Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Mon, 29 Oct 2001 03:46:30 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Margaret Mikulska <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>You just refuse to believe that for some people, modern music has always
>been more "natural" than the traditional, canonical repertory.
I have to weigh in in support of this view. As a 27-year-old classical
musician with several non-musician friends, I've come to the conclusion
that for many people my age (especially those with keen interests in art,
literature and film), modern "classical" music (let's say post-Schoenberg)
is particularly potent stuff. I remember taking 2 of my friends (a website
developer and an indie filmmaker) to a performance by the Muir String
Quartet a couple years ago. Both were noticeably figdgety during the
Mozart and the Grieg; however, they were both completely enchanted by
the Berg (I think it was Op.3).
Similarly, I gave a recital last spring which included a cycle by Faure,
a big chunk of Schubert's "Schone Mullerin" cycle, and Britten's "Abraham
& Isaac". While the older folks in the crowd swooned over the Schubert,
the Britten was unanimousy the highlight of the evening among my peers.
Krishan Oberoi
North Providence, RI USA
|
|
|