@ some guy
First of all, I can't say I appreciate the tone of that post which, to me, came across as condescending and patronising (I have been told that I'm oversensitive, but I'm not going to change that because as far as I'm concerned, it's one of the things that makes a me a decent musician!). I also don't appreciate my listening skills being insulted as "innattentive" and "ordinary." Nor do I need reminding which century I'm in as if I'm some sort of moron. I've suffered too long at the hands of the tall poppy syndrome in this country and I'm a little fed up with having even the simplest and relatively innocent of opinions challenged and belittled.
I regularly hold listening tests in all my classes (which, judging by the way I've been addressed here, I don't seem qualified to teach) wherein they're played recordings from CDs and asked to identify the Era they believe it to be from. I then ask them to justify their answer based on what we've been covering in class. Now I'm no idiot - I'm not going to be playing them a recording of a two-part invention on the piano and tell them it's Baroque because it's a two-part, contrapuntal work being played on a keyboard, that would be grossly misleading and stupid. If I'm going to do that, I'll make sure I can find a recording on the harpsichord. Neither would I play them a highly Romanticised arrangement replete with massed brass and percussion and expect them to identify it as Baroque.
that the ensemble isn't anything like a baroque ensemble, I suppose it would fail the instrumentation part of the test first.
In classes we examine texture, orchestration, style of writing, the presence of or predominance of certain instruments, and the usage of the instruments within the texture (less importance is given as to whether it's a historically correct instrument - it would be a pedantic set of ears that could pick the difference in an ensemble between a viola da gamba or a more recent viola). I don't see how Alfeyev's pieces could fail to be indentifiable as Baroque on a cursory listen. In fact, whilst I was typing this, I had the Alfeyev clip playing in the background, one of the other music staff walked in to borrow something and asked "Is that one of the Bach Passions?" Are my colleagues in this locally well-regarded music school now "innattentive" and "ordinary" listeners as well?
Granted, the string orchestra is on the large size for a Baroque ensemble (I think we can blame Mendelssohn for that little "tradition"), and one could argue that there should be a harpsichord in there as well. However, the
use of the instruments within the ensemble is appropriate for the Baroque. Perhaps I should have qualified my initial statement, by "instrumentation" I did not mean "instruments", I was referring more to the use of or function of instruments within the ensemble, not whether they were historically accurate.
By your own admission, it was the scholarly documentation of history that named the eras "Baroque" "Classical" "Romantic" etc, etc, which is perfectly true, but is this now confined to referring to chronology only? Have I been wrong all these years to refer to a work as Baroque or Classical in terms of genre, rather than solely meaning "it's from the "N"teenth century"?
In the context of
genre I was referring to Alfeyev's work as Baroque, not as "being from the 17th century" - that would be singularly idiotic. If it's alright for people to refer to a piece of poetry or a painting produced in contemporary times as "Baroque art" or "Renaissance art" then I don't see why the same can't be afforded to music.
Any piece written today that reminds us of the 18th century can only be pastiche.
Can you qualify this statement please? If this a documented fact that I've missed then I'm happy to be elucidated. If it's not, then it's akin to a bit of a sweeping statement - something one of my Uni lecturers used to pick me up on in my assignments, so I've tried to remain careful in justifying certain statements since then.
Let me qualify my assertion that I do not find Alfeyev's work to be pastiche. Based on what I have studied, have come to understand, and continue to study, his music does not sound "cobbled together", nor does it sound a simple "carbon copy." I'm not even sure I agree with the notion of imitation, since imitation tends to be lumped in with impersonation (which can have negative connotations). Rather, I feel that he has referred to, and used faithfully well, Baroque methods and strictures.
All the things that led people in the 18th century to write the music they wrote are all over. Now is now.
Again, I'd like some qualification and/or context here. As written, it could be interpreted that historical styles have no relevance today, and that where we are now is vastly superior and better than anything previously. If that is the case, we had best stop discussing it right now lest it lead to further argument, as I disagree quite vehemently. There are aspects of the past that I, for one, think would be much more agreeable than today (regardless of how "edited or sanitised" it may or may not be), for example: A less frenetic pace of lifestyle, less unreasonable social demands, a perception of the musician as an honourable profession, (the absence of the internet perhaps?
:grin
.
Apologies if I've come across as overly defensive, but I gave my reasons earlier (the "tall poppy syndrome" bit). If it's going to happen here ... well, at least I have the option of leaving, but I'd rather not, since lively academic discussions such as this are usually worth sticking around for.
(would that I had the option to leave the country ).
All of the above has been delivered with no desire whatsoever for any kind of conflict or unfriendliness. If we're still disagreeing after this, then I guess it's all down to semantics!
Respect.
