Klarinet Archive - Posting 000003.txt from 2000/06

From: Daniel Leeson <leeson0@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] McNaught and Mozart
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:36:23 -0400

The argument about when an opinion is upgraded to the level of argument
is an interesting one, but I find it hard to get my blood up on the
subject. The man simply expressed an opinion that the K. 581 was not a
good piece of music and he gave his reasons. It's simply another
version of the statement "I don't like asparagus." Now he can give 500
good reasons why he doesn't like asparagus but, in the final analysis,
it still remains opinion.

When I was younger and had more strength, I used to attack people who
made statements that I considered as stupid as his, but all I ever got
for my efforts was a black eye or missing tooth. Now I'm older and
realize that attempting to change an opinion is an effort not worth the
trouble because it almost never succeeds.

Besides, I also hold the opinion that some people say they don't like
this or that work of Mozart, because it gives them 15 minutes of fame.
Saying that they like Mozart (or in this case, K. 581) is certainly not
going to get anyone's attention.

Live and let live. He's a putz anyway.

Tony Pay wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 15:08:59 -0700, leeson0@-----.net said:
>
> > Michael has submitted a review of the music, not a performance, of
> > Mozart's A major clarinet quintet by someone named William McNaught.
> > To sum it up, McMaught finds large portions of the work to be dull,
> > uninteresting, etc., etc.
> >
> > Well, if that is the way he feels about the piece, it's OK with me. I
> > am not bothered if someone does not like what I like, or vice versa.
> > Is there an issue here? If so, I don't see it. It is simply one man
> > expressing his opinion.
>
> Michael Bryant then wrote:
>
> > Dan is quite right to take a stern view of this wildly eccentric and
> > "tongue in cheek" view, expressed by such an influential figure as
> > McNaught, even if some of the mechanics of McNaught's description are
> > nearly correct.
>
> [snip]
>
> > [McNaught's] book "Modern Music and Musicians" is a brilliant critical
> > exposition, admirably free of prejudice of any sort, of various
> > tendencies and techniques in 20th century music. As a writer of
> > programme notes and gramophone reviews McNaught was unsurpassed.
>
> I for one would be very interested to read McNaught's book. Constant
> Lambert's 'Music Ho!' gives a fascinating insight into what modern music
> looked like to Lambert between the wars -- Sibelius the way forward,
> Stravinsky's deep flaws, etc. I think we can learn a lot by realising
> how different the musical scene looked to the musicians who were
> immersed in it, even only a few years ago.
>
> 'Modern Music and Musicians' might serve a similar purpose.
>
> On another tack, though, I'm surprised that Michael says that the review
> is wildly eccentric and tongue-in-cheek. I found it very clearheaded
> and honest, and I'd like to argue in another post that reviews like that
> are actually very useful to performers, and that this one would have
> been very useful to me if I'd read it when I was younger.
>
> I felt that Dan was mild rather than stern, in fact. I do want to
> disagree with something he *might* have meant by: "It is simply one man
> expressing his opinion," because in my view McNaught did a little more
> than just give his opinion. He unpacked his opinion to an extent that
> it started to become an argument.
>
> Opinions come in various forms, after all. A good argument is merely a
> very-well-unpacked opinion. A good argument presents us with bits
> and pieces of evidence, some downright factual, some less so, that we
> may find we are disposed to agree with -- our disagreement with any one
> of those pieces being always a possibility, of course. It then
> reassembles those pieces in a convincing way.
>
> *Proof* is of course another matter -- but the status of proof is very
> rarely approached except in very restricted types of argument, and
> certainly not in discussions of music.
>
> So I would say that even if you disagree with what McNaught said, and
> even if it doesn't have the status of an argument for you, it might well
> constitute a strong stimulus to look afresh at various aspects of K581.
>
> And that's what we have to do as players: look afresh at things. (Not
> *differently*, note.)
>
> To be continued, but don't let that stop anyone responding.
>
> Tony
> --
> _________ Tony Pay
> |ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
> | |ay Oxford OX2 6RE www.gmn.com/artists/welcome.asp
> tel/fax 01865 553339
>
> ... Is this yours? Your dog left it on my lawn ...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
> Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
> Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
> Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org

--
***************************
** Dan Leeson **
** leeson0@-----.net **
***************************

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org