A Lark Ascending

I have a feeling it's gone. Neither Crazy Jazz nor Amazon.co.uk has mention of it. Given the shoestring nature of Ogun I can't see it resurfacing as a CD in the near future. Worth keeping and eye out for second hand. It's a great set.

Do you have 'Sleeping Policemen' in the US? Used here to calm traffic in built up areas, especially where an estate lies between two major roads and its side-rods become short-cuts.

I've always been a butterfly - there are things in different musical genres that are totally distinct. There is absolutely nothing of the feel, rhythm, sound-world etc of English folk music in jazz so I have to go to English folk music some times. And in the last five or so years Scandinavian folk music has thrown up a whole new world. And more recently, Brazilian. Classical music, various rock musics, blues, country, bluegrass are all important to me - some I just skim across, others I soak myself in. And then there are the places I pop into - like African music - without really feeling totally at home there. So like others, I never get tired of jazz - partly because I have plenty to refresh my palette elsewhere; partly because there's so much new jazz, so much old jazz that I'm quite unfamiliar with. And so much jazz I am familiar with but which still has layers that I've hardly even begun to access. It's amazing how you can listen to someone like Ellington for 30 years, yet still get a sudden desire to re-explore and then almost hear it all again anew (big thanks to Papsrus there - his enthusiasm about discovering Ellington just sent me back on a journey of rediscovery over the last month or so). I count myself lucky to have been fired by music through the much ridiculed rock music of the early 70s. There was so much ambition (often reaching well beyond actual ability) from those musicians to reach out to other musics that I think they brought a whole decade of listeners along with them. Most of my musical interests today were ignited then (country, Scandinavian folk and Brazilian being the major exceptions). No, not tired of jazz or anything else for that matter.

I don't understand exactly how it works but it has considerable power. Most annoyingly, in order to satisfy QCA the exam boards have to write their specifications in jargon. Decoding exactly what they want us to do can be irritating. OFSTED tell us we should share marking procedures with students - good advice. But I always have to translate them into English first. Even then they often don't make much sense, being intended to impress QCA with the boards' 'intellectual rigour' rather than demonstrate to teachers and students exactly how they can attain the standards they are being assessed by.

Finzi is very much a minaturist. There are a few bigger pieces - a clarinet and cello concerto, some choral works - but he's best known for his songs and song cycles. He's someone I like rather than love - he seems to operate in a more limited range than people like Walton or RVW. I've recently read Diana McVeagh's biography of him and didn't warm to him as a person. She quotes his letters at length and he comes across as someone who feels a duty not to be too easily impressed. Quite critical of the music of others, easily wounded when his own music was criticised. My favourite Finzi disc is this one: Far from his best known works and too 'pastoral' for some tastes, but I never tire of it. [isn't Banks' great! Like going back in time to the days when you bought records in general music shops. I actually bought the CD above there last Easter to replace a well worn LP copy.]

Yes, I actually thought you meant something like that...I wasn't really getting upset! The National Curriculum is set by the government through QCA - however, it is now a set of broad skills and topic areas, giving considerable room to shape. GCSE and A Level syllabi have to be approved by QCA - there are a set of standards that all syllabi have to meet to be approved; but each exam board is free to shape its syllabus within that framework. There's plenty of choice.

They certainly don't do history teaching like they used to do. My first history teacher was phenomenal - and graphic. Images of 'snotty nosed anglo-saxon kids huddled around fires in storm-blasted huts whilst outside the Conqueror's men went on the rampage harrying the North'. Those images remain with me vividly ! Those early lessons took history from the time of the Sumerians and Ur through to the Middle Ages in great and glorious detail. Do they do that now? No. I recall doing the same and remember none of the detail! I do recall going outside to try to build an Anglo-Saxon hut. This was in Singapore!!!!! A colleague of mine did his lesson on Victorian crime last week dressed up as a 19thC policeman. I have a feeling his classes will remember the images of his lessons as vividly as you remember yours.

It's nothing special to me, MG. It's how the National Curriculum and exam syllabi are set up. A great deal of thought has gone into this since the 70s. Though I'd imagine that there have always been teachers who have worked this way - I had very good history teaching in the late 60s/early 70s and my memory is of the teachers trying to encourage us to find ways to reach balanced judgements on historical issues. However, look at the Daily Mail every few months and you'll find a strong body of opinion that dismisses what we do, demanding a return to the 'proper' learning of 'proper' facts. Like who Nelson and Wellington were, Britain's great achievements etc.

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. A central part of the study of history from at least 11 onwards is the critical study of source material to detect bias and assess reliability. The study of historical interpretation lies at the heart of everything we do in secondary school. My 12 year olds will, for example, study the 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' story to evaluate two competing interpretations - was he a glorious hero or a selfish fool. My 13 year olds have just been looking at the Great Depression to decide if 'The Hungry Thirties' is actually an accurate picture of all of Britain at the time - exploring the way that myths can actually obsure the complexities of what really happened. I'm currently preparing 17-18 year olds for a paper on the Cold War where demonstrating an understanding of conflicting interpretations of the Cold War and supporting that understanding with source references is vital for success. In what way does that sanitise, falsify or indoctrinate? I'd have hoped it was teaching the sort of critical thinking that we need in young people! Quite disappointed to be told I'm teaching a bunch of lies and propaganda.

Most kids have little choice - and will soon have no choice - about some sort of post-16 education or training. It's after 18 that they become deterred (as they once did at 16...or 15...or 14 (depending on the school leaving age at the time)). I'm sure you saw this last week: BBC News: Debt fears 'deter poor students' That wasn't actually what I said...at least it wasn't what I intended to say. Intellectual pursuits are not more suitable for middle class kids any more than practical mechanics are more innately suitable for working class kids. But the cultural context that is likely to prepare a kid to become inquisitive about literature, theatre, non-popular music etc is much more likely to exist in a middle and upper class family. Schools have been attempting to address that for decades - to try and provide some of that cultural context in order to give kids of all backgrounds the opportunity to choose from the full range of possibilities (and that equally means allowing middle class kids to follow an enthusiasm for car maintenance). If I didn't believe that I'd have upped sticks thirty years ago and found a leafy suburb somewhere to teach history in, where I wouldn't have to work so hard to try and provide the sort of cultural background that's needed before you really start to understand the history; the sort of cultural background my nephew was already acquiring from parents who travelled with him to out of the way places, explained what was being seen, took him to the opera and ballet at 5 etc, etc i.e. middle class parents. Allen initially present the idea that it was a middle class idea that things had to be 'relevant', 'good for you' to be worthwhile: All I'm saying is that his ideal: is just as middle class. It is not an outlook I meet very often amongst working class parents who are more concerned with their children getting a start in life that will afford them the financial security that they have generally lacked. The school I work in is still quite old fashioned in a way - every child has to study a humanities subject, a language and a creative arts subject to GCSE. We have always had battles with parents who don't see why their kids should do music or drama or art when they could be doing something 'useful' like another science (their words, not mine). We continue to stick to our guns. But we are swimming against the national tide.

Most working class kids find the thought of education beyond the compulsory school leaving age pretty frightening. There's little family tradition of higher education, paid work (if it can be found) brings immediate financial reward, and the prospect of student debt is alarming. So if they do go on, they generally want something that they feel can give them a secure future (of course there are individuals who always break out of that - I work with a colleague from a mining community who went to Oxford to do history (did well, loathed the academic atmosphere, loved the football!) and has one of the most incisive brains I know; but he would be the first to tell you how a-typical he was of his year, most of whom left school at the first opportunity). Middle class kids - like my nephew - have been raised in the expectation of going on to further education, nourished in an environment where learning in all its forms is valued and experienced with parents and their friends and have the ultimate fallback of parents bailing them out if the debt becomes overwhelming. So the 'intellectual life' comes inside their radar as a possibility. This may not be as we want it to be, it may not be as it should be. And schools go out of their way to broaden horizons as far as possible within the constraints placed on them by league tables, funding streams favouring practical courses etc. But it's what actually happens. Walk into any state school on Post-16 sign up days and see the queues at maths, science, ICT, business studies, health and social care and the like (we now have courses in motor vehicle maintainance and construction that fill up immediately). There's no compulsion from the school to move that way - these children are making a free choice, based on what they and their parents see as having the greatest opportunity. If schools in Britain have been guilty of anything in the last 50+ years it has been of trying to steer pupils through a curriculum model that places academic learning as the be all and end all, with more vocational learning as second best. That is being righted at present, though with a danger that it will tilt too far the other way. The real challenge will be to attain some sort of balance. It's also worth noting that the drive towards vocational learning in the state system is not reflected as strongly in the private school sector where studying Latin and Greek 'for their own sake' remains quite normal. Now who sends their children into private education?

That IS a middle class view - only the middle (and upper) classes can afford the luxury of having their sons and daughters studying things just because they are fascinating. The kids I teach history to - in a former mining area with more than its fair share of social problems - demand to know what the point is of the history they study. Personally, I'd agree with you - my historical interests are not shaped by utilitarian reasons. But studying things for their own sake will not wash in a world where a thousand and one things are demanding a place on the curriculum. You have to prove your practical relevance or you are gone. There are many schools in England where only a handful of students study history beyond 14.

Ah, I understand! Sorry if I misrepresented you, Larry. Having never been part of any subscription audience, it's not an area I know at all.

I like Simpson's way of writing, Larry. I haven't a clue what the other bloke is on about! I think I'm reacting against this sentence of yours - 'Much of the American subscription-concert public tends, I believe, to listen in a "choice moments" manner.' Probably not your intention, but it comes across as rather dismissive of the ordinary listener. Classical music (music in general) can be listened to in all sorts of ways - it can be closely analysed by those with a deep understanding of musical theory; or accessed by the listener who is just moved by music without really understanding the technicalities of how it works. I suspect that most listeners to concerts and records fall into 'the listener who is just moved by music without really understanding the technicalities of how it works' category - I know I do. I've a rough idea about basic forms, can hear key changes without being able to name them but my technical understanding does not go much further. So although I would not recognise the "long-range, storytelling harmonic tension/conflict" consciously (although I do recall reading sleeve notes about Nielsen's 'progressive tonality' many years ago), I suspect my brain picks up on the effects Nielsen intended that to have subconsciously. I'd imagine the same is true of a general European audience and I'd be most surprised if an American non-expert but inquisitive audience did not do the same. I'm not dismissing the work of the academic musical analyst - the work they do is vital to aid general understanding, the development of future musicians and composers and - when written with the clarity of your Simpson example - can be illuminating to the main body of listeners. I just think that often in their judgements (rather than in their technical analysis) they miss the wood for the trees, mistaking the technical innovations or complexities of the music for what really counts - the ability to express or represent something that can move the public. Which is one reason why there is such a gap between what musical academics say is worthwhile in music from the mid-20thC music onwards and that which communicates with the audience at large. The academic approach puts a premium on technical accomplishment, innovation; but when this is divorced from a language that the bulk of listeners can be moved by then you get this chasm. Which is not an argument against obscure, progressive, innovative avant-garde music. Merely that the criteria used to praise a great avant-gardist working for a minority academic audience just has no application in the wider arena, where other qualities are of far greater significance. Sibelius was my first classical love; I only heard Nielsen ten years later. I really enjoy them both, but Sibelius still means more. Is that because I'm failing to recognise Nielsen's "long-range, storytelling harmonic tension/conflict" or am not giving it its due? I don't think so - I think I just respond more to the melody and harmony of Sibelius, the way the music seems to grow organically without broadcasting its underlying form, the overall brooding nature of much of the music (maybe that's what you mean by 'choice moments'?). Nielsen, by contrast, seems more angular with a more overt sense of drama, sudden shifts that Sibelius would take longer to move towards. And I'd suggest that the non-expert listening public probably tends to prefer one type of music over another for their own reasons of personal taste rather than based on the ability or lack of ability to get beyond 'choice moments'. The ordinary listening public may not have developed musicological skills - but if a composer has done his job well, then a fair bit of what he wants to communicate will get through to a willing listener without those skills. The analogy I always use is Lincoln (or any other) Cathedral. If you have a knowledge of architecture, medieval history, the liturgy of the Catholic and Anglican Church then you can gain a lifetime's enjoyment and stimulation from that building. But a 9 year old kid can walk through the door and go 'wow!' and he's instantly connected with the major purpose of the building. Many will find visiting such buildings provide an interesting pastime for the future, generally reading up briefly about certain aspects that interest them - history or architecture or whatever. A handful - the expert - will come to know the building in all its constructional intricacy. But the success of the orginal architects, builders, craftsmen lie in the ability to communicate directly with the public. If they'd built something that could only get a reaction from other architechts then I'd say that limits their achievement. I have a disc by Robert Simpson - not abstract or atonal in any way and clearly extremely well crafted. And yet I recall it left no emotional resonance. Haven't listened to it in years - will have to try it again.

Great story Bev. I didn't get reprimanded (grammar school) for not doing my homework, either, and I didn't even have bird shit on my shoulder. It was, "I don't suppose YOU'VE done your homework, have you?" I just shook my head. Everyone knew I hated it. Ten years later, when I went back to see if I'd passed any O levels, one of the teachers actually remembered me, even though I'd only been in that school 15 months. MG My memory of grammar school in the late 60s was of being largely ignored for three years (except by a couple of wonderful history teachers!). My German teacher never twigged why I always got bad marks in verb tests. I only twigged much later - I used to learn them religiously, but no-one had ever taught me what first person singular or second person plural were. So I guessed! Ah, the golden days of the grammar. I was much happier when we moved into a brand new all-purpose comp in 1969!

I want to make it clear that I do NOT think that my students are "unintelligent." There are a lot of different kinds of genius, and since I've been teaching, I've been exposed to several kids who undoubtedly qualify as physical genuises or mechanical genuises, etc. What bugs me is the apparent lack of curiosity about the wider world. These kids know all about the ins and outs of surviving on the streets of Schenectady, New York. But they couldn't care less about what's happening in Washington, D.C. or in Iraq or Darfur, much less things that happened over a hundred years ago. I sometimes think that their brains have learned to reject all information that it regards as unessential. In fact, it may be a survival technique. No, your concern for them rings loud. I'm just dubious that a great deal has changed. Were their grandparents any more interested? I was involved in a discussion about racism in sport this morning with a mixed ability (and mixed race) group. The level of understanding and sensitvity was far higher than 30 years ago when I started teaching (you'd have hardly dared raise the subject!). Whether that is down to schooling, changes in the media, society etc, I don't know. Elements of all, I suspect. When I mentioned this to them there was much nodding of heads - they were pleased to have that quality acknowledged. **************** I don't know how many times I've heard the great and the good expressing outrage that 50% of British students do not achieve 5 GCSEs at grade C and above. I wonder what percentage gained 5 'O' Levels (the equivatent) in 1960. Of course, then the outrage changes - GCSEs have got easier! It's almost as if these people have some sort of an inner need to believe that young people are not as good as they were.

In my first year of teaching I had a lad escape out a first floor window and down a drainpipe. The following year he was in a colleague's class and sat for a whole lesson one day with a bird of prey perched on his shoulder (you will not be surprised to hear tht he did not get reprimanded for not doing his homework!!!). Last thing I heard he was in Lincoln (prison). The lad. Not the bird of prey. And that was a comp!

The idea that TV and popular culture are destroying the brains of young people goes back to the 50s (much earlier I suspect re: popular culture). In which case, most of us here are actually products of that impoverishment of culture. Most criticism of contemporary schooling in the UK comes from those who attended privileged schools (the public schools or grammar schools) at a time when a significant proportion of the population were packed off to secondary moderns where they wouldn't get in the way until they could go out and do manual work; they then compare their experiences with contemporary schools where you'll often find the full ability range in the same classroom. It's also worth noting that what children learn today is quite different from what they learned in a 50s privileged school. You are rarely comparing like with like. Children certainly read less books; but they have amazing skills at selecting, manipulating and using data from computers (much of which they don't learn in school in the same way that many of us developed much of our our reading or musical appreciation outside of the curriculum) I actually think that the old have a vested interest in believing the young are less intelligent/educated/cultured/independently minded than they are. When you think about it, that's quite sad.

Nielsen (especially the 4th and 5th) is regularly programmed in the UK both in concerts and broadcasting; there are several cycles of the symphonies available and plenty of this other music. He seems to have little trouble attracting we superficial listeners and is far from the exclusive preserve of the intelligensia. The third symphony is every bit as bucolic as any contemporary piece of musical pastoralism.

I recall hearing Turangalila for the first time in a Prom concert way back in 1976 or 77, sat behind the orchestra with all the percussion in front of my nose. It was thrilling and I still really like the piece. I got curious about Messiaen after hearing his name dropped - and then hearing a fair bit of his style cannibalised - by the avant-rock band Henry Cow. Anyone familiar with 'In Praise of Learning' will recognise his fingerprints in the organ sections of 'Living in the Heart of the Beast'. More recently, this British jazz band have overtly incorporated references to his music in one of their compositions:

I really like Messiaen; there's a lot I don't understand - passages where my mind drifts, whole pieces where I end up wondering what it was all about. But I do like the colours he employs. Apart from what has been mentioned above I really love 'La Nativite du Seigneur'. As for his dubious taste...well, most of the 20thC classical music I enjoy has been condemned as being in dubious taste by some expert somewhere. Vaughan Williams, Sibelius, Britten, Malcolm Arnold and the like have all been pilloried at some point for their 'vulgarity'. I'm not remotely religious (although I was raised a Catholic) so the music doesn't send me into spiritual ecstasies. I just like the way it sounds (I can say the same about Bruckner). Currently listening to: Not recommended to Turangalila-a-phobes!

Whilst having unfettered access to music may not be a fundamental human right, I'd have thought being able to purchase legitimately historically significant music might be considered in the public interest. If Universal, for example choose to sit on what is in their vaults, they might not be denying people their rights - but they are certainly closing something of value for their own motives. With some creativity, the big companies really could do something about this. Take the RCA Ellington Centennial. I'm lucky, I've got it. But there are plenty of people coming to jazz and to Ellington in particular who weren't around when it was available. The music must exist in digital form in their vaults from the 2000 release. So why not make it available for sale digitally, permanently? This could be done in a number of options: a) Down load the lot! b) Download each individual disc. c) Download specific tracks (I've no problem them charging a bit more there to encourage buying a full disc or a full set). Even more creatively, they could set up a number of 'best of' download options for those not requiring everything but wanting something representative. This might not stop the general unknowing public from buying a cheapo compilation - but it would be a first choice for people with a real interest in jazz. And with a bit of canny marketing, accompanying downloadable notes, photos etc it would become a first choice to all but those who just want the cheapest version available. I can understand that many companies won't want to invest the work in such a deal - well, maybe this is the way for a dedicated operation like Mosaic to move into in the future. But it will take a change in outlook from the companies who still continue to see what is in their vaults as a potential financial asset in the right circumstances rather than a set of treasures that should be available to the public at a fair cost. I know this bears no relation to how capitalism works!

MG I'm not sure - though you might want to get a copy of the new issue: Should be in the shops any day now. I've not read the article yet (I have a subscription so mine appeared a couple of days back) but will do so a bit later today. fROOTS has people writing for it who are deeply into different musics from all over the world, including various parts of Africa. I find the editor somewhat abrasive and given to some peculiar viewpoints (he loses all sense of perspective when America is mentioned!!!!) but he's done an amazing job at keeping the magazine going, often against the commercial tide, for 30 odd years. It's coverage of African music is probably a bit too limited for someone with your depth of interest, but that has more to do with its brief to cover more wide ranging 'roots' music, including British folk. In fact it doesn't have a clear genre reference point - just a vague coverage of 'things we like' that are 'rooted in a local tradition'. I have my own scepticism about the use of the latter as a measure of quality but I can't fault the magazine for going where most magazines dare not go.

I'm but a dabbler in African music so can't comment on its place in the grand scheme of things, but I've greatly enjoyed it over the last few months. I think you can buy with confidence. fRoots - the main UK folk/world music magazine - had it as album of the year as voted by a large panel of people from the music business world. You can see the results here: http://www.frootsmag.com/content/critpoll/

Back in the 60s when rock music hit there was a period of 10-15 years where the record industry was caught on the back foot. Those running the big labels didn't understand it - and when some of them missed the Beatles they were ready to sign anything. You had a golden era when all sorts of oddness got signed; or young, inexperienced mavericks got a degree of control to release what they thought was good, based on the clueless ones conviction that this young hipster was more in tune. By the mid 70s the industry had caught up and had everything back under control. New off-the-radar movements - punk, grunge, hip-hop, rap - got controlled very quickly. The industry had learned. But I get the impression that they've been caught completely short again by these recent technological changes and are currently reeling! Which should, hopefully, usher in a period of anarchy where all sorts of strangeness can blossom. Eventually, the big corporations will find a way to take conrtol of the internet revolution. But they show no sign of really understanding it yet.