Epithet

Sorry for the shorthand. I meant that Ross's fervent endorsement of the music of those particular contemporary composers means that he thinks that their "answers" to what is really the "Please, God -- is there some kind of modern concert music that good-sized audiences will like, this side of Lowell Leiberman or a string arrangement of Radiohead, 'cause if there isn't, I'm out of a f---ing job here" question are the right answers. God, how naively I read the original passage.

So what's the answer?? Nobody seemed to know! Not to put too fine a point on it, but Ross is selling us a piece of bullshit here. On the one hand, unless a poll were taken of everyone in who happened to be in that railway carriage and overheard Mahler's question, the only somebodies literally present who could have replied were Alma, and Rosegger, assuming that Mahler's question was sincere. That they didn't have an answer means ... what?? On the other hand, that last sentence really exists to create the expectation that Ross himself has or will eventually come up with the answer. To the degree that he does, it seems to be Thomas Ades, John Adams, and Osvaldo Golijov. Hold on. Ross's answer to the question 'Does the poet mean the voice of the people at the present time or over time?' is 'Thomas Ades, John Adams, and Osvaldo Golijov'? Can you give me a semantic bridge to cross here? Well, there was that one guy on Amazon whose one-star reviews of Schoenberg (early or late) likened the whole equality-of-the-tones thing to communism.

So what's the answer??

Do you suppose that there are any women that can testify to this?

Opus 65, but, hell yeah! How did you come upon this? I've had this LP since the early 80s. Don't know if it was ever reissued. Your mention of Op. 65 brought me a chuckle. I won $50 in my high school's piano competition for Op. 65 #3. My public library has a 1988 CD issue of it. I think that piece was the first Scriabin I tried to learn. I'd cramp like nobody's business at Rudy's tempos; I don't think I fingered the left hand right. Of course, I didn't have that financial incentive.

Opus 65, but, hell yeah! How did you come upon this?

Like?

Don't forget the 10,000 words of .

Er, yes.

The whole problem in the initial posting seems to stem from not selecting 'Search entire post' under 'Search Where'.

You're what??

'Hey, you wanna see my organ?' *slap* 'No, I mean my pipe organ.' *slap* Not that a B3's a pipe organ or anything.

But does the clarinet?

What exactly is the defect?

I hope my mid-life crisis is less getting hungover on Monday and more getting frisky on Friday with Sally from Marketing.

Still waiting for more status (progress?) reports on that Eve-in-Eden neighbour.

So that's it.

If the typography was a little better that Kessel cover would be one of the greatest. Or if they switched the lights on.

The following quotes say to me at least that he's talking about the rock, not the jazz. The muzak crack, which is obviously in reply to the rock list: Yeah, well, this is worse than Bible exegesis. Maybe you think giving these ladies the composer of Errol Flynn soundtracks is patronising, which is the alternative meaning. ('He's so dreamy!')

Ctrl-F "MUZAK" on page 2. No, the point seems to be that it's patronising to think that people will be enlightened by muzak. It's right there in what you quoted. So there's nothing to square.

Clem, IIRC in a different thread you argued that people do need to be "enlightened" (tormented?) musically. (If I'm wrong on this be sure to correct me.) How do you square this with your criticism of Rooster for doing the same thing? Guy It's being 'enlightened' with 'musak' that's insulting.

Just listen to the oestrogen gurgle.

Clem, from what I've seen of the classical music threads on this forum, they are +90% comparison of different recordings. Actual discussion of the music is more rare. I don't think they're of any higher quality than the popular music threads. Guy Hey, no need to make this personal.

And I only love the HAAG.