I'd add to his list Wagner, who I adore. But what 19th century opera
doesn't float on a sea of kitsch?
At 02:40 PM 10/26/2007, you wrote:
>To correlate with Mark's, I was going on memory of Brendel's general
>discussion of kitsch, and the simple fact that he hasn't recorded Satie. As
>I was reading a recent book of his, I was thinking how wonderful it would be
>if he would tackle Satie because he'd play it brilliantly.
>
>Mark, I think he has recorded Debussy in his early career; not so sure about
>Ravel. Certainly though, once he'd settled on his Viennese identity he
>discarded the French -- also Chopin.
>
>OK... I reach for the volume on my shelf: The Veil of Order (I think
>published under a different title in the USA). In the index, no entry for
>Satie; one for kitsch, where he says:
>
>I think that hardly any composers around 1900 were immune from it, and that
>their works often straddle the borders of kitsch. Debussy is the composer
>I'd most readily exempt and, in his own way, Charles Ives.
>
>But what works [asks his interlocutor, Martin Meyer] are positively kitschy?
>
>Holst's Planets; The apotheoses of Tchaikovsky's Bb minor concerto and
>Rachmaninov's C minor. But it all began with Grieg, or even Liszt and
>Mendelssohn.
>
>Earlier, Brendel says: The most important kitsch remains the sort that
>champions values and virtues, the good and beautiful, bourgeois morality,
>'elevated' taste, patriotism and religion. Kitsch the great harmonizer.
>Kitsch is self-confident: where the heart speaks the intellect must keep
>silent. ...Milan Kundera... speaks very perceptively of the dictatorship of
>emotion. ... Kundera says that the brotherhood of man is only possible on
>the basis of kitsch.
>
>That's brilliant! [says me]
>
>P
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of Douglas Barbour
> > Sent: 26 October 2007 15:28
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: sentimentality & 'classism' Re: New at Sharp Sand
> >
> > This is interesting, Peter, especially as I didn't know about Brendel's
> > feelings. But, once again, these things are going to be personal, eh. I
> > love Satie,too, & because he did something interesting with that
> > popular feeling.
> >
> > On the other hand once the concept of 'kitsch' exists/(ed), how can I
> > not find that it works? It's just that my choice of kitsch might not be
> > others'....
> >
> > I admit that I do think of some kinds of art as 'sentimental' in the
> > bad sense, while others get me because the sentiment rendered in them
> > works (for me)....
> >
> > Doug
> > On 25-Oct-07, at 8:36 AM, Peter Cudmore wrote:
> >
> > > I think the thing that is irksome about the ascription of the label
> > > 'sentimental' is the confidence with which it is done. I have a similar
> > > problem with the concept of kitsch. There are a few things that I like
> > > that
> > > other people describe as 'kitsch', and I'm damned if I'm going to come
> > > up
> > > with 'ironic' ways of liking them.
> > >
> > > I'm thinking here of Alfred Brendel, who thus regards certain parts of
> > > the
> > > classical piano repertoire. I don't know if he mentions Satie, but
> > > Satie is
> > > a good example because his music is immersed in the local popular
> > > culture of
> > > his day, though transformed by his touch. It's because I like Brendel
> > > so
> > > much that I'm irked by this particular issue, because it makes me feel
> > > as
> > > though I have to defend myself -- but against what? Why the hell
> > > shouldn't I
> > > like Satie?
> > Douglas Barbour
> > 11655 - 72 Avenue NW
> > Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
> > (780) 436 3320
> > http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
> >
> > Latest book: Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> > http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
> >
> > It's the first lesson, loss.
> > Who hasn't tried to learn it
> > at the hands of wind or thieves?
> >
> > Jan Zwicky
|