A classic case of out-of-your-depth

Thomas Sutcliffe
Thursday 28 April 2005 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

I attended a rehearsal for a classical music concert last week, which is not something I do every day. In fact I don't think I'd done it on any of the 17,760 days I had previously spent on Earth - though obviously when you get into these higher numbers the memory can't entirely be relied on. More to the point, it was a rehearsal for the world premiere of a piece of new music - Jonny Greenwood's debut as composer in resident for the BBC Concert Orchestra. The composition was called Popcorn Superhet Receiver (more of that name later), an austerely serious acknowledgement of Greenwood's enthusiasm for Penderecki and Ligeti and Messiaen and it was - in the diplomatic phrase my mother-in-law uses about food she hasn't tasted before and isn't entirely sure she wants to taste again - "different". Often, when you're out of your depth, you can at least see the bottom, shimmering away just beneath you. You feel that with a bit of stretch you might even be able to reach it... and even if you can't it's proximity is reassuring. But this, at least for a good hour or so, was mid-ocean incomprehension.

But it was also - in the other word my mother-in-law tends to fall back on in tricky situations - "interesting". Very interesting, in fact - since the aesthetic mystery of Greenwood's composition was folded in to the novelty of watching an orchestra at work on the musical factory floor. This wasn't the tip of the iceberg that appears on the concert platform - gleaming, wind-polished, notionally spotless - it was the hidden bulk on which that performance rides - irregular and and rough-edged. Even the fact that everyone was in their day clothes was intriguing. How odd it must be, I thought, to have to channel ethereal, indie-rock inspirations through middle-aged men in cardigans and cornish-pasty shoes.

The members of the orchestra were impeccably professional in their approach to Greenwood's piece - but you couldn't ignore the fact that the personal musical taste of some of the players was going to be at odds with that of the composer. How could anything else be the case given the range of material they have to play? Greenwood, crouched boyishly on the floor over his score, seemed unperturbed by this, but it struck me that it could easily induce a crippling self-consciousness. Writers never have this problem. It must be like typing onto a word processor which you fear will sigh if you use a clumsy phrase.

Popcorn Superhet Receiver, incidentally, refers to a piece of ham radio equipment that combines two frequencies to create a third - or something along those lines. It might have been useful if I'd known this as the musicians started to play the piece... but I doubt it to be honest, since the full explanation is even more baffling to the uninitiated than simply listening to Greenwood's extended skein of notes, swelling and falling and cresting over sudden crescendos. As a metaphorical straw to clutch at, it didn't really deliver much buoyancy. The most helpful remark, in fact, came from the conductor Robert Zeigler, who pulled the orchestra up at one point to make a fine adjustment to the ensemble "just so that we have a bit more of this... fog". The pause before the descriptive word and the hazy indeterminacy of the one he finally settled on was distinctly comforting. Obviously the feeling that I couldn't quite fix my bearings was part of the deal.

It did sharpen one niggling anxiety though - which was how a conventional audience would navigate their way through the piece. In the studios, every break in the playing was instructive - you could hear how crescendos were reshaped until they matched Greenwood's intentions and, after a brief muddle over scoring which had resulted in several parts running out of synch, how different the final effect was from the first run-through. Mistakes were self-evident even to someone as cloth-eared as me because they were followed by a tap of the baton. But how on earth would a concert-hall audience distinguish between an error of musicianship and a perfect rendering of the score - particularly since the piece deliberately includes scraping violin bows, crossed rhythms and deconstructed ensembles? Perhaps it doesn't really matter - but the concept of an artwork in which it is in effect impossible to distinguish failures of transmission from failures of creation struck me as unnerving. Where's the bottom?

I did eventually find a way to keep my head above water, by the way, once I'd relaxed enough to treat the piece as the score for an unfilmed movie, in my case an experimental work involving numerous shots of the aurora borealis. I even enjoyed the music a bit - quite independently of the privilege of seeing it worked on. You never know... given time, I might doggy-paddle out a bit deeper.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in