In response to my comments on Mahler and those who "read" him for
sociology, theology and philosophy, Stirling Newberry writes:

>If Doctor Chasan needs more material on Mahler's philosophical and
>sociological bent, it isn't hard to come by.  But this should not be
>strange - many artists of that period had expressly sociological ideas, and
>some even melded them with their work.  No one has problems understanding
>that Strauss' "Also Sprach Zarathustra" has a philosophical subtext, or
>Wagner's Ring.

Perhaps, but listening to "Zarathustra" isn't precisely like reading the
book.  I challenge Stirling to pass a quiz on the book on the basis of the
tone poem.  And to understand The Ring*, I assume that you have got to go
through all those dwarves and gods and listen to all that great music.  You
don't just read a book.  The point is that of course, music can express all
kinds of things, but in its own difficult to pin down way.  I find it odd
and intriguing that some members of this list deny that music can express
emotions while others are quite sure that it can communicate the most
subtle, specific, and complex sociological and philosophical ideas.

>...(the) attempt at cheekiness here is simply embarassing to read.

I guess Stirling means MY attempt at cheekiness.  I thought it was a rather
successful attempt.

* Another project for retirement, whenever that is.

Bernard Chasan