Don Satz responds to my statement that his dislike of Liszt,

>....sounds more like vague recollections of critical assessments one would
>find in outmoded textbooks or periodicals.

and reflects upon my *name-dropping*, (in other words, citing authors like
Grout, Clay, Boorstin, Sagan), who have enriched my life and provided
clarity and *questions* I wouldn't otherwise have), by writing the
following:

>I think it would be a good idea for John to now listen to some Liszt,

(I'm glad I did before reading your comments!)

>and stop trying to belittle our feelings and resulting views using his
>customary academic posturing and name-dropping:  Grout, Jean Clay, and
>Homer this time.  You know, academia is a very narrow world with only
>loose connections to the world the majority live in.  Most people who live
>in that world unfortunately get their egos caught up in it, and I roundly
>applaud hose, like William Jenks, who manage to stay above the inherent
>artificiality.

Irony, Irony, Irony....Besides the blanket stereotyping, I have to point
out that here are *two* types of name dropping:  The one you describe,
where one rubs shoulders with those presumed "great," to prop up his or her
ego; and the other, where one *distances* themselves from those presumed
"less than great," to prop up his or her ego.  My point was that many of us
can get caught up in the later.  I don't know where your animosity for
academics comes from, being that it was the rise of the Scholar/Conductor
that gave life to HIP.  So won't you trust academics to help you through a
personal re-assessment of Liszt?

What makes an academic an academic is the *promise* to constantly re-assess
and scrutinize internal and external knowledge and beliefs in order to
expose and curtail misinformation.

I mentioned Homer because, (and I didn't know this until one of those
narrow academics pointed the following out), if one understands the needs
and expectations of Homer's audience, one can enjoy the work more.  Not all
great art stands alone.

According to Jean Clay, in his book, "Romanticism,":) one of the things
that had indirectly affected the masses as Romanticism began to flourish
was the Newtonian conception of the world as a mechanism.  What does this
mean? People discovered that they might not be more than a cog in vast
godless chain, as opposed to the common belief that humans were and will
always be at the center of things.  The resulting anxiety and abandonment
issues caused many to strive to be god-like, or to follow those god-like.
Enter the virtuoso Liszt.  Wouldn't this knowledge cause you to re-assess
Liszt as a performer/composer in the 19th Century, Don?

I know this is going to drive you crazy, but I have to recommend another
book:  H.C.  Schoenberg's "The Virtuosi." Besides the fact that it's a
great read, it's very informed, and like most books by authors I cite, it's
hardly academic in the way that you suggest.  You will *really* enjoy it,
and it casts a different light on what many call "empty virtuosity."

Just a normal guy who like to read books,

John Smyth