21st century string quartet

I was awake and I had the time and curiosity, so I listened through the videorecordings of Monday's and Tuesday's Banff International String Quartet Competition's performances of the required 21st-century quartet of the performers' choice. I can't say I was much impressed. All but two of these composers were new to me, and none inspired me to want to hear more of that.

There were eight composers because two of the nine groups chose the same piece. The composers were: Vivian Fung and Kevin Lau (Canadian, and way to suck up to the judges, guys), Pascal Dusapin and Corentin Apparailly (French), Billy Childs and Derek Bermel (American), Andrea Tarrodi (Swedish), and Prach Boondiskulchok (Thai-British). So far as I can tell, two of the eight are women.

All the pieces emcompassed a great variety of styles. There were always sections that were grossly dissonant or turbulent, and there was usually a section, often brief, that really caught the ear - often an unusual ostinato (ostinato in harmonics, ostinato in tremolo) under a completely forgettable chromatic melodic line. Often there'd be a section reminiscent of older music, though never minimalism: Webernian modernism, Shostakovichian bleakness.

Though this was a selection of music of great variety, the pieces showed just as much variety within themselves as they did against each other. As a result, the whole collection sounded rather alike. I'd like a better selection next time.

BISQC, day 4

It looks like tonight's "alumni concert," where the two ensembles that shared first prize at the previous Banff quartet competition return to play a little Brahms and Schubert, is not part of the livestream.

So I can report from today on this morning's final concert of the "romantic round." I'm glad I got to hear Mendelssohn's Op. 13 twice yesterday, but the unquestionable winning entry of this round was the Dior Quartet in Dvořák's Op. 106. When players bring the utmost in enthusiasm and dedication, Dvořák can be wonderful and captivating instead of slightly dull. The drive in here, and the percussive snaps, made this one run.

Quatuor Agate in the Ravel quartet was also very good, clear and crisp in a way I wasn't expecting, and the Isidore Quartet did well by Brahms's Op. 51 No. 2, which they gave the real Brahms flavor to.

So with nothing else to watch, I can return to the increasingly dismaying sensation of watching Amazon's The Rings of Power. More on that when I finish the available material, if I ever do.

the ringzzzz ... oh, sorry, I fell asleep

I watched the first episode and a bit of the second of The Rings of Power, giving up about ten minutes into the second when the two hobbits (yes they are, they're hobbits) have the same conversation for about the fifth time in those ten minutes about whether they should help the stranger from the meteor. Any curiosity about who the stranger is is not worth wading through more of this to satisfy. Besides, I can find out more efficiently when the spoiler plot summaries get written.

But first, let me give this show compliments where due:
1) The scenery is awfully pretty.
1a) Furthermore, it's bright and sunny when it's supposed to be bright and sunny. Peter Jackson made everything with elves in it dark and gloomy.
2) They know how to pronounce "Sauron" correctly.

This show is fan fiction: fan fiction with a large budget. It quickly departs from the known facts within Tolkien's sub-creation sufficiently far, and unnecessarily so, that I can't really feel it has anything to do with Tolkien. Which won't prevent many people from mixing up its characters and plot with Tolkien's characters and plot.

Furthermore, it's dull and mundane. Everybody in it, at least the elves, is either a righteous monomaniac or else a conniving skeever. There's no morals, only the cheap imitation politics of bad fiction. It doesn't feel at all Tolkienian. I kept feeling the breath of Le Guin's "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" down my neck.

I guess I get something different out of Tolkien's works than some other people. I don't care for this invented world because of the characters, or the setting, or the plot. That's nice but it's not what I'm there for. What makes Tolkien's stories worthwhile is the skill and quality with which he wrote them. And if you want to know more about that, check out the critical works of Verlyn Flieger, who's done more than anyone else to illuminate that skill and those qualities.

What I want is Tolkien's writing, not some cheap imitation that can't do what he does. It doesn't satisfy me, it's not what I want.