[lit-ideas] Re: The World Ends
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 18:38:12 +0000 (GMT)
Ok I can't say much, or much good (although I really appreciate the posts): but
will start will a facetious:
"I'm putting my head on the table and letting my
arms dangle freely. In truth, I have never heard
of Oasis".
The last is wildly implausible but may be merited musically, the mere
arm-dangling risks wasting-life-charges [consider sexual and alcohol
possibilities; okay, agreed, they may be combined with arm-dangling]. Had very
sad information a few days ago about who someone fell through the cracks; one
might think, his being a respected pyschiatrist at one point, this mightn't
happen. But look what happened to Ian MacDonald.
Anyway, since there's no point trying to match the musical learning behind your
kind response, something brief:-
One negative (posssibly):
> In my opinion, Kempff is one of the best Beethoven
> performers recorded. The 1950s versions combine a stronger
> technique and most of his famous so-called "1960s" tone. I
> understand why you asked that question about "overall
> dryness" -- Kempff usually doesn't go for intense tempi and
> his performances may feel facile at first hearing-- but
> Kempff isn't just playing notes. He lures the listener
> into a (highly distinctive) daydream inside the music.
I don't disagree with any of this, except what might be taken to be assumed to
be any suggestion of mine that Kempff's have "overall dryness". For the record
it was Brendel's I was suggesting might have this characteristic (by
comparison); the "daydream" effect is one I see strongly in Kempff's work -
what he does with the Moonlight (not a technically difficult piece, and almost
too obvious) is wondrous (and of course the Moonlight is about dreams).
Your whole post is worth reconsidering, but to cut to one snip (actually it
turns out its a big snip [not proper to cut]:
> I don't really know what makes for that "authentic" quality
> of performance. Take it for granted that those musicians are
> so good they think in harmonic structure when they perform,
> and are not just aware of what notes come next. Take it for
> granted that they have performed these pieces for years
> before recording them. It still doesn't explain it. Practice
> doesn't explain it. The much-touted "piano lineage"
> (student-of-student-of, etc.) doesn't explain it. Mechanics
> (type of instrument, fast-or-slow action, fingerings,
> posture, etc.) doesn't explain it. Maybe it's the deepest
> love sounding. I don't know, but I do know it is a real
> phenomena in musical performance -- and its existence gives
> the lie to many relativist claims in aesthetics. It's there
> and it's the best and the rest are lesser.
Now this reflects my experience as to it being a "real phenomena"; no one who
likes the Beatles wants to buy copied versions (that's not strictly true) -my
point is that here the copy versions of original material either add or detract
(or both) but, whichever, this is all real phenomena. Real as the table as
phenomena. This shows to me that while relativist theories might have much to
tell us, the right theory of art will have to be "objectivist". "It's there";
what is there may be debatable, but that "It" is real and not subjectivist or
relativist illusion.
No serious artist (exceptions permitted) really diagrees with this.
Felt I've done some philosophy now.
To be continued (maybe). Might need a nap.
D
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
