|
Hi Ray:
I like the Will Rogers quote. I would likely
alter it, though, to suggest I have never met a life form, I didn't like.
Is not the embrace of all life forms (Gaia) a preferred stance, in our
stewarship of this planet?
My comments on Ives and Copland actually go beyond
simple like, or dislike. Ives is a more abstract composer, and less
accessible to the average listener lacking a sensitivity to his use of
bitonality and polyrhythmic techniques, or to repeat Keith's word, his
appeal is to a more elitist listener. In part, it was a rejection of
European tonal forms. Copland, on the other hand, was actively engaged in
exploring the folkmusic, of America, [as I suspect, you know], but in a more
populist, accessible form. Thus, my reference to 'people's music.'
In philosophical terms, I suppose it could be
understood as the difference between Ives embrace of transcendental philosophy
[and its implied spiritualism] and Copland's embrace of materialist
philosophy. Two different ways for looking at the world, and responding
musically. And both valid, but received, subjectively, differently.
For reasons extending beyond the visceral, I happen to like the
latter.
Cheers,
BB
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: I like
(some) pop music (was: Classical Music in Enlgand)
Busy with grant proposals. But it isn't
about like or dislike. It is about universes. Some people
can understand and inhabit one universe more easily than another.
That doesn't mean you can't learn, grow and be fulfilled by coming out beyond
yourself and entering into the complexities of another. That is
what is meant by Aesthetics being antecedant to all other areas of human
endeavor. You have to learn to walk first. I
like Copland as well, in fact, as my Cherokee Elder said:
"I never met a man I didn't
like" Will Rogers.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 2:35
PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Re: I like
(some) pop music (was: Classical Music in Enlgand)
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
|
