Denis Fodor wrote:
>The way to start anything is with the basics. If you find that the basic
>stuff doesn't grab you, buy else whatever you like. You're then free to
>delude yourself that you're into classical music.
This begs the whole question. What are the "basics"? I have trouble
pointing people to a "basic" repertoire even in zarzuela - the field's just
too diverse to be able to make such an objective judgement. Music is one
area of life where it's virtually impossible to 'cut to the chase'. You
might as well try to advise people on how to choose their friends.
Alan Moss queries my observations on finding children less than amenable
to the Divine Mozart:
>It is certainly natural and predictable that children will be baffled
>when first exposed to the operatic output of the maturity of one of
>the world's great composers. I'm puzzled about "undermined and
>resentful", though.
"Undermined", because somebody somewhere - usually the person training them
musically, or a well-meaning parent - has put a nose in the air and told
them that this is one of the Greatest Operas Ever Written and/or a Great
Spiritual Experience and/or How Lucky They Are to be Involved With It.
Naturally, when they don't connect, they feel undermined and stupid. The
resentment comes as part of the self-protective kick-back against that
feeling.
With Beamish or Macmillan, say, they're more likely to have their parents
grumbling pompously about what rubbish it is - which naturally helps the
modern composers' PR!
Laurence Sherwood argues, nostalgically, that dance forms lie at the
root of "accessible" romantic music, which is where the 20th Century
apparently went wrong. He goes on to pull out the false old chestnut
about contemporary composers being over-cerebral and not having to work
for a living.
This is to place the cart squarely before the horse. Composers used
"dance forms" because they were popular and contemporary, and thus easier
for listeners to relate to formally. Good modern music always reflects the
popular music(s) of its time, and I'm afraid those old dance forms don't
currently loom that large in contemporary musical experience. No wonder
kids have initial difficulty with minuets, gavottes and even the classic
waltz.
To put one paw on the "cerebral" chestnut ... I question whether anyone
would seriously argue that the impact of good Varese or Stockhausen,
say, was remotely cerebral compared, say, to a late Mozart String Quartet.
These things tend to be in the mind of the beholder, except as an easy
put-down that does not hold water.
No, musical children - of whatever age - relate more quickly to the music
of their own time. We all did, though we may have forgotten it. I was
lucky, in that I flipped from pop music when I joined my local church
choir and felt how much richer musical experience could be. We didn't
do Beethoven or Brahms. We did do Tallis, Byrd, Bach, Handel - and, most
exciting of them all to a boy of 10 - Britten, Tippett, Matthias, Maxwell
Davies, Penderewski ... cerebral? gut-shaking!
To be fair, there may be a distinction between children making music, and
passive "appreciators". My work experience has been concerned with making
or facilitating music. With "appreciation" (a word which still makes me
squirm after all these years) there may perhaps be a case for choosing the
most soothing, somnolent stuff you can find - especially if you have to
supervise the lesson!
Of course, the earlier we can get people doing it for themselves, the
better. I've always envied German friends who started at the age of 4 or
so bashing away in Carl Orff's wonderful "Schulwerk" system. The key to
Orff's success is his initial concentration on beat. Then rhythm. Melody
comes later. Counterpoint later still. Harmony, hardly at all.
Moral: don't send your kids to "The Magic Flute" or "Hansel and Gretel",
marvellous though they are for the initiated. They're better off with
"Powder Her Face". Really.
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://www.nashwan.demon.co.uk/zarzuela.htm
"ZARZUELA!"
|
