(Prospect Magazine) - Stockhausen and Penderecki, whose works are now
as old as ³Rock Around the Clock,² have not been assimilated into the
classical canon in the way that Ravel and Stravinsky have. When
someone like Joe Queenan has earnestly tried and failed to appreciate
this ³new² music http://xrl.us/Queenan , it¹s fair to ask what the
problem is.

David Stubbs considers this important question in "Fear of Music"
(Amazon.com: http://xrl.us/FearMusic ), but doesn¹t come close to
answering it. His speculative suggestion ‹ that musical performance
lacks an ³original object² that, in the case of visual art, may become
the subject of veneration or trade ‹ clearly has little force, given
that it applies equally to Beethoven and Birtwistle. Indeed, Stubbs¹s
analysis is part of the problem rather than the solution. Like
economists trying to understand market crashes, he wants to place all
the motive forces outside the system: his gaze never fixes on the
music itself..

Continued: http://xrl.us/FearMusicReview

Many years ago I had a friendly discussion with a black colleague about
gospel music. I said I didn't care for it. He said, "You don't
understand it."

It was clear to me then that understand=like and if you didn't
like something it was not because it sounded bad but because you didn't
understand it.

Many years ago I had a friendly discussion with a black colleague about
gospel music. I said I didn't care for it. He said, "You don't
understand it."

It was clear to me then that understand=like and if you didn't
like something it was not because it sounded bad but because you didn't
understand it.

Gary Goldberg (in rec.music.classical.contemporary):

Many years ago I had a friendly discussion with a black colleague about
gospel music. I said I didn't care for it. He said, "You don't
understand it."

It was clear to me then that understand=like and if you didn't
like something it was not because it sounded bad but because you didn't
understand it.

Is care=like for you? If you don't care for gospel music, are you just
indifferent to it, or do you avoid listening to it?

On Oct 30, 2:05 am, Joachim Pense <s... at (no spam) pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
Gary Goldberg (in rec.music.classical.contemporary):

Many years ago I had a friendly discussion with a black colleague about
gospel music. I said I didn't care for it. He said, "You don't
understand it."

It was clear to me then that understand=like and if you didn't
like something it was not because it sounded bad but because you didn't
understand it.

Is care=like for you? If you don't care for gospel music, are you just
indifferent to it, or do you avoid listening to it?

"I don't care for X" is an idiom for 'I don't like X'. There's no non-
negative equivalent; "I care for X" means only 'I am a caretaker for
X', e.g. a nanny or a nurse. Except perhaps as a contrastive -- "You
don't care for Stravinsky?" "I _do_ care for Stravinsky!"

[followup fixed. I hope GG isn't in "alt.music.classical"]

(Prospect Magazine) - Stockhausen and Penderecki, whose works are now
as old as “Rock Around the Clock,” have not been assimilated into the
classical canon in the way that Ravel and Stravinsky have. When
someone like Joe Queenan has earnestly tried and failed to appreciate
this “new” musichttp://xrl.us/Queenan, it’s fair to ask what the
problem is.

David Stubbs considers this important question in "Fear of Music"
(Amazon.com:http://xrl.us/FearMusic), but doesn’t come close to
answering it. His speculative suggestion — that musical performance
lacks an “original object” that, in the case of visual art, may become
the subject of veneration or trade — clearly has little force, given
that it applies equally to Beethoven and Birtwistle. Indeed, Stubbs’s
analysis is part of the problem rather than the solution. Like
economists trying to understand market crashes, he wants to place all
the motive forces outside the system: his gaze never fixes on the
music itself..

Continued:http://xrl.us/FearMusicReview