Although this could apply to some sports commentators as well, do we see more examples of buffoonery in any place other than the sports pages? I just read an article on ESPN.com regarding last night's Denver Nuggets vs Dallas Mavericks game in which Dirk Nowitzki scored 19 of his 44 points in the 4th quarter to stave off elimination in the 2nd round of the playoffs. Nowitzki's great performance was almost matched by Denver's superstar, Carmelo Anthony, who poured in 41 points. To my amusement, the author decided to point this fact out by saying "Denver wasted Carmelo Anthony's 41 points"!
What happened, was there an error in conservation commited by the Nuggets? Should the Denver coach, George Karl, have told him to stop scoring because they might lose and the points would be frivilously spent? The author seems to be implying that Carmelo's points could have been saved for the next game if only their "waste prevention" coach, that guy on the end of the bench with the clipboard and the glasses, had been more alert.
These guys crack me up; and they're not even trying. I think I'm going to amend my statement in the first paragraph though - there are plenty of buffoons writing about all kinds of subjects. When it's sports, who cares because it's mindless, insignificant stuff. Unfortunately, when it pervades political writing, there is certainly potential for harm.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Top Musical Compositions of All Time
WQXR, the radio station of the New York Times, does a compilation of the greatest musical pieces of all time at the end of every year. I stopped paying attention for quite awhile because 1. our convential radio reception in NW Jersey is terrible and 2. the results are always the same. But with Itunes, I now get many classical stations on my computer so I listened in this year.
Now I am fiercely biased towards Beethoven but I was just a bit puzzled by the results, which had LVB finishing in the top 4 spots. No doubt LVB deserves to be prevelant in the top 10 but should he have the top 4 spots? If you put the late Quartets and Sonatas in the mix, maybe he should. Of course, none of them appear in WQXR's list. How can that be when those polled comprise the ultimate in musical discrimination, being in the NY intelligentsia, readers of the ultimate publication, that being the NY Times? The simple answer is that this is just another popularity contest. We're not talking about the most discriminating of music afficanados; we're talking about the snootiest. And snooty folks are just as pleasure oriented as anyone.
A few offhand comments:
The Eroica winds up about 10 places below the 7th Symphony. Again, how can that be when the 3rd is no doubt one of the landmark pieces in musical history? Simple. That second movement in the 7th would floor anyone, and that's enough to displace a symphony long recognized by music critics as a true turning point in musical history.
Why no Mozart in the top 6? Despite the quality of his proliferation, Mozart didn't quite hit the "sound" that Beethoven achieved in his top works. Was Beethoven so good that he knew his compositions would sound this great when played by improved instruments? I'm not sure but if he did, maybe he deserves the top 4 spots.
To the poll responders' credit, the 9th Symphony finished in the top spot. Can't imagine that was based on the first 3 movements. I'd have to say the Choral piece dictated the result. And that was one of the things Beethoven said he would do differently, given the opportunity.
Of such things is history made.
Now I am fiercely biased towards Beethoven but I was just a bit puzzled by the results, which had LVB finishing in the top 4 spots. No doubt LVB deserves to be prevelant in the top 10 but should he have the top 4 spots? If you put the late Quartets and Sonatas in the mix, maybe he should. Of course, none of them appear in WQXR's list. How can that be when those polled comprise the ultimate in musical discrimination, being in the NY intelligentsia, readers of the ultimate publication, that being the NY Times? The simple answer is that this is just another popularity contest. We're not talking about the most discriminating of music afficanados; we're talking about the snootiest. And snooty folks are just as pleasure oriented as anyone.
A few offhand comments:
The Eroica winds up about 10 places below the 7th Symphony. Again, how can that be when the 3rd is no doubt one of the landmark pieces in musical history? Simple. That second movement in the 7th would floor anyone, and that's enough to displace a symphony long recognized by music critics as a true turning point in musical history.
Why no Mozart in the top 6? Despite the quality of his proliferation, Mozart didn't quite hit the "sound" that Beethoven achieved in his top works. Was Beethoven so good that he knew his compositions would sound this great when played by improved instruments? I'm not sure but if he did, maybe he deserves the top 4 spots.
To the poll responders' credit, the 9th Symphony finished in the top spot. Can't imagine that was based on the first 3 movements. I'd have to say the Choral piece dictated the result. And that was one of the things Beethoven said he would do differently, given the opportunity.
Of such things is history made.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)