>...Our tastes in rock run, at least in part, along similar lines…<
I suspect so. I own virtually everything you listed in your post. I even own Clapton. You see, I went through a Clapton “phase.” I nevertheless find the organic quality of his talent insufficient to counterbalance his lack of technique. Hendrix also lacks technique (at least orthodox technique), but he has so much "sizzle" and is so down to the facts that I simply do not care. In fact, I'm glad that he lacked technique.
>I just got a compilation album of Steely Dan. I appreciate even more the influence of "cool jazz" (a la Brubeck) on the group... <
Yup. Donald Fagan is quite talented. I can handle “Smooth” or “Cool” jazz just fine. Some of it really grooves. Unfortunately “cool” jazz seems so common that many people think it is jazz. The Collective Ear is so used to that silky smooth sound, it now rejects the rough, unprocessed, ragged and true sound of the pure stuff.
>...Apart from Steely Dan, Blood, Sweat, and Tears and Chicago were good fusion groups. More on the jazz side was Chick Corea... <
Indeed. Actually I tend to categorise these groups as rock groups, except for Corea. Groups like Weather Report I tend to categorise as fusion groups. It's a subjective thing.
>...I do not share your enthusiasm for Mahler, but I am willing to re- evaluate (it has been awhile).<
Well yes. I understand. Its been a while for me also. When Solti died I began to revisit his Ring, Beethoven and Mahler performances. When I got around to his Mahler, particularly his Mahler 9th, I knew I had to seriously study the score. Dear me, that symphony is so dreadfully powerful. I wish I could somehow put my mind in yours so you can experience it as I do. You know how it sounds to me? It sounds like a soul that knows it is about to die, that feels death pulling it constantly toward the abyss, but that struggles against hope to hang on to the last dang hopeless breath, this, all the while reveling in the simple joy of life and refusing to give in even when it can no longer see or feel part of it. It simply holds on because of its memory of life. The symphony ain't Beethoven's 9th. It ain't “Ode to Joy,” but it is terribly grand nevertheless.
>I agree that Copeland is, in the end, very good. I like Schoenberg, Webern, and, among Americans, Carter, and wish I had more time to spend separating wheat from chaff in modern music.<
Schoenberg, Webern, Carter, Ives are excellent, brilliant at times, but they don't help you love anyone. As for separating wheat from chaff in modern music, you won't have much separating to do. Nevertheless there is so much chaff you'll spend the lion's share of your time rummaging through it.
>I am very fond of Palestrina and earlier music.<
Yup. Same here.
>My favorite opera, musically, is "The Magic Flute". The overture may very well be Mozart's greatest piece.<
Hard to say. Mozart has some dang good stuff out there. My favourite opera is (here we go again) AllPucciniAllVerdiAllWagnerAllMozart.
>I remain very fond of Beethoven's Ninth, which is the best symphony ever written.... <
Infriggindeed!
>...I listen to some be- bop on occasion…<
Yeah. It can get a bit much, but after awhile something starts happening to you. You find yourself inside those notes. Ralph Ellision does a fantastic job in Invisible Man, capturing what this is like.
>...There are two big tests on the modern art question:a.) How do you respond to Les Demoiselle D'Avignon?,<
Well now see you don't be goin' to MOMA and don't be liking no Picasso. I'm no dang freak about it, but I know what I like. When you ask how I respond, do you refer to the subject matter, or to the structure of the work? The subject matter is certainly tame when compared to some works I have seen. Sure, the work ain't terribly romantic, is pretty blatant and raw in some respects, but not crassly so, certainly not to a late 20th century eye. The structure is brilliant, particularly when we consider how Picasso's contemporaries and predecessors had approached the human form, specifically the female body. Cubism is old hat to us now; but dang! Hooking up meaningless, angular, flat elements to make three-dimensional meaning like he did, and doing it like he did, was dang extraordinary – and still is. Picasso is the dang Stravinsky of art (or perhaps Stravinsky is the dang Picasso of music).
>and b.) Do you "get" pure abstraction?, particularly, I would say, Jackson Pollock. If these are problems, you are still a bit tentative on modern art. If you embrace them, you are, at least, oriented...<
In a sense abstraction (or rather abstract expressionism) exists in both music and literature. But visual abstract expressionists like Pollack abstract fundamental characteristics from visual images and then crank the heck outta ‘em. No telling what those folks gon' come up with. We have cameras to precisely nail images, though realism has its place on canvas also.
>..See how hard it is to compose lists? I suppose that, if one took the time, one could come up with something, but how confident can one be of the rankings, especially if it has been awhile since reading the book?<
Yes. Fortunately I am reading many of the books to my children (or they are reading them to me). I note an odd thing: hearing the books through my children's minds helps me receive the books in ways I perhaps normally would not. But yes. It is quite difficult to compose lists, and likely any list one composes today will be completely rejected by the composer tomorrow. People change, and so do their tastes.
>Your list is pretty good, although I do not share your enthusiasm for either Rand or Hemingway. Still, I understand that they have a certain power to convey a heroic view of life, one in a romantic mode, and the other in a stoic way.<
Well I do not think all our favourite works should directly appeal to our noblest selves, though they should certainly do so in some way. Hemingway does not directly appeal to the more magnanimous part of my humanity, and neither does Rand. But Hemingway reflects exquisitely and to an extent unlike most, Essential Life amidst remarkable emptiness and futility. The main characters in his books are hardly people. They are life, existence and circumstances, and his human subjects are left to negotiate them the best they can within the limits of some principle, passion or condition. Hemingway is by far too depressing for me, but he expresses futility and nothingness like few others ever have. His “The Old Man and the Sea” is really a little masterpiece. In that story you find all the elements I have mentioned above. The old dude is ruled by circumstances that are from the very start beyond him. Nevertheless he negotiates them the best he knows how, veritably discarding himself into them as he dances with that dang fish. The story is one of victory amidst defeat, and it is told only as Hemingway can tell it. Now having said all this, I must say I am not a great Hemingway fan. I simply think every English-speaking person should read him. I have read all his works, and think they deserve an esteemed place in my library.
Rand is naïve, simple as that (and I am being generous here because the alternative assessment is quite uncharitable). But she has carved her place by sheer force. Her novels set forth her positions admirably.
Joyce's “Ulysses” is another work that I think quite remarkable but not in the same way as I do “W&P”, “C&P” or “The Brothers K.” I enjoy playing with language, and find Joyce in both “Ulysses” and “Finegan's Wake” toying with English as if it had been plainly created for himself. Astounding.
>A couple on the list, such as "I, Claudius", I never got around to reading, so I cannot tell.<
A wonderful work.
>I think it is interesting that you put on "Lord of the Flies", which is very good.... <
Why interesting? Golding does some fabulous things in that little work. It should DEFINEY be on everyone's list. |
