I read with some fascination Andrew Sullivan's article in the November 2008 Atlantic, "Why I Blog." Among the many interesting things he's got to say is that the blogger is more free with his/her thoughts than the writer whose work appears in paper format. The blog is more a record of the momentary, the ephemeral, the happenstance, of one's reactions to the event in virtual real time. Moreover, the blog creates the possibility of an immediate conversation with the reader. But unlike paper publications, there is also the chance of that conversation deteriorating into the low-level vituperative. The probability of this latter possibility appearing on this blog will remain low to zero. Nevertheless that's the risk one takes in the blogospheric medium.
For example, if I claim that Leonard Bernstein's Colombia/Sony recording of Mahler's Third is the greatest, someone else may answer, "Oh Yeah? Sez who?!" But if I support my claim by pointing out that in the last movement it is Bernstein's symphonic forces who rise to the highest emotional peak, then anyone who might otherwise argue against my position will be forced to listen to this recording. My opponent will now have to point to his/her candidate recording, to which I will now be forced to listen. The conversation becomes reasoned discourse. Not only that, but in a short while the conversation will turn from "best" to what is a far more interesting question, for example, whether Mahler intended the kind of wrenching emotional response that Bernstein elicits, or the cooler approach of, for example, Pierre Boulez. And that discussion will hopefully give way to another, say, why audiences at any particular time will opt for the emotional, and why audiences at other times opt for the cooler approach. I have my theories about this last question; I'll devote a future post to what think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The intersection of autonomy/responsibility and social/political response can be one of the most fertile areas of art itself. What makes a dramatist like Wally Shawn peer through the looking glass in The Fever while another playwright creates a confection about the mores and foibles of the upper classes? Truth and illusion have long been the fertile fields of dramatists including the first great American ones.
I'm looking forward to your future posts.
A reader named Rezman sent the following comment in regard to my post of Saturday,December 27, 2008:
"The intersection of autonomy/responsibility and social/political response can be one of the most fertile areas of art itself. What makes a dramatist like Wally Shawn peer through the looking glass in The Fever while another playwright creates a confection about the mores and foibles of the upper classes? Truth and illusion have long been the fertile fields of dramatists including the first great American ones."
I'm looking forward to your future posts."
I thank Rezman for his post, and encourage others to add their comments.
Barry Seldes
Dear Rezman,
Thanks so much for your comment. And thank you for your support!
Best,
Barry Seldes
Barry Seldes says in this comment:
"Not only that, but in a short while the conversation will turn from "best" to what is a far more interesting question, for example, whether Mahler intended the kind of wrenching emotional response that Bernstein elicits, or the cooler approach of, for example, Pierre Boulez."
A very interesting question. How does one pinpoint the "intersection" of the intentions of the composer and the interpreter? For example, in Bernstein's "wrenching emotional response," does he co-opt a potential emotional response on our part whereas a more objective approach such as that of Boulez (or perhaps Haitink, Horenstein, etc.) might allow more of a personal response on our part?
Regarding Al's interesting question, I think that the primary creative force is the composers, but as interpreted by the conductor, who, at least these days, does pay close attention to note values and other written commands. By and large, the audience member is the least active member of the composer/conductor/orchestra/listener ensemble. He or she in the audience is looking for inspiration. Of course he or she will judge the efforts of the performers as to whether they gave the composer his/her due. Individual audience members may be searching for a particular message. It is my belief, and here I'm giving away what I intend to write about in some depth later, that the generation that came of age when the Mahler boom got underway -- the 60s and 70s -- were looking for a Mahler who could reconnect them with the generations lost in the Nazi period; who could find in Mahler some release from the agonies of memory and history. Thus Bernstein: for here was precisely that Mahler. The Mahler of Boulez, for example, was for a later audience, made up of people who had had their passions rung out of them in the earlier years, or who were too young to have needed Bernstein's Mahler.
Barry
Comments?
Post a Comment