Today's Listening
Fri, Jan 4 2013, 12:45AM
#2
RE: Today's Listening
Tagalie, I "don't lie low" on appreciating Moeran's Symphony. As far as I noticed, you exercised the only harsh criticism of initially "plagiarism" and, then, based on the reaction of other posters, the proposed "undigested influences". I just wanted to point out that his Symphony has virtues as far as the structure and form, even the orchestration, despite the obvious influences which, in any case, can be found, in one or the other way, in every composer's work.
I don't care about any "gainsaying", while my participation in any sort of "debate" is trying to be focused only to the points raised. You seem to be upset (for the umpteenth time) for my intervention, going out of your way of the debate.
Anyway, as we are at only the third day of the New Year, let's not resort to the usual "exchanges"...of what is proper debate and who has "self-awareness".
Parla
Fri, Jan 4 2013, 3:21AM
#3
RE: Today's Listening RE: Today's Listening
Tagalie, I "don't lie low" on appreciating Moeran's Symphony. As far as I noticed, you exercised the only harsh criticism of initially "plagiarism" and, then, based on the reaction of other posters, the proposed "undigested influences". I just wanted to point out that his Symphony has virtues as far as the structure and form, even the orchestration, despite the obvious influences which, in any case, can be found, in one or the other way, in every composer's work.
My point is you should be lying low, because you're in no position youself to discuss this subject, since you're plainly incapable of identifying the line between influence and copying. Go back to page 10 of the General Discussion forum to Craigm's thread entitled 'Parla - a note on sources' to refresh your memory. Back then the distinction, as applied to your own contributions, was beyond you and it still is.
I repeat, I am not necessarily accusing Moeran of copying. What I am saying is that even by the standards of an early symphonic attempt, the influences are far from digested. Did he consciously hijack the ideas of other composers or was it simply a case of an under-developed personal voice? It would be an interesting debate if you'd stay out of it.
I don't care about any "gainsaying", while my participation in any sort of "debate" is trying to be focused only to the points raised.
But you don't address points, raised by others, and never have in any discussion on this forum. Whether or not you're even remotely familiar with the topic under discussion you either contradict or talk gobbledygook. It's tiresome, and the reason so many regular contributors have quit this forum.
The point at which I find myself gracing your semi-coherent ramblings with a response, is warning bell to give this forum a rest for a while, again. But as I go, if you want to 'address points' try this: take the symphonic canon of most of the accomplished symphonists of the past 200+ years:
Beethoven
Schubert
Dvorak
Tchaikovsky
Bruckner
Bax
Martinu
Arnold
Harris
Haydn
Mozart
Mahler
Mendelssohn
Nielsen
Prokofiev
Brian
Rubbra
Sibelius
Shostakovich
Holmboe
Vaughan Williams
For how many of those would you rate their first attempt at a symphony above their middle period works? Any of them? VW and Brian may make your strongest case But most critics would argue that those first attempts, while magnificent in their own way, are rather ramshackle symphonies. Honourable mentions go to Mahler, Bax and Martinu though I can’t see anybody seriously maintaining that fine first efforts stand above numbers 3-6 for any of these three.
So who are we missing? Mainly the 4-symphony producers like Brahms, Shumann, Berwald, Rachmaninov, Roussel. Berwald and Brahms didn’t attempt the symphony until their voice was fully formed and then produced excellent first symphonies. Schumann was half way through his composing career but his first attempt was a fine one. Roussel’s was a typical first try. Rachmaninov’s is a superb work. There you go, three up-to-snuffs (all of them from a limited symphonic output), six not-bads (although not up to later standards) out of 26 symphonists. Do you detect a pattern there, Parla?
As for my claim that Moeran was a primarily a miniaturist, which you attempted to contradict with no evidence, could you enlarge on the significant difference between ‘by choice’ (your term) and ‘by nature’ (mine)? Moeran wrote 21 chamber or solo works, lots of songs and works for small choral forces, a short work for baritone and orchestra, 9 short orchestral pieces, one symphony and 3 concerti. 5 large scale pieces out of a total of 97 published works. In my book that makes him a miniaturist. What's the Parlagliacci definition of a miniaturist?
If you'd stick to your sole area of expertise - 19th century chamber music, to which you constantly refer no matter what the discussion is, we'd all be better off and you'd save yourself laughable gaffs such as, in the Key and character thread yapping on about Mozart's minor key piano concerti and totally forgetting about K491 - one of the greatest concerti ever written.
I'll be back in a couple of months, and hope and pray that in the meantime you've swallowed your keyboard.
Fri, Jan 4 2013, 8:56PM
#4
RE: Today's Listening
Oh Tagalie! There you go just as I was thinking of coming back.
Fri, Jan 4 2013, 11:03PM
#5
RE: Today's Listening
Great to see a shout on here for William Mathias whose works never fail to bring much pleasure. I know few of the vocal works mentioned - but I do have a superb Lyrita CD of his dazzling "Worlde's Joie" that naver fails to raise ones spirits. The symphonies (Nimbus) are excellent as well.
Also nice to be reminded on the comical "guess-the-tune" Moeran symphony. I like best that part in the finale where the fugue from VW's piano concerto is accompanied by Tapiola!
Fri, Jan 4 2013, 11:41PM
#6
RE: Today's Listening
Well, Tagalie, who is eager for "debate" rather than "gainsaying"? And what a glorious exit (for two months) with a subtle ultimatum (for my ignominious exit) at the very end of your post!
I thought you would get my hint to avoid being so unnecessarily aggressive and blatant in "refreshing my memory" in order to make your point about my inability to "identify the line between influence and copying". For all the "merits" of your motivation, it is still low as a tactical approach and sour as behaviour. Particularly, if the "other side" does not offend you, in any way.
As for your points raised:
- As far as I know, to identify "copying" is to compare the scores of the two works concerned and find the pages/bars which have been exactly used from the first (original) score to the new one (in this case Moeran's Symphony). As long as we don't compare scores (and even if we do, we won't find anything identical), we're talking about "influences". So, whether these are "well digested" or not, I leave it to any debate that might ever happen. The Symphony is not badly constructed and it has a certain originality in the form and orchestration. However, if it is a "collage of borrowed ideas and influences", well, it might be some very interesting news to most of us, scholars (including British ones) musicians and so on.
- When I refer to dealing with the early period of composers, I never confined myself to their symphnonic output only. I refer to their total opus. Most, if not all, of the composers you mentioned have composed marvelous works, including some masterpieces, in their early age, which help a novice listener to get to know their "middle" or much more their "late" periods. I don't see how a newcomer or even a bit seasoned listener may properly appreciate and comprehend Beethoven's Fifth or the String Quartet in e minor, op.59, no.2 without any knowledge and listening reference of the previous works which brought Beethoven to these "middle" masterpieces. Particularly, with composers like Schubert and Mendelssohn, it's absolutely interesting to discover their early genius works, which, in some cases, remained utterly significant. Haydn's String Quartets, op.20 are the most pivotal to comprehend and appreciate even the latest ones. Haydn's Symphonies nos 6,7,8, 22, 31, 45 and quite a few more are essential works to go further to his latest masterworks.
- When I mentioned that Moeran was a miniaturist "by choice", I meant that, based on the form and the subject of his work, he chose to compose a shorter work. If it was "by nature", simply, he couldn't help it. I think only Satie, probably, was both by choice and nature a miniaturist. Moeran composed two very interesting String Quartets, a String Trio, a Piano Trio, two Sonatas for Violin and Cello, a Violin Concerto and a Symphony, to mention the most notable "larger" works. Some of his other works might be shorter but they are not all "miniatures" (short duration and simple form). Of course, since almost half of his 97 "published works" are Songs or small Piano works, one cannot expect "large scale" works. If we have to simply deduct the large scale works from the total output of the published works of any composer, a good number of them would fit in the miniaturist term, including Schubert (his Lieder and small Piano pieces far outnumber his Grand works), Chopin (his Preludes, Etudes, Mazurkas and some more small piano pieces are much more than his "longer" works) etc. However, a Lied or a Mazurka or Prelude, by definition, cannot be a large scale opus. This does not mean that they cannot be "small" masterpieces occasionally.
- I admire your interpretation for my almost faute de frappe in Mozart's Piano Concerti in minor keys. Without any doubt, you declared my ignorance, while it is quite possible that someone who everyday deals with the keys and op. numbers of some dozens of major composers may always make a "silp of tongue", so to speak. The last few years, I almost memorize the keys of every single movement in most of major works of the great Classics and Romantics. So, is it such a remote possibility to make a genuine mistake?
Finally, I wish you all the best in this two months leave of conspicuous absence and to inform you that some of your hopes and prayers have already been answered: I "swallowed" something bad and my health has been compromised, hopefully (for me) temporarily. Who knows, if you keep praying, you may reach some further achievements. However, even sick, I can respond always to thorough and in-depth posts.
All the best, dear chap.
Parla
Sun, Jan 6 2013, 12:44AM
#7
RE: Today's Listening
Hi Tagalie! Just referring to this you said:
I'm with you there, Mark. I gather from friends teaching at colleges or schools that plagiarism is now rampant, and difficult to detect. We've even had cases of it on this forum, as you'll recall.
First off hope you're not away for too long. I envy you your knowledge on the symphony, which must have taken a lifetime's listening.
Your comment above re: plagiarism has got me thinking. Yes, it is difficult to detect, unless you come across passages which are obviously lifted. But, next time you see your teacher/lecturer friends for a beer or coffee or whatever, well here's just a couple of things that that you might share with them...
Claiming too much familiarity with a genre is an obvious one.
For example, if a student writes, 'this example of Shakespearean tragedy shows all the typical hallmarks of the genre...' You ask the student how many other Shakespearean tragedies do you know?' Uh...and then you might ask, 'Have you researched at all the genre?' Uh...You get the picture.
As far as the actual choice of language goes, this is harder to detect. I tend to notice however what I call sales or marketing blurb. 'A fast-paced rollercoaster of a thriller' etc....In musical terms that might be something like 'a warm recording in a spacious acoustic, with the assured playing that we have come to expect from such and such an expert in this field...'
Also, if students make multiple recommendations of a certain author which is probably beyond their limited experience. Probably, not definitely. Again you can easily ascertain how many McEwan novels or whatever they've read.
An absence of emotional intelligence ...in other words, no personal response with phrases like 'I think' or 'I feel'. (And it used to be not the done thing to use those phrases, but it is now, because not only does it show personal response but is an antidote to remote and unfeeling language which looks like it is coped in some cases.
It's not an exact science of course. Software apparently can detect copied passages in some cases. The rest is intuition based on your experience of what a student is likely or not likely to know. Yes there are avid readers who have read tons, like the boy who used to sit in front of me in 1st year at school who had read every Agatha Christie at the age of 11. I hear he's now a high court judge. Interesting development from his early fascination with murder mysteries! Hubert Selby Jr. (Last Exit to Brooklyn) said of his mentor and fellow novelist Gil Sorrentino, that he was one of those nuts who'd read The Iliad when he was about five!
It is a difficult problem and one we come across in other walks. The ethical issue for those in education of course is that you have to sign a declaration that you are satisfied that this is entirely a student's own unaided work. That can pose a problem if the book review looks like a Sunday Times writer has written it and the student inisists that it is their own unaided work.
Ultimately, we feel cheated when we enter into dialogue with plagiarists if they can't hold their hand up and admit theft. IMO, plagiarism is about more than theft of words, it is stealing someone else's ideas, their research...ultimately their intellectual property. It is also a shock because back in the days when we were students the net didn't exist and opportunities to cut and paste were non-existent. Essays were written by hand and it tended to reduce by far the amount of direct copying that went on. It wasn't totally absent, but far less in evidence.
As I say, we can often apply what I'm saying to other areas...
Mark
Sun, Jan 6 2013, 1:18AM
#8
RE: Today's Listening
Actually plagiarism is pretty easy to detect in the word processor era - turnitin.com and other software are readily available and if a student chooses to cut and paste anything from an electronic source they are nailed.
In music I am no expert but this discussion reminded me of the trouble Hyperion found themselves in. While the issue was performance rights related I think my layman's understanding of the judgement was that once awork was edited it became in essence a 'new' work. I always thought this a curious situation - is Zedda claiming rights for his critical edition of Rossini?
Mon, Jan 7 2013, 12:13AM
#9
RE: Today's Listening
Musical "plagiarism" would suggest comparing scores of the "original" composer and the "culprit" one. So far, I don't recall of cases of "identical" parts of a score taken by another composer and used as his/her own. Quotes, on the other hand, plenty. Reworking, recycling, even in identical ways, can be found or traced in good numbers (J.S. Bach, Rossini, Beethoven, Mozart and many more).
Parla
I don't believe either that Moeran' Symphony betrays a direct "plagiarism", Tagalie, not even "undigested influences". Parla
As one who has been caught red handed trying to pass off passages from Wikipedia as his own thoughts, I would have expected you to lie low on this subject. All you're doing is demonstrating, yet again, you have more blind spots than an 18-wheeler truck. And in the rest of your post you demonstrate, for the umpteenth time, you're incapable of distinguishing between debate and gainsaying. Have you no self-awareness?