Ian Crisp writes:
"And that's restricting the point to music - I
could broaden it to include the First World War, the threat of nuclear
extinction, urbanization and the gradual destruction of our own habitat
on this earth.  And the changes in religion."

I only quoted a piece of Mr. Crisp's comment here, but the point he makes is
that we, living in 2000, are not the same listeners as those in Bach's time
or in Beethoven's time.  We are different because our life experience is
different.  There are different sounds that condition and pattern our minds.
There is knowledge of history that passed not only in music but in every
other human endeavor since Bach and Beethoven.  Music is life.  Music takes
our total experience and transforms us in the listening experience.  Music
and all art for that matter is not static.  It's the experience of the
observer and the thing being observed.  It's the blend.  It is a
transformation that occurs that is the thing.

By the way, when I buy a CD, it needs to be true to the composers intentions
and as close to period as possible.  Sound inconsistent with my comments
here?  Its not.  Art should stand as the artist intended.  But art must also
speak to the observer or else it will not stand the test of time.  It's the
music of Bach that speaks.  Its the music of Beethoven that touches our soul.


Maybe the reason Mahler is more popular today then when he was alive is
because the consciousness of the industrialized world has developed to the
point of greater camaraderie with him then when he was alive.  I don't know.

Donald Scarinci
[log in to unmask]