Variations (and Fantasias) on a theme are great

Some of my favourite pieces of music are variations (or variants) on a theme. Unlike a pop cover version, these aren’t just a different arrangement of the same song, but rather the composer takes a snippet of music, often by someone else and go off in all sorts of directions. My personal favourite is the Ralph Vaughan Williams piece Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis (it’s a fantasia because it’s a looser continuous form referencing the original, rather than a set of separate variations, but in essence it's the same kind of thing). The original is a rather staid (though beautiful) hymn tune, but Vaughan Williams takes it to amazing new heights.

I was therefore rather disappointed listening to composer Debbie Wiseman talking about her Paralympic homecoming piece I'm Walking with You (played beautifully by a blind pianist called Lucy - I don't think she's called 'Lucy the pianist' as the image seems to suggest, I think she featured in a TV show called The Pianist).

I may have missed it, but I heard no mention of the fact that Wiseman's piece is a variation (or fantasia) on a theme by Handel. It was just referred to as a ‘song’ by the composer. On her website, all it says is 'Debbie Wiseman has composed a new piece.'

I don’t claim any originality in this observation. I can’t imagine that anyone who knows Handel’s Sarabande wouldn’t spot the relationship. It just seemed a pity that this doesn’t appear in the title and wasn’t a point discussed with the radio programme’s presenter.

To give an appropriate comparison, as Wiseman's piece is primarily on piano, here's a piano version of the Sarabande (I suggest listening to the first 20 seconds or so then switching to the other for immediate comparison):

And here's Wiseman's piece:

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog