Don Satz:replying Smith's reply:
>No, Liszt's excesses are of his own making. Yes, there were many composers
>in his camp, and I agree that Romantic-era music has much "excess", at
>least for my taste. But Liszt leads the pack in that regard. If he had
>been born on the same day as Bach, I'm confident that Liszt excesses would
>have still been prevalent. Excesses were an intrinsic part of the man.
I agree with Don when he says Liszt has "excess", but I do not agree with
saying he's leader of the excess. A big part of his works of youlth has a
lot of exhibitionism, but his late musc (religious, in a big part, or 'Anne
de Peregrinagge') is just wonderfull. There is something very different in
Liszt, comparing to allmost all others composers: his personal life. He
was famous, rich, a sex simbol (it's not his fault to be beautiful, like
Glenn Gould, to girls eyes), healthy, with many girlfriends during all his
life (a teenager after he went to church got in love with him, an oldman
then). I see in his music a kind of "hormonal effect" (I see it in Wagner
too) that - in part - I think explains what you call "excess". It's not
realistic to expect all that sarrow of the Romantism from a man like him,
that can have no complain against life - raw material of Romantic artists.
And that is what makes him a so good exemple of the Romantism: it was not
personal. The Romantic "pathos" was not "in his lungs", bleeding, but
arround him. He had an "objective" view of it, and putted it in his music
better than of other complosers. If you want sad complain, you wont like
his music, but the pathos of Romantism is what in fact is his music. About
the excesses, are a kind of electricity, full of youth and health, and I
feel myself "bigger" when I hear his music. Not being a personal mater,
the Romantic complaint gets a triumph over it, and that makes me happy,
makes me to believe I can overcome my own pathos. Not many artists have
that to offer.
>Just because John likes Liszt, and Wes and I do not, is hardly
>sufficient reason to question the merit of our tastes. I have provided my
>subjective reasons for not appreciating Liszt's music and even threw in
>some childhood background. Wes provided his reasons as well. I think it
>would be a good idea for John to now listen to some Liszt 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.
Don uses to have much better argues than these.
>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 those,
>like William Jenks, who manage to stay above the inherent artificiality.
Academics about non-acad. "Poor mortals. they don't know what they say"
Renato Vinicius
[log in to unmask]
|