<snip>
Few things are inferior to Jeff Koons, thank god. [MW]
<snip>
Agreed. Though I blame G-d for his very existence: the glass half empty, as
it were. (LS Lowry might be one.)
<snip>
I've hung around with classical musicians for 45 years and never knew one
who didn't listen to his peers.
Maybe it was Cage who wasn't listening.[MW]
<snip>
No. Cage, I think, was actually quite a generous listener. His comments were
about the individual players in a Western orchestra. And he had a point
about too many of them. I remember hearing some musicians playing 'rock' for
Moroccan soldiers just North of Western Sahara a couple of decades or so
ago: a similar sense of proficiency plus parallelism as though the whole
peculiar affair were somehow multi-tracked or played in subtitles.
<snip>
He included Cage in his modern music
course--Cowell had been his student.
<snip>
Vice versa, I think. Ditto Gershwin.
<snip>
Shankar was (is) a serious musician, tho somewhat of a romantic
for my taste. He comnstantly complained that while the size of his audience
in the States was gratifying its musical intelligence left something to be
desired.
<snip>
Cf the Woodstock recording. The clapping starts to fade. Cue the Padma
Vibhushan, if he was that then: 'Since you enjoyed the tuning up so much I
hope you enjoy the raag even more.' Or words to that effect.
I'm a S Indian listener myself. And at least Palghat T S Mani Iyer didn't
spawn Norah Jones.
<snip>
he didn't think he was playing wallpaper, or trance music, or
endless repetition [...] and he preferred audiences capable of the level of
pleasure that comes with following the thought process.
<snip>
True, but not the point. I tried to steer you away from that temptation with
my reference to Judd.
CW
______________________________________________________
I am always doing what I cannot do yet in order to learn how to do it
(van Gogh)
|