You Tube controversy

48 posts / 0 new
Last post
You Tube controversy

Have a read of Henry Norman's piece in the latest Gramophone blog for how and why classical music must be open and accessible to the young.

Vic.

RE: You Tube controversy

It's getting too late here. I'll come up tomorrow (or later in the morning here).

For now: This YouTube is, whatever one may claim, at least a compromise to give "access" of a sensitive, rich in its variety and subtle music as Classical. Thus, what one gets is a compromised product, in the most compromised way. In other words, you get what you pay...that is to say...Nothing (real and worthy)!

Parla

RE: You Tube controversy

Hi Vic. thanks for alerting me to that. It's a very good piece and I've just posted an appreciative comment on it.

Mark

Fraz Jo - disapntd. Bn ringin this grl al week. No ansr...looks lke she changed her mnd. O well...Ldwg...

RE: You Tube controversy

The thing that intrigues me about You Tube is its sheer accessibility.  With a few clicks you could be anywhere.  It's a "young" medium, trawled by millions, without ridgid boundaries, a platform for promoting music in a new way.

With the ghettoisation of genres the young can potentially never hear any classical music at all in just the same way as I never hear popular music.  Because I don't inhabit that environment, I don't know what's out there so exclude a potential area of enjoyment, or whatever.  You Tube "surfing" throws up the most diverse range of possibilities, and it's open to all.

There are some great classical You Tube films, from clips to whole performances, some packaged in a way to appeal to a younger audience who would never hear Radio 3.  For instance, I have shown the Cello Song clip (source "The Piano Guys") to several younger members of my family, all of whom were intrigued, even delighted.  I know it can be criticised but in one sense it lowers the barrier, so to speak, and makes the original that bit more accessible: Bach is out of the bag.  I have seen clips from memorable moments at the Proms, for instance, promoted in a popular way which might similarly demtistify the brand, reduce a prejudice, lower the barrier to the unfamiliar.

You Tube and the like could be seen as a potential vehicle for making classical music that bit more available in the apartheid system that traps and pigeon-holes music for the young (and not so young).  Or so it seems to me.

Vic.

 

RE: You Tube controversy

Or so it seems to you, Vic...indeed!

Apparently, you cannot see the huge compromise against the Art for the sake of "accessibility".

Parla

RE: You Tube controversy

parla wrote:

Or so it seems to you, Vic...indeed!

Apparently, you cannot see the huge compromise against the Art for the sake of "accessibility".

Parla

 

So Parla, you have a long journey to prepare for but you couldn't resist provoking with this statement of a false dichotomy? 

To my way of thinking you are the arch proponent of musical apartheid.

Consider your thousand word reply on the flight home, which I hope will be a pleasant and hassle-free one.  Apart from stressing about your reply to this response to your provocation, of course.

Vic.

RE: You Tube controversy

VicJayL wrote:

The thing that intrigues me about You Tube is its sheer accessibility. ...............You Tube and the like could be seen as a potential vehicle for making classical music that bit more available in the apartheid system that traps and pigeon-holes music for the young (and not so young).  Or so it seems to me.

Vic.

And to me. Like any system of communication (mass media or otherwise) Youtube contains, by its very nature, unbelievably huge amounts of dross. But so does the written word in all its forms, as do television, movies, the radio, CDs (cont'd p94).

I'd assume I'm far from being the only one who'll be mystified as to what a  "......huge compromise against the Art (always for some reason, given extra gravitas by the majiscule) for the sake of "accessibility" actually means. The same flawed 'argument' could have been used, for example, against the introduction of recorded sound, or the radio, or Alan Lane's pioneering Penguins in the 1930s. Gutenberg must have been turning in his grave about this 'compromise against the Art'.

The accessibility to the sort of music which posters on this forum, by definition, love can only be enhanced by another opportunity of access, the availability of which simply adds to the possibility of dicovery for someone, somewhere. It is not a zero sum game, nothing is lost by it and maybe something will be gained. I've lost count of the number of historical singers whose recordings feature on Youtube and who have been 'discovered' through that medium by those who may not have come across - or would ever be likely to come across - those items in the normal course of events.

If 10 million people look at Youtube videos of juggling cats, ghastly pop music, inane sel-publicists and the rest, what does that matter if a 100 people - or even just one - discover a composer, a piece of music, or a singer which causes them to think 'Mmm, I'd like to hear and know more about that".

I'm sure they will be able to live with having offended some mythical musical Sanhedrin.

 

JKH

JKH

RE: You Tube controversy

"To your way of thinking", Vic, I can be practically anything...

However, this "arch of proponent of musical aprtheid" is a gem of entertainment. In any case, I'm glad I belong to the same group with the likes of Herr Zimerman.

JKH, from the Live performance or the achievements of Hi-end reproduction of sound to YouTube is a sort of compromise, in the same way as for someone who claims he/she saw the actual exhibits of a Museum from photos.

Parla

 

Well said Vic
Quote:

The thing that intrigues me about You Tube is its sheer accessibility. With a few clicks you could be anywhere. It's a "young" medium, trawled by millions, without ridgid boundaries, a platform for promoting music in a new way.

With the ghettoisation of genres the young can potentially never hear any classical music at all in just the same way as I never hear popular music. Because I don't inhabit that environment, I don't know what's out there so exclude a potential area of enjoyment, or whatever. You Tube "surfing" throws up the most diverse range of possibilities, and it's open to all.

There are some great classical You Tube films, from clips to whole performances, some packaged in a way to appeal to a younger audience who would never hear Radio 3. For instance, I have shown the Cello Song clip (source "The Piano Guys") to several younger members of my family, all of whom were intrigued, even delighted. I know it can be criticised but in one sense it lowers the barrier, so to speak, and makes the original that bit more accessible: Bach is out of the bag. I have seen clips from memorable moments at the Proms, for instance, promoted in a popular way which might similarly demtistify the brand, reduce a prejudice, lower the barrier to the unfamiliar.

You Tube and the like could be seen as a potential vehicle for making classical music that bit more available in the apartheid system that traps and pigeon-holes music for the young (and not so young). Or so it seems to me.

Vic.

I completely agree!

RE: You Tube controversy

parla wrote:

JKH, from the Live performance or the achievements of Hi-end reproduction of sound to YouTube is a sort of compromise, in the same way as for someone who claims he/she saw the actual exhibits of a Museum from photos.

Parla

 

I've never met anyone who claims to have seen 'the actual exhibits of a Museum from photos', but maybe we don't move in the same intellectual circles.

Any form of recorded reproduction - 'high end' or otherwise - presents only an approximation of a live performance. The degree of that approximation varies according to the medium, but it is never anything but an approximation. Such reproduction doesn't offend against art (or Art, if you prefer), but there again we return to the intellectual circles I refer to above.

JKH

JKH

on that note, museums are getting in on live screenings...

"Visit your local cinema for an exclusive private view of the exhibition. Choose from over 280 cinemas across the UK. "

http://www.britishmuseum.org/whats_on/exhibitions/pompeii_and_herculaneu...

Could well end up on DVD or even youtube in time...

Is this visiting or not? Is a screen more of a barrier than a glass case?

Are not the key aspects the broadening of education, interest, and enjoyment?

Can't see any point in purists getting snooty about such things. If they wish they can attend the museum, or not attend at all, or buy the exhibition catalogue online etc...

Which brings us to another point. Is the slightly removed "direct experience" via a screening more valid (even if you end up sitting next to some child chewing popcorn who doesnt want to be there) than getting a connoisseur's magazine on the topic and draping it on a coffee table, and experiencing it even more indirectly ? ;-)

Pages

Log in or register to post comments

Gramophone Subscriptions

From£67/year

Gramophone Print

Gramophone Print

no Digital Edition
no Digital Archive
no Reviews Database
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe
From£67/year

Gramophone Reviews

Gramophone Reviews

no Print Edition
no Digital Edition
no Digital Archive
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe
From£67/year

Gramophone Digital Edition

Gramophone Digital Edition

no Print Edition
no Reviews Database
no Events & Offers
From£67/year
Subscribe

If you are a library, university or other organisation that would be interested in an institutional subscription to Gramophone please click here for further information.

© MA Business and Leisure Ltd. 2019