An interesting point, but if what you're claiming is that the evident lack of coherent ideas in Fitkin's piece is an intentional effect, connected to the 'failure in communication' aspect of his work, that seems a circular, even spurious argument. There's never a sense of an idea having the (potential) weight, so that we hear it as something we'd like to hear more of, but can't due to everything else. It's just a melée, a uniform, homogeneous texture without any sense of things in foreground or background. Density isn't the issue here; for me, it's simply one of interest, & for me, the flat monotony of Fitkin's PK is its downfall. He doesn't *demonstrate* a failure of communication – he just fails to communicate.
wavecut platform
14 years ago
5:4's critical review of PK appears to be well-judged until you link the words to the music and then the point comes through loud and clear (the former admittedly never in any doubt,) that with lots of conflicting messages and parallel efforts to get through, mounting frustration is what you get. The piece was very dense, but in the accoustic inside the Royal Albert Hall the multiple complex rhythms and different instrumental sounds could be readily distinguished and all combined to create waves of excitement that were exhilerating for the listeners. (My computer doesn't do as well.) Bearing in mind the brief for the composer, the piece was rather intelligent in its scope; allowing for the expression of difficulties of communication, (which were real enough for the participants), despite the tenacity of the eleven conductors. I would also take some issue with Nacnudus's "moment to shine" objective. I understood that the commission's inclusive purpose was to allow anybody to participate in making real music, not demonstrate what they could do. Parental sentimentality was obviated by the challenges they themselves faced in taking part on an equal basis. It might have been fairer to the composer had the amateurs been able to produce more dynamic variation. But given: the need to allow everyone to play a reasonable amount of the time, that the whole thing would be done without music, and that dynamics would be hard to handle it was rather brilliant, and seriously enjoyable. I can recommend it for doing chores to, which is a real test of staying power.
5:4
14 years ago
That the players and audience enjoyed themselves is hardly the issue; it doesn't allow Fitkin to abnegate his responsibilities in terms of quality. Compositionally – and that, in case it wasn't clear, is my focus here, not the pseudo-merits from a parental perspective of giving “everyone a moment to shine” – what he presented those performers with was a real mess, and i remain appalled that he feels the way to respond to performers of mixed ages and abilities is to present them with something like this. You're quite right; i did miss out – but then, so did a *lot* of other people, chiefly those who commissioned it.
To put your review in context: Graham Fitkin was commissioned to write a showpiece for the BBC Proms Family Orchestra and Chorus, which invites performers of all ages and ability to come to workshops lead by players from the BBC orchestras. Over the course of several workshops they put together a piece that gives everyone a moment to shine, and perform at a prom. This year were two series of workshops, one in London, the other in Cornwall, that didn't meet until two days before the performance. You'll hear from the applause and the presenter that everyone present, audience included, really enjoyed themselves. Bad luck for missing out.
Unlock with Patreon
An interesting point, but if what you're claiming is that the evident lack of coherent ideas in Fitkin's piece is an intentional effect, connected to the 'failure in communication' aspect of his work, that seems a circular, even spurious argument. There's never a sense of an idea having the (potential) weight, so that we hear it as something we'd like to hear more of, but can't due to everything else. It's just a melée, a uniform, homogeneous texture without any sense of things in foreground or background. Density isn't the issue here; for me, it's simply one of interest, & for me, the flat monotony of Fitkin's PK is its downfall. He doesn't *demonstrate* a failure of communication – he just fails to communicate.
5:4's critical review of PK appears to be well-judged until you link the words to the music and then the point comes through loud and clear (the former admittedly never in any doubt,) that with lots of conflicting messages and parallel efforts to get through, mounting frustration is what you get. The piece was very dense, but in the accoustic inside the Royal Albert Hall the multiple complex rhythms and different instrumental sounds could be readily distinguished and all combined to create waves of excitement that were exhilerating for the listeners. (My computer doesn't do as well.) Bearing in mind the brief for the composer, the piece was rather intelligent in its scope; allowing for the expression of difficulties of communication, (which were real enough for the participants), despite the tenacity of the eleven conductors.
I would also take some issue with Nacnudus's "moment to shine" objective. I understood that the commission's inclusive purpose was to allow anybody to participate in making real music, not demonstrate what they could do. Parental sentimentality was obviated by the challenges they themselves faced in taking part on an equal basis.
It might have been fairer to the composer had the amateurs been able to produce more dynamic variation. But given: the need to allow everyone to play a reasonable amount of the time, that the whole thing would be done without music, and that dynamics would be hard to handle it was rather brilliant, and seriously enjoyable. I can recommend it for doing chores to, which is a real test of staying power.
That the players and audience enjoyed themselves is hardly the issue; it doesn't allow Fitkin to abnegate his responsibilities in terms of quality. Compositionally – and that, in case it wasn't clear, is my focus here, not the pseudo-merits from a parental perspective of giving “everyone a moment to shine” – what he presented those performers with was a real mess, and i remain appalled that he feels the way to respond to performers of mixed ages and abilities is to present them with something like this. You're quite right; i did miss out – but then, so did a *lot* of other people, chiefly those who commissioned it.
To put your review in context: Graham Fitkin was commissioned to write a showpiece for the BBC Proms Family Orchestra and Chorus, which invites performers of all ages and ability to come to workshops lead by players from the BBC orchestras. Over the course of several workshops they put together a piece that gives everyone a moment to shine, and perform at a prom. This year were two series of workshops, one in London, the other in Cornwall, that didn't meet until two days before the performance. You'll hear from the applause and the presenter that everyone present, audience included, really enjoyed themselves. Bad luck for missing out.
Read more here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/2010/takepart/familyorchestra_project.shtml