Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:26:11 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Well, I'm back, and what do I find? Another argument over brussels
sprouts. "They taste GOOD!" "No they don't!" I realize that's what these
lists are for, but, my goodness, it seems to come with all sorts of claims:
clairvoyance as to what the composer was thinking at the time or as to the
motives for writing and the ability to read the future.
I agree totally with Chris Webber when he says that he listens for the
"here-and-now." Why do I really care about posterity -- the good opinion
of people I will never even meet? I should listen because I enjoy (at some
level) the music. Phil Glass's music floats a lot of boats. He's one
of the few composers who actually makes a living at it, and he's done so
largely without the help of traditional performance organizations or grant
agencies. This alone is a tremendous achievement and, in our time, very
rare indeed. The people who enjoy his music (I've never been one of them)
aren't necessarily musical idiots.
That said, I prefer Adams's "minimalist" works, Riley's, and Reich's to
Glass's.
BMG is currently having a sale of, like, $2.99 a CD and there are some
interesting things to take a chance on, including a Reich disc with the
Kronos and Gubaidulina's (NOT a minimalist) St. John Passion.
Steve Schwartz
|
|
|