Jim Tobin writes about my question of the appeal of symphonic music:

>But maybe what you really mean is, what is the appeal of that Romantic
>and Modern music that seems to call for such a big sound?

Sorry, that's not it.

>If so, part of the answer to that lies in the kind of expressiveness--
>I would even say dramatic or emotional expressiveness--characteristic
>of much of that music, as contrasted with the vastly more even-tempered
>Baroque music that you seem to prefer.

Write dozens of reviews of baroque music, and you're labeled as a Baroque
man.  But such is not the case as I listen to much music from other time
periods.  However, most of it is for solo instrument or small ensemble such
as from Debussy, Ravel, Brahms, Zemlinsky, Brahms, Satie, Scriabin, Vaughan
Williams, Scelsi, Webern, and others.

Concerning the 'big sound', I can't deny that effect when it comes to live
performances.  With recordings, a single instrument can be as 'big' as the
listener wants.  Hearing a Bach prelude & fugue for organ at a thunderous
volume is easily as big and full as listening to any symphonic work on
record.  The same goes for solo works by Buxtehude, Bruhns, Scheidemann,
or Scriabin.  I just find it much easier to connect with a smaller number
of instruments.  Anyone else on the list who prefers the smaller numbers?

>Maybe it comes down to personality differences?

I'm sure it does, but what happens with an individual who has a split
personality? Perhaps orchestral music going in one ear, and solo in the
other.  I've never tried that, but it could be very diverse.

Don Satz