Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sat, 8 Jul 2000 12:22:10 +0200 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Steve Schwartz replies to me:
>There's a lot of 20th century music, much of it sounding not at all like
>hard-core dodecaphonic serialism. Ms. Wang, in fact, runs a 20th-century
>music series filled with works that don't sound like Mozart, Beethoven,
>Mahler, or Tchaikovsky. I think it's quite clear that dodecaphonic
>serialism isn't everybody's cup of Postum.
I totally agree. I just have/had the impression that many people group
together 20th century and contemporary works and dismiss them in total as
being terrible modern stuff! I am happy if this is not the case with Mrs.
Wang. I also agree that dodecaphonic serialism is not everybodies cup of
tea. But even if I do not like atonal music and you might even deny its
aetistic value I do not see why one has to fight against it in such an
unjust hostility as being done.
For reasons I do not really understand one rarely encounters such hostile
negative reactions than concerning modern art (or what people consider to
be modern or contemporary art at a certain timepoint). Why? Do they try to
defend some conservative schemes implanted during their childhood? Do they
try to defend what they consider to be *normal*? I have the impression that
it is more than just not liking something.
Achim Breiling
|
|
|