Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:02:36 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Regarding Mozart and Haydn and the number of posts coming off of my
original one, I feel it's necessary to emphasize the fact that my post
included the rather important caveat of "in my opinion." Preferring the
heights of Mozart (like Syms 40-1) remains a subjective opinion. Perhaps
part of the reason why I stuck that opinion in the post, which, remember,
had everything to do with Gershwin and no attempt at supporting my side
opinion of M v. H (I can't even remember the context now!) was to see
whether list members would go on a predictable tirade defending Haydn
against the superficiality of preferring Mozartian melody. Come on, folks,
the post had nothing to do with M v. H and included no defense of the
preference. Two opinions seem to be prevalent on these listserv/newsgroup
things-- preferring Mozart over Haydn is akin to being a card-carrying
member of hoi poloi; and anyone who prefers Solti over Hogwood is guilty
of groping for raw sensual stimulation. I happen to pefer Mozart and Solti
and could probably come up with some decent objective reasons why, but at
heart both are subjective. Does this make me a relativist? No, but the
line has to be drawn somewhere. Admitting that the H v. M debate is more
than anything just the endless battle of subjective preferences does not
have to be tantamount to opening the floodgates of relativism.
Robert Shaw
Wake Forest University
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|