Too much to take on here, and I won't, except to suggest that "that
post-Romantic German stuff, the Brahms-Schubert-Schumann brigade," who are,
of course, among the definitive German Romantics, and not much "post" about
them, deserve a better listen--and you deserve what you'd get from it.
Liking Bartok, Ravel and Messaien in no way obviates liking their
predecessors, who were revolutionaries in their day. They can also
sometimes be listened to as wallpaper, which is why they're so popular.
At 02:26 AM 7/14/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi Wystan,
>
>The thing is though, there's also a massive amount of what
>could be described as modernist art which is so unmissable --
>there's that wonderful image of riots breaking out during the
>first performance of The Rite of Spring, with some tuxedoed
>old buffer repeatedly thumping the head of the poor individual
>seated in front of him. What was once shocking has become
>popular. Same with Messiaen -- ever sat down to the Turangalila
>Symphony? Terrific!! One of my favourite pieces of music.
>Same goes for Bartok and Ravel. On the other hand, I loathe
>all that post-Romantic German stuff, the Brahms-Schubert-
>Schumann brigade.
>
>In other words, 'difficulty' has (perhaps like water) found its
>level. Picasso is a perfect example.
>
>Which takes us onto Ashbery, who apparently thinks he's doing
>the 'same thing' as Picasso . . . .
>
>I would perhaps suggest that language is, somehow, more
>fragile than either music or art. In theory, there should be no
>reason why postmodern-inspired poetry shouldn't be met with
>the same enthusiasm as Messiaen at the Proms . . . . but this
>doesn't seem to hold true in the same way.
>
>Perhaps because both music and art are accepted as abstracts,
>as 'art'. Language is something everyone has, and serves a
>varying amount of strict functions. To deconstruct it, to play
>with it excessively, seems to produce a kind of anxiety,
>or a type of resistance. The linguists on this list
>(try saying that after ten pints of Old Jock) may be able to bring
>their knowledge into this . . . . . Bill also made this point about
>an-other language a while back.
>
>Having discussed music in this way, I'm forced to confront my own
>resistance to experimental poetries -- a good thing. But do
>I have to read Ashbery?? Bores me to tears for some reason . . . .
>as does the almost-identical stuff written by James Tate.
>
>Mind you, I *did* enjoy that poem ending in 'trilobite trilobites'
>posted recently, against all expectations . . . .
>
>What's on the table? I really don't know . . . . even as something
>of a formalist, the New Formalist model seems rather unappetising.
>
>Cassie --
>
>>assume they won't 'get it' unless we speak extra slowly and distinctly.<
>
>No, not this -- more the sense that, for whatever reason, the
>wider art-consuming public aren't as adventurous in their reading
>matter as they are with respect to the visual arts or music.
>This may be a gross misapprehension on my part though . . .
>I mean a Swedish workmate of mine was quite happily reading
>'Trainspotting'. The question then, I guess, is the gravitation
>towards narrative as opposed to lyric occurrance. Perhaps for the same
>reason that for every fan of Messiaen there's ten thousand
>of Brahms . . . . and always will be, I suspect. Which is not to
>diminish the latter as a composer, only to say that there are tonal
>comfort zones which are particularly cherished. Perhaps the
>same could be said with regard to poetry? Not sure . . . .
>
>My 'moan' is simply that poetry too often seems to fall outside the
>zone . . . for reasons I'm not smart enough to figure out.
>
>Anyway, enough rambling -- no doubt I've lost the thread by now . . .
>
>
>Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|