CLASSICAL Archives

Moderated Classical Music List

CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Michael Cooper <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:51:15 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2