A Lark Ascending

That's a fine book. Read it a few years back on Seeline's recommendation. Only just got it back after lending it to my sister who took it to Zambia with her for a few years! Will read it again.

I'm not getting at you, A.A. I've read enough of your posts (and benefited from them) to know that your love of music is as genuine as everyone else who spends time in posting in places like this. This comes out of a general disquiet with the way music is written about. I've no more time for professional use of 'deep', 'shallow' etc. Out of interest, how does a 'shallow' performance sound different from a 'deep' one when played by musicians with the training annd long professional careers of a Perahia, Hewitt or Gould? What does it actually mean? Here are a couple of listener reactions from Amazon to the Hewitt Goldberg disc (amidst a sea of equally subjective but largely positive reactions): You can play 'spot the unsubstantiated assertion' like billy-o there! The second is talking fluent parrot. Not saying anyone is denied the right to express such views. But to me, it's all projection.

I've only heard Gould in passing. What I've read suggests that either he, his management or record company were very good at developing a 'cult of personality' around him - something that is as strong in classical music as it is in jazz or pop. I've no doubt from the enthusiasm I've read that at the time he was an exciting player with a very original way of presenting the music (as in getting it out to the public). I can see why people who were listening at that time would hold him dear (I have my own loyalties to performers from the 70s which I stick to, regardless of more recent recordings). It's only natural to hold a special place for first love. It's the deification I wonder about. And it's not just a Gould issue. How many time do I read comments from people who clearly have only just touched on listening to classical music making the grandest claims for the brilliance of these ancestor-heroes. Does the brilliance of the performer really just jump off the disc to the virgin listener? Seems to me that any special qualities are going to come out over a period of time, in comparison with other performers. There's an element of parrotting received wisdom here. I don't doubt for a moment that there are differences in performances (I've heard them!) and that, over time, we evolve our own preferences. But I feel that there's a lot of voodoo involved in the marketing of classical music - both in the presentation of new arists (the "brilliant young geniuses" or the "octogenarian with a lifetime's experience that allows him to reveal hidden depths in his Bruckner") and in the approach that tries to persuade us that we haven't really heards Bach unless we have listened to X's 1938 version. Which is why I read classical reviews (and internet posts!) with some scepticism. Those that relate their judgement to extensive listening and particular references to why the judgement is being reached I find useful (though I frequently don't understand them!); those that just express their personal enjoyment (or disappointment) can enthuse me (or make me wary). But far too many talk in the wooliest terms about 'depths' and 'shallows' and the like leaving me none the wiser, and with the suspicion that the commentary is just being read onto the music. At that point the 'Writing about music is like dancing about architecture' cliche (attributed to all sorts of people!) becomes a reality.

I can see the Curse of the Valkyries has struck again!

Not sure, Sidewinder. Can't find it in the programme. I've been to one or two of these in Bath.

...seems pretty damning to me (with or without the IMHO). If it's that bad it should be possible to say clearly why. Otherwise 'Perahia doesn't really move or engage me' gets the same point across. I know neither Perahia's version or Gould's; I'm making a more general point about the way we amateurs discuss music, largely aping the approach we've picked up from more combative critics. Some of them have the technical insight (and have devoted some intensive study into the music they are reviewing) to at least partially excuse their disdain. I'm not convinced most armchair critics do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b010xw3c Bates played two storming concerts at Cheltenham last week; a particularly strong larger band set of pieces. He's not to everyone's taste - can be zany, very busy (with tunes changing gear with the speed of a Bugs Bunny cartoon), irreverant towards 'tradition'. But I was struck in his solo performance last week at just how distinctive his sound is. We've a crop of excellent young pianists in the UK at present but they all seem to come from a similar mould (one honourable exception being this board's Alexander Hawkins). Bates just seems to be somewhere else. Worth a listen if you ever enjoyed Loose Tubes, the various Human Chain line-ups or Bill Bruford's original earthworks.

How are qualities/deficiencies like 'depth', 'shallowness', 'substance' calibrated? These terms seem to get bandied around without any substantiating evidence. I've been enjoying some of Angela Hewitt's recordings recently. I'm far from a Bach expert - he's not even at the centre of my listening world - so am in absolutely no position to make judgements. All I can say is they engage me. But I'm amused reading reviews which are generally positive or even highly positive and then you'll suddenly come across a 'merely scrapes the surface' type criticism. Is there anything more going on here than people expressing their enjoyment/lack of enjoyment and then reading qualities/deficiencies onto the performance? At my most cynical I might even suspect there is a huge marketing ploy at work here - the industry encouraging us to believe that there are all these huge differences between recordings so we go out and buy lots of different versions, keeping the classical music industry in business (it must work...look at how the bulk of classical music releases are of already recorded, and often many times over recorded, music). I'm not suggesting all performances are the same or of equal accuracy or expressiveness. I very much enjoy reading reviews or listening to comparisons of recordings when done by expert commentators who know the score, a large range of versions and can bring some sort of objective criteria into their judgment as to why a) is a stronger recording than b). BBC Radio 3s 'Building a Library' programme on a Saturday morning does this very well. But when the general music enthusiast starts going on about 'depth' and 'shallowness' without making clear what basis that judgement rests on, then it very quickly degenerates into Classical Connoisseur Top Trumps.

I used to get like that in the longer school holidays, back in the days when everything shut down on a Sunday. There was something 'world coming back to life' about Mondays. Maybe it's something I'll feel again when I retire. At the moment Friday evening is my weekly goal!

Getting near the end of: Brilliant book that does the near impossible, summarising 50 years of African history since independence. Although I had a rough idea, the details here are utterly shocking.

Thank god it's the weekend...that was the longest 4 days of my life!

Oi!

He is not alone: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Let-Them-Talk-Hugh-Laurie/dp/B004M7OLPM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304368609&sr=8-1

Head too full of the Royal Wedding? No harmonium. Do recall seeing her using one with Leroy Jenkins and Joseph Jarman at Brecon back in the late 90s.

What a difference a week makes:

On the Holst theme: His birthplace in Cheltenham. "The Ninth Planet - Budweiser, Bringer of Hangovers"

I take all my belly-aching back - had a marvellous weekend of music (but still didn't drink any Budweiser). Highpoints: the Taylor/Arguelles duo - including a most unseasonal Ray Charles-ish 'In the Bleak Midwinter'...maybe a nod at being in Holst's hometown; Django Bates biggish band - really brought home what a great acoustic pianist Bates is (standing out as a distinctive voice from the current crop of similar sounding pianists). Wonderfully whacky charts. Very good with his trio the following day too. Kit Downes Sextet - some marvellous writing here again. Big Air - simply wonderful. Another couple of ex-Loose Tubers (Steve Buckley/Chris Batchelor alongside the biggest tuba I've ever seen (Oren Marshall), the smallest free-ish pianist I've ever seen (Myra Melford) and that master of pots and pans drumming, Jim Black. Melford attacking her piano was a sight to behold (and behear); the sheer zest and out-of-the-ordinary playing of the front line was exhilarating. Think they may be playing elsewhere in the next few days - worth going out of your way to hear. Man of the match - baritone/bass clarinet/tenor player James Allsopp who really impressed both with Bates and in a couple of Downes concerts, The secret of Cheltenham - just book into the Pillar Room. Made one trip into the main Town Hall room for Potter/Moran/Grenadier/Harland. Came across as Starbucks jazz - I don't know what happens there but all the instruments end up sounding completely separate - no real sense of the bass and drums locking together. And two long drum solos! Was quite listless by the end - and then, 15 minute later, Big Air kicked in next door. Immediately brought back to life.

I'll have to play that next - see if it rings any (non-wedding) bells. "Sippin' at Bells" for me! At noon? Hate to think what state you'll be in at 6.00! Always keep clear of the spirits, myself.

I'll have to play that next - see if it rings any (non-wedding) bells.

All that Saxe-Coburg inbreeding (remember Elton Saxe-Coburg?) with a dash of Greek.

To be clear what a codger is. You are a codger if some (not necessarily all) of the following apply to you: You are over 50 You go to jazz concerts with one of the following - a goatee beard, a beret, a duffle coat, a 'Ban the Bomb' badge, a slim, 20-something French poppet You tut when you see a laptop on stage You tut when you hear a synth or drum machine or a rapper on a record You talk about records instead of songs You tut when you see an electric bass on stage You tut when you see a double bass and guitar on stage instead of a tuba and banjo (Gold Class Codger there) You think Miles sold out when he went electric You thing Wynton sold out when he refused to go electric You remember buying records in Collets You now look like James Bolam on 'The Beiderbecke Affair' You have ever, in any context, used the phrase 'And you call that music?' You are watching the Royal Wedding (regardless of the Che Guevara poster you still keep from your student days)

MI5 have invaded your house and are compelling you?

I've been trying to remember the theme tune(s) to Jazz on 3. I get them mixed up with the late night Peter Clayton programme. I know at various points the following were used on one or the other: Westbrook - 'Outgoing Song' from Citadel/Room 315 (think this was Clayton) Loose Tubes - 'Yellow Hill' from the first album (probably Fox) Stan Sulzmann - 'On Loan with Gratitude' from that album (almost certainly Fox) I think my listening started c. 1977. I recall being intrigued but mystified by things by Braxton and Arthur Blythe and the Loft Session records. The name 'India Navigation' cast a spell over me but I could never find the records. Wouldn't it be good if some obsessive somewhere had catalogued the programme playlists? Not the sort of thing the BBC would hang on to, I suspect.

I've just been to the shops to get a paper, in case anyone missed me.

All welcome who need to ramble down memory lane about jazz (or music in general) in Britain. The Stanley Cowell thread developed an off-shoot about the wonderful UK presenter Charles Fox. Seemed to make sense to have a place to divert to rather than getting in the way of the main theme. I doubt if anyone here has seen the inside of a rich man's club! Given the fact that all our money goes on recordings and concert tickets we'd never get close to the fees.