Music 2.0 Lite

In this area--a mecca of all forms of culture, it's bad enough that we don't have a high-caliber newspaper that rivals the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. But in an area where people are pretty knowledgeable about classical music and the level of music appreciation is high (though not high enough to appreciate the edgy-modern kind of music that our choir performs), we have one classical music station. It therefore has a monopoly on classical music broadcasting, which is a shame, because I wonder if some competition might enliven the repertoire choices a bit.

I have a love-hate relationship with my local classical music station, which prides itself on being "Casual, Comfortable, and Classical." UGH. Normally, my sentiments cancel out so that the end result is closer to indifference. In fact, I don't even classify myself as being knowledgeable enough about classical music to complain about the vapid tuneful do-re-mi dumbed-down version of classical music that this radio station offers to this area, but having to listen to just the last movement of the Dvorak 8th Symphony was my last straw.

I lost it, and hence this posting to get this out of my system.

• First of all, I don't listen to this station that often, because I usually only listen to it when I'm in my car, which is not that often. Maybe 30-60 minutes a week (depending on whether I bike into work, have other places to go to) tops? So at this infrequency of listening, I should not, in a 3 month period, hear Hilary Hahn and whoever else playing the Bach Double three times. Now I love the Bach Double. I have at least 5 or 6 different recordings of it. But a) classical music is not all about Hilary Hahn playing Bach. I'm sure she plays it beautifully, but there are dozens of other people who have played the Bach Double, and some better. In the very least, all different. And more importantly, b)there are tens upon thousands of other songs that constitute classical music. If I'm listening 30 minutes a week, and in a 3 month span, I've heard Hilary Hahn's rendition of the Bach Double 2 or 3 times, you are not playing enough interesting music. And gosh darnit, if you are going to broadcast the Bach Double multiple times, how about Nigel Kennedy or Yehudi Menhuin?

• Rant number two: call me curmudgeonly or contrarian, but this whole "comfortable, casual" "island of sanity" business really does the audience a disservice. It is dumbed down classical music, version 2.0 lite. This is precisely the sort of insipid, mind-numbing version of classical music that gives classical music its bad reputation. A lot of my twenty- and thirty- (and even forty-) something friends don't like classical music. They think it's dull and unhip. It's for winding down at the end of the day, but not for challenging you.

Now again, let me reiterate that I'm no classical music cognescenti. Far from it. I'm still trying to learn to appreciate Mahler and I'm just getting into opera and there are hundreds of symphonies that I haven't heard in their entirety. But it is precisely people of my ilk (not much better than total ignoramus, but interested in learning more and unsatisfied with the offerings of our current radio station) who need to be challenged to listen to things beyond Vivaldi's 4 Seasons or Mozart's Requiem, or other things on the classical music top- 100 list that I have already either sung or played or know of.

Not that there's anything wrong with Mozart's Requiem or Vivaldi's 4 Seasons. There is a reason they are "classics". There's certainly a time and place for appreciating that.

But as Aaron Copland put it so eloquently, why is it that we expect all other art forms to challenge us, and yet, when it comes to classical music, people think we just want to hear the comfortable stuff?

The literary world does not expect Gide or Mann or T.S. Eliot to emote with the accents of Victor Hugo or Walter Scott. Why, then, should Bartok or Milhaud be expected to sing with the voice of Schumann or Tchaikovsky? When a contemporary piece seems dry and cerebral to you, when it seems to be giving off little feeling or sentiment, there is a good chance that you are not willing to live in your own epoch, musically speaking.

Before concluding, I should like to ask a question of my own. Why is it that the musical public is seemingly so reluctant to consider a musical composition as, possibly, a challenging experience? When I hear a new piece of music that I do not understand I am intrigued -- I want to make contact with it again at the first opportunity. It's a challenge -- it keeps my interest in the art of music thoroughly alive.

But sadly I've observed that my own reaction is not typical. Most people use music as a couch; they want top be pillowed on it, relaxed and consoled for the stress of daily living. But serious music was never meant to be used as a soporific. Contemporary music, especially, is created to wake you up, not put you to sleep. It is meant to stir and excite you -- it may even exhaust you. But isn't that the kind of stimulation you go to the theatre for or read a book for? Why make an exception of music?

So KDFC is another one of these stations that serves as a couch or pillow, which I guess fits with their whole "islands of sanity" marketing scheme.

• Rant number three: I love instruments and all, but their programming for the most intimate instrument of all is virtually nil or I keep missing it, because based on my infrequent listening, I'd say that their ratio of instrumental to choral pieces programmed is 20:1, to pick an arbitrary number out of a hat. (Well not really. I really rarely hear choral works or opera presented, though in their defense, I did hear that they will start or have started broadcasting opera.) They used to do some choral music on Sunday mornings and I used to listen to that, but at some point, they got rid of that or moved the time.

But again, even with the choral music, there's more to choral music than Wachet Auf. How about some Veljo Tormis? Alberto Grau? Or something that was written after we were born?

• My final point, and the whole impetus for this long, hopefully not-too-vituperative rant-- Please. Do. Not. Truncate. Great symphonies. It's bad enough that much is lost when you hear it on the radio vs. hearing it live, but when you just present one movement from a larger work, you rob it of all of its context and nuance.

This morning, on my way to work, KDFC played just the last movement of the Dvorak 8th, which granted, is showy and grandiose, and perhaps a crowd-pleaser, but imo, not the most interesting part of the piece. It's unfortunate that I've (sort of) played this piece before, because otherwise, I probably wouldn't have cared so much about KDFC just presenting the last movement.

But this is probably one of these symphonies that to fully appreciate the last movement, you need to listen to the earlier movements. Motifs repeat and come back. He ties three entirely different-sounding movements and brings closure in the last movement. How can you fully appreciate the loud buildup and release of tension in the last movement, when you haven't heard movements 1,2, and 3?

The first movement starts with a cello line that seems to indicate a sense of urgency, but then the tension is cut by a flute section that sounds somewhat naive and meandering. Actually, the first part of the first movement sounds like an exciting trek in the woods to me--with each switchback offering some kind of surprise adventure or excitement. It's got that kind of playful feel. The string part towards the end of this movement is exhilarating. (So exhilarating that I ultimately had to drop out of performing this piece. The first violin part has notes that are 7 and 8 lines above the staff!) Then you've got a(n initially) more pensive-sounding second movement with clarinet the brass in the second movement, whose tone gets more ominous? (urgent? sinister?) sounding towards the last third, before returning to an earlier motif, and ultimately, coming back to its original opening theme, albeit in a different key. However, by now, the theme seems to have taken on an entirely new meaning. After the descending scales, the opening motif sounds more majestic/triumphant to me. Which takes us to the third movement, which sounds entirely different. It sounds waltz-like with its 3/8 tempo and prominently features the strings.

But I'm digressing from my original rant and I don't really know sufficient background about this piece to be writing "program notes" for it. These are just my personal impressions. . ..

To return to my original rant of how this symphony should not be truncated thus-- the point I was trying to make here with my digression was that the final movement of the Dvorak 8th should not be played on its own. Period. I am less irritated when they do this with other pieces, but the more a radio station does this, the more it dumbs down and cheapens the value of classical music. I mean, how do you expect me to learn to appreciate an edgy, modern symphony, if I'm used to hearing only truncated versions of top 100 hits?

Would you read just the last few chapters of a book, no matter how exhilarating the content may be? Part of the exhilaration is the culmination and the journey through the earlier chapters or movements, in the case of music.

Granted, it takes time and concentration, and roughly 38 minutes of your time to appreciate the entire symphony. But wouldn't most people rather hear the full thing rather than the dumbed down "abridged" version?