Originally Posted by
LowObservable
The poor Beeb has a dilemma.
Exhibit A:
Not all of the music here is pleasant to listen to; much of it is distinctively challenging, both aesthetically and intellectually. Even for those who are normally at home in classical music or at least have a grasp of its basic tenets – harmony, counterpoint, key and time signatures – the experience of hearing Schoenberg, Messiaen, Cage, Stockhausen et al can seem as disorientating as waking up one morning and discovering that you must suddenly learn an entirely new language – a mad, jangling vocabulary composed of letters and words you thought you’d understood since childhood but now find mystifyingly incomprehensible.
Translated: Most of you oiks are far too stupid to understand this
.
Much as the artsy-fratsies and luvvies may hate Clarkson, the dosh from Top Gear funds hundreds of hours of this horrible noise, not to mention performance poetry and paeans to Tate Modern daubery.
Mmmm. With respect, LO, there are various code words in there which say 'I loathe this music with a passion that consumes my whole being, and it is nonsense of the first order' - it's review language akin to those code words/phrases in obituaries ('He was a bon viveur' = he was a raging alcoholic; 'he was very much a ladies man' = he was a nasty groper who was extremely lucky not to be prosecuted for sexual assault; 'he was a noted raconteur' = he was a crushing bore. And so on).
Based on my recollection of the code as explained to me by a musician, the above loosely translates as:
'Not all of the music here is pleasant to listen to' = The composer sometimes inadvertently uses a conventional harmony and creates a briefly melodic moment.
'...much of it is distinctively challenging, both aesthetically and intellectually' = It is hard to understand how anyone with half a brain can consider this to be music.
'Even for those who are normally at home in classical music or at least have a grasp of its basic tenets – harmony, counterpoint, key and time signatures – the experience of hearing Schoenberg, Messiaen, Cage, Stockhausen et al can seem as disorientating as waking up one morning and discovering that you must suddenly learn an entirely new language' = If you like classical music, your ears will hurt and you will be utterly confused as to how anyone can think this is music.
'a mad, jangling vocabulary composed of letters and words you thought you’d understood since childhood but now find mystifyingly incomprehensible' = 'there are no recognisable melodies, the harmony is all out, and you are left wondering if the composer has gone mad, or deaf or both, and cannot understand how anyone can listen to this tosh'.
And all of that is necessary because someone in the organisation who commissioned the review/commentary
isthe sort of person who pretentiously believes that 'oiks' don't get it and who won't publish a review that questions the brilliance of what is pretentious tosh - but they're also not bright enough to recognise the damning criticism which says to any switched - on music lover: 'This is utterly, utterly dire. Avoid it at all costs'...
(I accept that I may be wrong about Ms Burton-Hill's intent, but the phrasing is alarmingly close to the alternative interpretation explained to me some 20 years ago...)
[with apologies for the wild thread diversion]