Christine Labroche <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Well, anyone can easily dance to Schoenberg's Suite, opus 29, for one, and
>John Cage and Pierre Henry, amongst others, worked in close collaboration
>with choreographers, in addition to the many ballets written in the 20th
>century... Do you consider _all_ 20th century music to BE more abstract
>and cerebral in a negative sense?
Thing is, the stuff those guys wrote that was immediately approachable
for the usual classical audience is not what they are known for... odd
rarities among their works.
>>Much of 20th century music- particularly that written by academics-
>>avowedly appeals to the intellect, and most certainly does not attempt
>>to appeal- in fact frankly disdains- any urge to get up and dance.
>
>I know this type of music exists, but, surely, it is only a small part of
>20th century music...
But it *is* that kind of music that the historians hold up as emblematic
for the musical era, or at least the movements they pioneered.
>This must depend on the person. A jazzman friend of mine discovered Ravel,
>side-stepped to Debussy, then forward to Webern then Boulez, and the circle
>is still widening. He's keen.
How DO people do this?? I know for sure it ain't in me... Ravel and
Debussy are central to my interests in classical music as the sun is to
the center of our solar system (well, maybe I'll give that honored place
to Mahler and Bruckner;-)... then Webern and Boulez (great conductor, but
I do NOT get his compositions!!)are off in some other galaxy... pretty big
step!! Just like I don't see how people think the step is small from Bach
to Bartok or Stravinsky... some grand theoretical link that just doesn't
come out in the actual sounds! (again, at least to my ears)
Albie
|