Date: |
Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:52:56 +0000 |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I wrote:
>>Now to commit sacrilige. Although I love Bruckner and Mahler I wish their
>>symphonies weren't of such titantic proportions. It really is asking a
>>bit much for someone to concentrate through 75 minutes worth of non-stop
>>music. Sibelius got it about right.
I thought this seemed innoccuous enough but John Smyth replies:
>I wish they were longer. To think that the 10th might have been finished
>if Mahler hadn't exhasted himself arguing with old ladies on the board of
>the NY Phil against programming the umpteenth performance of "Finlandia."
>(A statement based slightly on historical fact--they wanted more Beethoven
>overtures)
>
>First Mozart is *zero emotional* and now Bruckner and Mahler--too long? (I
>should remind you that I am not the kind of person who stands on the backs
>of these composers in order to scale the walls of ivory towers--I sorted
>through this stuff in the library of a military base by myself in an
>isolated town of 14,000 at the age of 14-17)
I don't fully understand this but I'll try. As usual when someone makes
a post that someone else doesn't like they ignore the nice things in the
message. In this case you disregarded the bit where I said I loved Mahler
and Bruckner.
Also, as usual I find myself being pilloried for things that have been said
many times before. Didn't Mahler and Sibelius have a discourse about the
structure and proportions of the symphony?
Regarding the Mozart I was giving my support to another poster as others
did. So, clearly here I am not alone, also.
When you say you sorted through the library of a military base I assume
that was the record collection you refer to. This is commendable. I,
therefore, take the point that you have listened to a lot of music and
accept that you feel that this gives your opinions some weight.
However here we come to an example of a paradigm. What you saw in
the library was what was there. Obvious isn't it. But what was there
reflected someone's view of what should be there; which composers, what
works, how much. The librarian's views came from somewhere. This is the
meaning of paradigm.
>Are you *sure* you're really "gettin" this stuff?
You'll have to explain this to me John. Are you getting my message?
>John Smyth
>Challenging Bob Draper
To the uninitiated this refers to my logo "Challenging Music's Paradigms".
Those who support paradigms live in "Ivory Towers" those who challenge them
pull said towers down.
I welcome the challenge from John or whoever. I believe that conventions
should be debated. The debate will require protagonists and antagonists.
(I will be writing a posting on a fuller meaning of paradigms soon)
Bob Draper
(Still) Challenging Music's Paradigms
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|