When writing about my painting, critics inevitably talk about the influence of Bonnard and Diebenkorn (I love their work) as if this is a bad thing. Hell, Diebenkorn loved Bonnard, and his work also shows it. Where would we be without our masters shoulders to stand upon?
I’m trying, in my work and public… life to undo this nonsense.
Good on ya mate!
]]>That makes everyone ^but^ them “indie-classical,” no?
😛
]]>“… Moreover, in general, I’m not sure what an ‘influence’ is; to my mind, what is transmitted is not ‘ideas’ but ‘languages,’ ie forms which can be filled in different fashions; that’s why the notion of *circulation* seems to me more appropriate than *influence*, books are ‘currency’ rather than ‘forces.'”
]]>Not ridiculous at all. It really is like herding cats when it comes to rehearsing orchestras, and in fact, lots of premieres of new orchestral pieces DO end up leaving much to be desired. It’s just really hard to tell for your average audience member whether or not ‘the weird thing’ in the piece was something consciously decided by the composer or just the artifact of half the brass section being late by half a bar.
The best orchestras however, usually do sound very good with the standard rep, not because they have hours and hours before each concert to rehearse, but because they’ve (both as a collective and as individual players) played those pieces many, many times under various conductors.
]]>I was watching one of those reality TV programmes a few weeks back (“well-celebrity becomes a conductor”) in which they said orchestras normally only get a few hours rehersal time. I thought they were exaggerating for effect; but here you are repeating the same sort of information. Difficult to believe they expect decent performances to emerge from those sorts of circumstances.
]]>thank god for you.
]]>