Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:51:15 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Going back to David Cozy's original posted quote on Rubinstein, which I
feel was been misinterpreted in this thread:
>Harris Goldsmith remarking of the pianist: "He is not an intellectual,
>but his musical intelligence is nonetheless a superior and governing
>one."
Goldsmith simply used the term "intellectual", not combining the terms
to say "intellectual musician". Sounds to me like he was using the term
in a broad sense about Rubinstein's intellect. In essence saying that
Rubinstein was not a brilliant person in other aspects, but that did not
interfere with his ability to understand *music*. Whatever you think
of what Goldsmith meant, I think if you read Rubinstein's biographies
and listen to his recordings you will find this is borne out on both
counts.
Music making at a high level does require significant, if specialized,
intelligence, as do baseball and computer programming, and just about
any other discipline, so I do not think it is important or useful in
this context to split great artists into "intelligent" or "intellectual"
and "sensual" etc. All great artists are exhibiting intelligent
music-making.
Michael Cooper
|
|
|