma were to drive mostly...

~M~

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 07:54 AM

I am sure Reich believes in the value of what he is doing: so did McGonagall! But... You take my point, I am confident.

Absolutely, Michael - just making the point that neither of them were/are pseuds - i.e. sincere and not just playing to the critical gallery.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 08:24 AM

Yes, I did use the word 'pseudery' didn't I? But have since admitted, to Gloria, having been probably 'over-dismissive'. Must nevertheless add I am still at a loss, despite Blandiver's pertinent rejoinder above, to work out what purpose, artistic, æsthetic, whevs, abstraction & atonality and such serve precisely; and, perhaps unworthily, I caqn never avoid suspecting a whiff or redolence of must·be·in·the·swing pseudery to hang around such manifestations, or rather the resolute taking of them more seriously than they perceptibly warrant, somewhere!

Just me, I suppose. A Boring·Old·Fart as my Credo admits. But there I stand; I can do no other, as whoever it was said. Luther? Or some such?* No matter...

~M~

*Yes; I googled; it was Luther, at least attributively.

Subject: RE: Howard Goodall's Story of Music
From: GloriaJ
Date: 10 Mar 13 - 11:23 AM

I was on a long-haul flight a couple of days ago and by coincidence( now you can choose your own in-flight entertainment) I watched a documentary and interview about Reich. He has a good,serious music pedigree - trained with Berio for example - and feels himself to have undergone several changes in musical style,beginning with his move away from serialism, which was de rigeur when he was training. He came across as sincere and explorative in his ideas about music.So he would probably disagree with whoever said that his approach hasnt changed.
   I got the impression that he is particularly interested in rhythm, and subtle shifts in rhythm over periods of time. There's a piece of his that is often played to exemplify this style - the clapping tune (it may have another title). The idea behind it is mildly interesting but the piece itself,involving constant shifts of rhythm as several pairs of clapping hands come in and out of snyc with one another, is not something you're going to want to hear again probably.