Christopher Webber wrote:
>If anyone can point to a single bar of his music and prove it exhibits
>the quality of "vanity" I'll eat my personal wardrobe of hats.
Now this is very tempting but after all our idea of music (mine and even
yours) is pretty subjective. To me Liszts music sounds utterly vain,
to you it doesnt. The idea of proving a subjective impression is in
itself pointless. So you can keep your hats.
>Music doesn't have consciousness, so cannot be vain;
You know what I meant: to me this music transports vanity, it comes from
a vain person and one (that is me, not you obviously) can hear it.
>and it's as dangerous to assume that a composer can be identified 100%
>with every mood in his work, as it would be to say that Shakespeare *was*
This is trivial. Surely Shakespeare is not Macbeth, and he pretty surely
wasnt Juliet. But he created all these characters and this says something
about him. I am not dumb and I studied English and German literature
for quite a time. Shakespeare`s characters are different from, lets
say, Marlowes and Jonsonss as Verdis characters are different from, lets
say, Wagners and Rossinis. And this tells us something about Verdi and
Wagner and Rossini. (And surely not that Wagner was Lohengrin...)