Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri, 2 Nov 2001 10:00:16 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Denis Fodor:
>Yeah, so it goes. If the restaurant trope won't work for you, then let's
>substitute for it that of nuclear physics. In order to get to know it, one
>must first absolve the canon--unlike in music (?).
Absolve? Do you mean absorb?
>But like music, and we have the testimony of several postings to
>substantiate this, there are persons who get great pleasure out of
>living at the cutting edge of a discipline that otherwise only appalls
>or bewilders folks.
I have no problems with the pleasures of the cutting edge of (academic)
disciplines, but I am not at all clear about what you are claiming here.
As I said in a private post to you at the beginning of this discussion,
musicology is a discipline; musicianship requires discipline; but the
appreciation of classical music is not a discipline. Your original claim,
if I have it right, is that someone who knows only the sorts of non-canonic
works I've mentioned is into their own thing but not into classical music.
What I would like is for you to give up that untenable claim. In exchange
I will be glad to acknowledge the greatness--and pleasures--of most of what
you consider a musical canon. How is that for a deal?
Jim Tobin
|
|
|