On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Shawna wrote:
> The more knowledge one has about the field, the more likely one is to be a
> more involved audience. For instance, I know next to nothing about the
> physics or athletic requirements behind figure skating, but I follow it just
> the same for some of the flashy performers and moves. The more I learn about
> the sport, however, the more I'm able to appreciate the differences in skill
> of some of the people involved in it. An axle was a Salchow was a toe loop
> to me before, and they all looked marvelous, but now that I know which is
> the more difficult move, I'm more likely to appreciate it more when I see it
> done.
Not convinced this is a *good* thing. A true artist tries to make it look
easy. Being aware of details is good for someone who is studying the
craft, but can interfere with the raw enjoyment of a performance which is
meant to be taken in as a whole rather than a collection of technical
feats. That's what bugs me about "classical music appreciation" it's used
often as a means of class stratification around the world. Those who are
"connoisseurs" are upper crust, those who don't are lower. I think people
who just watch and listen enjoy it best.
> I'll also say that my increased understanding doesn't mean I don't still
> like the flashy stuff and people anyway :) Heck, I'm a huge fan of lots of
> pop artists, and actually prefer listening to techno, alternative and modern
> folk than Opera in any case. But then again, Tori Amos and her managers
> aren't trying to pass her off as the next Sutherland. Apples to oranges, and
> I'm just bothered when an apple tries to paint itself orange.
That is true... I honestly don't think it's meant to deliberately dumb
people down about opera, though. Everyone feels the need to label stuff.
The material Bocelli sings is opera, while he is something of a hybrid
type of singer. What to call the package? A&R people hate being
vague. Gotta call it something.
-Tako
|
|  |
