Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:55:25 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Denis Fodor writes:
>To put a point to it--after all, we're dealing with a thread here--music
>lovers generally find the atonal and serial stuff unpleasant and ugly.
>They do not feel that these qualities, or lack of them, make ugly music
>pleasurable. Ugly music is something one dislikes. Even something one
>loathes.
I really wouldn't get into this except to say that I like some serial and
atonal music (as I like some tonal music). I don't find it ugly. In fact,
I find examples of music ugly to the point of unlistenability exceedingly
rare. Since I believe that one's reaction to art is a personal matter, I
don't object to someone finding the dodecaphonic music unpleasant or even
ugly, as I hope no one would object to me finding most bel canto opera
exceedingly trite and dull. The only thing I object to, really, is when
someone who likes atonal/dodecaphonic music tries to elevate his taste to
a universal aesthetic principle or when a hater of the music dismisses it
as worthless, in short, also raising his taste to a universal aesthetic
principle.
Steve Schwartz
|
|
|