Hardly was the ink dry (or whatever we should call it nowadays) on my comment
It’s worth replacing the vague term Western music with Western Art Music, if that’s what we mean; and observing how European folk traditions are an equally precious part of our heritage. “Music” can be a misleading little word: just as there’s more to music in Shanghai than its opera house—such as amateur silk-and-bamboo clubs or temple fairs in Pudong—so music in Lisbon is more than the Teatro Nacional de São Carlos. Symphony orchestras and erhu solos are but the tiny shiny tip of the iceberg.
than I perused the BBC4 schedule to find:
The Birth of British music
The legacy of Austrian composer Josef Haydn in Britain.
Of course, it’s just an amusing casualty of knocking up a snappy publicity blurb. And to be fair, it’s the third of a series that runs from Purcell and Handel (sic) through Haydn (sic) and Mendelssohn (sic—well that’s quite a lot of sic). I’m not blaming anyone—making programmes about four WAM composers who lived or spent some time in Britain is cool by me.
Still, it combines two common misapprehensions—about history and about class. Much as I love Purcell, I’m sure the engaging presenter Charles Hazlewood is perfectly aware that even British ART music (BAM!) goes back a little before that. This isn’t my forte, but never mind Tallis, Byrd, Lawes, and so on (whatever would Francis Baines have said?!), how about the medieval mystery plays and early manuscripts, or musics at the time of Boudicca?!
And anyway, if we’re talking about “British music”, there’s that social ellipsis again—how about broadside ballads, singing and fiddling in tavern culture, early shawm bands, and so on?
This casual use of language is just as bad as the (still more common) other extreme, which is to date the origins of British music from Lonnie Donegan or Frank Ifield.
I’m sure it’s a great series on those four composers. “British Art Music from the 17th to 19th centuries” doesn’t make quite such a snappy title.
Just saying, like…