Date: |
Sat, 13 Mar 1999 11:47:02 -0500 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Jon Johanning wrote:
>Could you be more specific about why you feel that way?
Punish my syntax but not my intent. I meant to say that it is arguable any
symphony written SO FAR by an American can be considered great, not that an
American cannnot write a great symphony (although we can argue that one,
too).
It is my belief no one can write a great symphony simply by sitting down
at a desk (or piano, or wherever) and just doing it. Something more goes
into the writing of a great symphony than a mere desire to write great
music, no matter what academic credentials, or autodidact knowledge the
composer possesses. What is that something more? I think you would have
to search the European experience out of which the great symphonies emerged.
Except for the Civil War experience (certainly, an anomaly in our ethos),
Americans have had it too easy. We are an optimistic nation. Life has
been too comfortable for too many of us. Furthermore the best genius and
talent we have produced has always gone for the quick buck. Why? Because
the buck was always there to be had, right now! and in media hardly
looking for symphonies of Mahlerian proportion (or greater).
At one time I hoped that Aaron Copland would write a great symphony, but by
the time he might have written it he was already being hailed as the great
American composer, adulated and awarded and distinguished up to the kazoo.
There will be no "Death in Venice" written about Aaron Copland, and there
is no great symphony.
John Dalmas
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|