Date: |
Sat, 14 Oct 2000 17:21:03 -0700 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
So what's the more profound experience, live or recorded? Let me offer a
real-world experience to illustrate the possible futility of the argument:
I just took a job playing orchestral piano with Sacramento's Camellia
Symphony, (Pines of Rome in March!), though for Mahler's 5th tonight, I've
been asked last minute to cover cymbals....
First, a pledge: "I, John Smyth, promise never again to think that
percussionists have it easy."
Last night's dress-rehearsal:
It was such a rush crashing them together in the opening of the first
mov't--I felt almost god-like, the experience *must* be second only to
hurling thunderbolts. But then came the cut-time second mov't! At one
point in a moment of panic I grabbed my schwammschlagel instead of my
zuruckhalten. (My mother always worried I might be inclined to do such
things.)
In any case, *performing* Mahler has made me feel more at one with the
music than either attending a live performance or listening at home.
Could I say that performing is the superior way to experience music? In a
sophistical moment, yes. In reality, no. Measuring profundity is about as
futile as measuring beauty.
John Smyth
Sacramento, Ca
http://facelink.com/j66560
|
|
|