Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Tue, 4 Jul 2000 13:45:10 -0700 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Christopher Webber replies to me:
>I suggested you might be better using "love" to describe your reaction to
>the music you like. (I was not talking about the subject matter of the
>music, only your reaction to it
Sorry for that misunderstanding. Love is a good would to use. I use
profound, perhaps wisely or not, to describe the results I get when I
try to analyze what I am hearing, a thing I can scarecly avoid. I find
it hard to just listen to music in the way that a director cannot simply
watch a film. They tend to analyze camera angles, close up effects,
dialogue, etc. I am afraid I do the same thing with music, for better of
for worse. I do not get the same reaction to modern CM that I get to 19th
century CM, probably because I have not studied it to the same extent. Its
a self-defeating process - not wanting to hear more of what you don't care
for, preventing you from learning to care for it. One can choose get a
general overview of all CM or concentrate in one area. As CM is not my
vocation, I don't have the time to make an in-depth study of modern CM.
I just hear samples on the radio from time to time.
As far as my desert island analogy, which some have indicated as
"ridiculous: etc. I personally find it a good way to get in touch with my
values. Many times I have moved and had to decide what to keep and what to
throw away. I once realized that I grew mentally by having to rationalize
those choices i.e. what is really important to me. I often use the desert
island analogy on myself as a test. For example, if I were stranded on a
desert island and could have with me only one Beethoven composition, what
would it be?
Maybe others find such an exercise useless. Different strokes.
Bill Pirkle
|
|
|