Richard Tsuyuki writes:

>Is the generalist who is familiar with all periods of music, art,
>literature, in some way better off than the impassioned specialist in
>Mahler who has never sought out a single note of Stockhausen or a word
>of Merwin?

This is where personality type comes into play.  Folks who have eclectic
leanings seem to want to know and understand as much as possible about
how the world turns.  At the other end, folks like myself prefer to zero
in on a very limited number of subjects and exhaust their impacts.
There's no right or wrong here, just personalities taking natural routes.

A lot of people I know are very surprised that I love and spend so much
time on classical music, because I display no liking for high art in
general.  I tend to like popular movies, have no thoughts or interest
in visual art or particular cultures, detest listening to poetry, and
haven't read a novel in over 30 years.  Also, after spending so many
years in the field of academic study, I am totally bored with philosophy.
Yet, music speaks to me, and it must be complex music of contrasting
structure and emotional themes.

So, this is who I am.  I'll invest 40 hours grappling with a difficult
atonal work, but not one second dwelling on the writings of Walt Whitman
(my wife's favorite poet - he speaks to her).  Is she right or am I
right?  Neither, both of us are just doing what comes naturally.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]