“there’s barely a moment during Heliosis when the pulse doesn’t go away” – I don’t think the double negative is what you mean?
Interesting that in the Gavin Higgins review you said ‘what’s in a name’, because I find Higgins’s title much more problematic. Concerto Grosso implies something specific musically that the piece doesn’t really deliver on; I was expecting some interesting interplay between the two ensembles, but the use of the ensembles were quite unremarkable. I enjoyed that piece much more on a second listen, partly because it sounds much more blended on recording than live, which works to the piece’s advantage; I found it frustrating to listen to live. RAH’s acoustic certainly didn’t help.
Hi Jim, thanks for the comment, especially with regard to the double negative – quite right, now fixed!
Well that’s a fair point – i do think the title of Gavin Higgins’ piece is a complete misnomer, and i really hope he retitles it. As you say, it doesn’t function as a concerto grosso at all, so it’s downright weird he called it that. i didn’t want to fixate on that too much as i feel the merits of the piece far outstrip my concerns about the title, but you’re right, it’s just as problematic as Eisendle’s Heliosis.
Gary
2 years ago
Unlike Heliosis’s programmatic title, I don’t find the Concerto Grosso title problematic. It may not conform to a Baroque definition, but then expecting it to in the 21st century is rather like worrying because a symphony has ten movements or doesn’t have a minuet and trio as its third movement.
Thanks for the comment Gary. As far as i can recall, though, more modern takes on the concerto grosso form don’t simply use the term to indicate a smaller group in addition to the larger orchestra, but to indicate something of the relationship between the two. In the Higgins piece that relationship (as Higgins admits) is pretty much non-existent. The symphony has become much less prescriptive over the years in a way that the concerto grosso hasn’t. Maybe you’re right; perhaps it doesn’t matter – though considering how rarely the term is used in contemporary music it still seems to me an odd choice for the Higgins piece.
“there’s barely a moment during Heliosis when the pulse doesn’t go away” – I don’t think the double negative is what you mean?
Interesting that in the Gavin Higgins review you said ‘what’s in a name’, because I find Higgins’s title much more problematic. Concerto Grosso implies something specific musically that the piece doesn’t really deliver on; I was expecting some interesting interplay between the two ensembles, but the use of the ensembles were quite unremarkable. I enjoyed that piece much more on a second listen, partly because it sounds much more blended on recording than live, which works to the piece’s advantage; I found it frustrating to listen to live. RAH’s acoustic certainly didn’t help.
Hi Jim, thanks for the comment, especially with regard to the double negative – quite right, now fixed!
Well that’s a fair point – i do think the title of Gavin Higgins’ piece is a complete misnomer, and i really hope he retitles it. As you say, it doesn’t function as a concerto grosso at all, so it’s downright weird he called it that. i didn’t want to fixate on that too much as i feel the merits of the piece far outstrip my concerns about the title, but you’re right, it’s just as problematic as Eisendle’s Heliosis.
Unlike Heliosis’s programmatic title, I don’t find the Concerto Grosso title problematic. It may not conform to a Baroque definition, but then expecting it to in the 21st century is rather like worrying because a symphony has ten movements or doesn’t have a minuet and trio as its third movement.
Thanks for the comment Gary. As far as i can recall, though, more modern takes on the concerto grosso form don’t simply use the term to indicate a smaller group in addition to the larger orchestra, but to indicate something of the relationship between the two. In the Higgins piece that relationship (as Higgins admits) is pretty much non-existent. The symphony has become much less prescriptive over the years in a way that the concerto grosso hasn’t. Maybe you’re right; perhaps it doesn’t matter – though considering how rarely the term is used in contemporary music it still seems to me an odd choice for the Higgins piece.