The Art-Music Forum
December 09, 2021, 03:27:49 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: A place to discover and discuss a wide range of composers and music (both familiar and forgotten), recordings, broadcasts, books and art. Register, contribute and explore!
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

David Wright's article on Rob Barnett


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: David Wright's article on Rob Barnett  (Read 31350 times)
Dundonnell
Level 8
********

Times thanked: 137
Offline Offline

Posts: 4245


View Profile WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 22, 2014, 02:11:23 pm »

Two points, if I may:

Firstly, I am one of those music-lovers whose knowledge of the "technical aspects" of music form, construction etc etc is (perhaps) woefully inadequate. But..."inadequate" for what Huh Certainly for a full and proper understanding of a score, for a full and proper insight into the manner in which a composer has constructed his or her composition.
That I accept. It is a matter of-some- regret to me that through either laziness or lack of time (possibly lack of inclination) I have never made the required effort to learn more about music in that sense.

Has this diminished my love of music over the last 55 years or so Huh Well it depends what one means by "diminished". A love of music-certainly, I admit, mainly orchestral and choral music-has been and still is one of the most important aspects of my life. I can and do respond to music as it appeals to my ear, my senses, my aesthetic appreciation.
That-for me-constitutes my "love of music". Without it I would be immeasurably the poorer.

As a youth at school my best friend (as is probably very boringly well-known now to most Grin) was Malcolm MacDonald, the Havergal Brian expert (and also author of books on Brahms, Schoenberg, John Foulds et al.). We spent several years, constantly in each other's company, endlessly discussing composers and their works. Malcolm taught himself music and took a music degree from Cambridge after his first degree in English. He has devoted his life to music as a writer. His knowledge far outstrips mine. Yet we did and still can communicate with each other, I hope, intelligently about the music we both love (and the music about which we have differing opinions Smiley).

Secondly, this thread has now run to several pages. It has, inadvertently, given Dr. Wright a publicity which he deserves but doubtfully. I would not go so far as to dismiss everything the man writes. He has produced some interesting articles on less well known composers and his enthusiasms for some of these has made me wish to hear more of their music. But-and it is a very considerable but-his outrageously and gratuitously offensive remarks, which pepper so many of these articles, which are either unattributed anecdotes of, at the very least, highly doubtful provenance, and his wild and self-pitying attacks on so many people have devalued my respect for the accuracy of his statements and completely undermined my faith in his judgement.

If there is any more that needs to be said on the subject or which other members wish to add then, naturally, members will continue to have their say. It is certainly not my job and it would be grossly offensive to suggest any curtailment of this discussion Smiley

What I will say however is that I would now prefer to return to the discussion of the music in which I am interested and will say absolutely no more on this subject.
Report Spam   Logged
cilgwyn
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 48
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: January 22, 2014, 02:31:18 pm »

Now back to Dr No and Rob Barnett.
When I first got into classical music back in the 60's Rob Barnett's reviews were the first place I would go to determine if a CD and/or composer were worthwhile. I can say without any equivocation, his descriptions gave me an excellent idea of the music in non-academic esoteric terms. Not being a professional musician myself, his insights were right on target (with few exceptions) and he made so many emerging composers a subject of great interest. He did however, politely rebuff me when I asked him about Sulek's mssic, which he heard but did not embrace.
I honestly don't know much of Dr. Wright but his articles did not stick much with me and that may have more to do with style and an over-abundance of verbage. There is no question he is quite knowledgeable.
Can you point me to the specific article you are referring to on the web?


Is that the one with Ursula Andress?!! Shocked Grin
Report Spam   Logged
ahinton
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 27
Offline Offline

Posts: 844


View Profile WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 22, 2014, 02:42:54 pm »

Two points, if I may:

Firstly, I am one of those music-lovers whose knowledge of the "technical aspects" of music form, construction etc etc is (perhaps) woefully inadequate. But..."inadequate" for what Huh Certainly for a full and proper understanding of a score, for a full and proper insight into the manner in which a composer has constructed his or her composition.
That I accept. It is a matter of-some- regret to me that through either laziness or lack of time (possibly lack of inclination) I have never made the required effort to learn more about music in that sense.

Has this diminished my love of music over the last 55 years or so Huh Well it depends what one means by "diminished". A love of music-certainly, I admit, mainly orchestral and choral music-has been and still is one of the most important aspects of my life. I can and do respond to music as it appeals to my ear, my senses, my aesthetic appreciation.
That-for me-constitutes my "love of music". Without it I would be immeasurably the poorer.
A very pertinent point, without doubt. For the record and as a matter of (what might be) interest at least to some, Sorabji once (or maybe more than once!) said that many of the most intelligent and perceptive comments that he had heard about his own music had come from people who were not musically literate - i.e could not read a score or play an instrument; for example, in a letter to him in the 1950s, Sacheverell Sitwell (not quite your average intellectual dumbo!) wrote to him about a piano work that he'd recently dedicated to him whose title then inspired some poems that Sitwell was to write, beginning one sentence with "I can't read music but..." - this from a man whose book on Liszt is universally recognised as a classic in its own right and, sadly unlike a fair quantity of his other literature, has, I think, remained in print ever since it was first published some three quarters of a century ago!

Speaking as a composer myself, I should add that, if I really believed that what I write was suitable only for consumption by certain fellow composers and the like, I'd go and rip it all up and do something else before you could say Jancis Robinson!

As a youth at school my best friend (as is probably very boringly well-known now to most Grin) was Malcolm MacDonald, the Havergal Brian expert (and also author of books on Brahms, Schoenberg, John Foulds et al.). We spent several years, constantly in each other's company, endlessly discussing composers and their works. Malcolm taught himself music and took a music degree from Cambridge after his first degree in English. He has devoted his life to music as a writer. His knowledge far outstrips mine.
It far outstrips most people's!

Yet we did and still can communicate with each other, I hope, intelligently about the music we both love (and the music about which we have differing opinions Smiley).
Just as it should and obviously also can be.

Secondly, this thread has now run to several pages. It has, inadvertently, given Dr. Wright a publicity which he deserves but doubtfully. I would not go so far as to dismiss everything the man writes. He has produced some interesting articles on less well known composers and his enthusiasms for some of these has made me wish to hear more of their music. But-and it is a very considerable but-his outrageously and gratuitously offensive remarks, which pepper so many of these articles, which are either unattributed anecdotes of, at the very least, highly doubtful provenance, and his wild and self-pitying attacks on so many people have devalued my respect for the accuracy of his statements and completely undermined my faith in his judgement.
I do not imagine that it has given him the kind of publicity that he would appreciate or which could possibly be of the slightest beneficial use to him. Yes, not everything that he writes is wholly objectionable, as I have already observed although, frankly, when he momentarily casts aside his customary self-aggrandising belligerence and writes of his "enthusiasms" without recourse to this (which is not always the case in any event), much of what he tells his readers extends little beyond plain facts that could as easily be found elsewhere. As to the rest of your assessment, I can only agree.
Report Spam   Logged
ahinton
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 27
Offline Offline

Posts: 844


View Profile WWW
« Reply #63 on: January 22, 2014, 02:43:44 pm »

Now back to Dr No and Rob Barnett.
When I first got into classical music back in the 60's Rob Barnett's reviews were the first place I would go to determine if a CD and/or composer were worthwhile. I can say without any equivocation, his descriptions gave me an excellent idea of the music in non-academic esoteric terms. Not being a professional musician myself, his insights were right on target (with few exceptions) and he made so many emerging composers a subject of great interest. He did however, politely rebuff me when I asked him about Sulek's mssic, which he heard but did not embrace.
I honestly don't know much of Dr. Wright but his articles did not stick much with me and that may have more to do with style and an over-abundance of verbage. There is no question he is quite knowledgeable.
Can you point me to the specific article you are referring to on the web?


Is that the one with Ursula Andress?!! Shocked Grin
If only!...
Report Spam   Logged
cilgwyn
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 48
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695



View Profile
« Reply #64 on: January 22, 2014, 03:09:15 pm »

I certainly don't recall Linda Karen Dowson coming out of the sea!! Shocked Sad
Report Spam   Logged
ahinton
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 27
Offline Offline

Posts: 844


View Profile WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 22, 2014, 03:38:50 pm »

I certainly don't recall Linda Karen Dowson coming out of the sea!! Shocked Sad
Indeed not; only real people can do that, methinks...
Report Spam   Logged
guest128
Guest
« Reply #66 on: January 22, 2014, 06:11:42 pm »

He-he.  Re-reading Wright's indictment of Barnett just now, it seemed, well, er..., almost courteous.
Report Spam   Logged
cilgwyn
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 48
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: January 22, 2014, 06:42:25 pm »

Other fave Barb recordings anyone Roll Eyes?

Bax Symphony 3
Alwyn Symphony 1 and 2
Arthur Benjamin Symphony.
VW A London Symphony (EMI)
Bax Tintagel
VW Fifth Symphony
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy