Jackie Danicki

An addendum to this post: The talk that my friend Brian Micklethwait (with whom it did me MUCH good to catch up with in London - thanks for coming out in the dreadful weather, Brian!) is giving on Sunday is one I would not miss were I still in Blighty. The scope:

The great twentieth-century divide in the history of music — an extraordinary interlude, an aberration, you might say, — is now drawing to a close. In his talk, this Sunday 6th January, Brian Micklethwait will discuss how the opportunities created by modern electronics split the musical profession.

The “classical” fraternity was happy to broadcast and record in opulently perfect sound its resplendent back catalogue. The effect of electronics on “popular” music, however, was more radical. Folk music always teetered on the edge of oblivion. Like literature before printing, it relied on the human brain as its hard disk, so to speak, and folk musicians had to concentrate more on remembering old songs than creating new ones. The advent of electronics meant not only that every piece of music could be kept alive, but that a new public could be reached for both listening enjoyment and practice. Working class kids started playing with mass-produced cheap material in bedrooms and garages. Actually, their use of electronic instruments became as uninhibited as it remained standoffish among most “classical” musicians.

Where does that leave us today? The classical recording enterprise is basically concluded, notes Brian. Classical musicians must now look to create a new repertoire that can earn them a living. They are becoming a lot more like pop musicians, from whom they have much to learn. The music profession will return to being a single entity, huge and sprawling, resounding with a variety of tastes and techniques, finally arching over that gulf that divided it for a century.

Sigh. I do so miss having these kinds of conversations on a regular basis, learning (and, often, forgetting) so much. But what an enjoyable way to spend an evening. If you’re in London, email me for specific details of where this talk will take place on Sunday night.

NB Brian’s Education Blog is not to be overlooked, either. I liked this post on a picture of educational failure:

Mothers are the most potent drivers of education, as anyone who has ever taught small children quickly learns. Children whose mothers push or entice them towards learning are off to a flying start. Children whose mothers are indifferent to them learning, learn far less. The more powerful women are in a society, the more this impulse asserts itself, the most educated societies – the early adopters of mass literacy, for instance - being the ones where women have always had the most clout. By comparison, societies where women have low status compared to men tend, educationally, to languish.

But how can you measure the “clout” wielded by women? One rough and ready but very telling way is to ask: What is the average age of women when they get married? And: What is the difference between the average ages of men and women at marriage? When the average age of marrying women is quite high - middle or even late twenties, say - and near to that of the men they marry, this signifies a society of near female equality and considerable female power, notably with regard to the rearing of children. But when the average age of marrying women – marrying girls - is a lot lower than that of the men they marry, this signifies a society of severe sexual inequality, with women wielding far less power. Women tend to be far less well educated when they become mothers, and that female drive towards education is blunted. Educational advance suffers, not just for girls, but for everyone.

Filed under: Life