Re: [Futurework] Re: I like (some) pop music (was: Classical Music in Enlgand)

[Keith Hudson]

Hi Robert,

Gosh!  How pleasant to hear another voice in this exchange. But I'm afraid your enjoyment must now be curtailed because I think Ray and I have reached the same sort of impasse that we usually do on musical and artistic matters. Never mind, it will probably crop up again.

As to Copland, well I've sung him and find him a little . . . what? . . . sparse, is the word, I think. However, my better-half, who is far more musical than me, thinks that Copland is wonderful.

 . . . . I have just consulted her and she enthusiastically agrees with your "ecstasy".

Keith Hudson

At 13:19 01/06/2003 -0400, you wrote:
<<<<
Hello, Ray and Keith
 
I am enjoying your exchanges on musical aesthetics and musicology.
 
In terms of the elitism of Charles Ives, I have to be sympathetic to the perspective of Keith.  Ives was a solid member of the American business class [corporate elite] and a graduate of Yale, at a time when postsecondary education was rarely a component in the dreams of the American working class.  Musical traditions within his family, furthermore, encouraged and shaped the unique music voice contained in his compositions.
 
I am familiar with the music of Charles Ives.  Interestingly, he did not gain much recognition [like many artists] until the twilight of his career.
 
Personally, I am not enamoured of Ives' compositions.  I like my Americana more in the vein of Aaron Copland, rather than the bitonality of Ives' reading of American popular melodies.  I suspect Copland and Ives were ideological opposites in their reading of the 'people's music.'  This in no way is intended to detract from his uniqueness.  After all, he did  win a Pulitzer Prize for his Third Symphony - but I still like Copland's 3rd, better.  That glorious, full reading of his 'Fanfare for the Common Man.'  Ecstasy!
 
As I said, I am enjoying your dialogue.
>>>>

Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England