My personal overgrown path is leading back to the radio studio, and that has set me thinking recently about how to create programmes that are distinctive, inclusive and personal. Over in Holland the creator of Big Brother , Endemol , has its own formula for distinctive broadcasting, and this week launches De Grote Donorshow ( The Big Donor Show ) which gives three dialysis patients the chance to win a dying woman's kidney - or not. Back in 1969 Glenn Gould took a different approach to producing great broadcasting when he created his 'contrapuntal radio documentary' The Latecomers . The main subject was the new Canadian province of Newfoundland , but there was a second subject of solitude, isolation and non-conformity seen from a cultural perspective. The Latecomers , with its basso continuo of the ocean, is both a land-mark in twentieth-century broadcasting and a seriously neglected aspect of Gould's work. Now, thanks to reader Walt Santner, you can hear the whole
Comments
There is a world of difference between transcriptions and truncations, and I listened a lot to Bernstein's LP of the Mitropoulos transcription of Op 131 when it was first released in 1979. (The Opp 131 and 135 are now coupled on one CD).
But have to confess I listened to Bernstein's transcription again a few months ago and didn't get beyond the first few minutes.
But it is a fascinating curiosity, and worth listening out for. (Morning on 3 is available on 'listen again')
And yet ...
"...sounded horribly like film music..."
Seems to me that this is where your "noses" metaphor falls flat - the noses are still easily recognizable as a part of the whole, and to my ears, the same thing is true of the Beethoven.
"...which is presumably what the BBC producer intended."
A fascinating comment, and I'm really curious why you presume this.
"...the market driven BBC will say the audience ratings justified it,"
Am I supposed to conclude that "market driven" is an unqualified negative?
"Some time ago the BBC Radio 3 dropped its policy of only playing complete works,..."
Being from the colonies, I can't really comment. However, you make an absolute statement. Does this policy really apply to all programming, or only to some?
'the alert and receptive listener, who is willing to make an effort to select his programming in advance and then meet the performer half-way by giving his whole attention to what is being broadcast'.
Times change, but BBC Radio 3 now expects very little effort from the listener (such as listening to a whole Beethoven Quartet). Instead the schedules are dominated by compromises in the increasingly frenetic fight for listeners with 'populist' Classis FM.
In my recent postabout Arvo Pärt's Passio I wrote how Pärt determined the duration of the silences between the sections determined by the number of syllables in the final word of the preceeding sentence.
Pärt's Passio is a through-composed work, not a succession of movements separated by silences. In my view a Beethoven Quartet, such as the Op 131, is exactly the same.
I can see no reason for the BBC to have programmed a single movement. It was not a time constraint. As mentioned in my comment above, the same programme is tomorrow broadcasting the orchestrated Op 135 which lasts 32 minutes. The Op 132 lasts 38 minutes.
I'm not trying to defend any "dumbing down" initiatives, but I do recognize that trying to play to my own particular tastes would be a fast way to drive down any live or remote audience. Not all compromises are inherently evil, but I'm really not close enough to this particular example to judge ...
Van Beethoven?
Van? Not Von. Why?
Because his ancestors (parents, grandparents)were from Mechelen.They emigrated to Bonn.
Still .. great organ linked musicians over there.