Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:05:44 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Karl Miller wrote:
>As to the Copland quote which started this thread. I agree with it
>completely. Consider the time in art music when the new piece was the
>focus. Gone are the days. I often wonder how many more composers and had
>much more wonderful music we would have if new music was performed, not
>just recorded. I wonder if we may not have so much older music that is
>wonderful?
This is an excellent point. One reads in the history books of the days
when the public clamoured for a new Beethoven work or a new opera from
Handel or Mozart. This music was once the new music and people lined up to
hear it. I don't know of any single living composer from whom we eagerly
await a new work. This is sad. Then again, I must say that from what I
have heard recently from the likes of Ades, Robert X. Rodriguez, Glass,
etc., there hasn't been anything to wait for. I haven't heard anything
fresh is so long. I get so tired of orchestral works that sound as if
someone loosed a tape recorder on the main floor of an auto manufacturing
plant.
I love new music as much as anyone, but it seems that so much of the
music being played for the first time by major orchestras is so very empty
of soul and uninteresting. Organized noise. I (like Ferlinghetti) am
awaiting the day when the likes of a Barber second Essay or a Britten War
Requiem, will actually appear and leave a mark on the art which will be
worth repeated hearings.
Kevin Sutton
|
|
|