Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site inuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!inuxd!linda From: linda@inuxd.UUCP (Linda Pearlstein) Newsgroups: net.music.classical,net.news.group Subject: Re: Survey of net.music.classical readers Message-ID: <535@inuxd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 10-May-84 15:48:46 EDT Article-I.D.: inuxd.535 Posted: Thu May 10 15:48:46 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 12-May-84 08:53:58 EDT References: <651@pyuxn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Consumer Products Div., Indianapolis Lines: 87 Excuse me for not sending mail directly to Rosen -- since I've never submitted to net.music.classical, perhaps I can be forgiven for taking this space. I feel so passionately about classical music, and I love reading everyone's comments so much, I'd like to express my support of net.music.classical in terms possibly different from those previously expressed. These terms are the purely *aesthetic*. When Rosen asks why I think there's a "need" for a separate group, the answer involves how I *feel* when I hear classical music versus how I feel when I hear rock (and other) music. To me, classical music represents some of the highest achievements of the human spirit. When I am appalled and demoralized by the enormous cruelty human beings inflict on one another, music provides the best antidote to my despair. It reminds me of the heights that humankind can achieve. I feel an emotional and -- with Bach, for example -- even an intellectual excitement at what I hear. The pleasure is multiple, of course, when a great composition is performed with brilliance and intensity by a great artist. Rosen asks if I have been exposed to other music. Yes. My son (a college freshman with an ENORMOUS collection of -- and enthusiasm for -- rock music as well as a significant background in classical violin) assures me that I am missing a significant aspect of 20th century culture -- even literature. He claims that rock music at its best contains worthwhile poetry. I try to listen sometimes (for his sake), and occasionally I find some pleasure -- at least in the beat. But I insist to you that on this aesthetic level I'm trying to tell you about, I derive only a tiny fraction of the pleasure from rock music that I do, and have for years, from classical. There doesn't seem to be much I can do about this. Why should I HAVE to? Rosen asks if I consider my musical tastes limited. HE would. I'm not sure about others. I like several centuries worth of music, from early Monteverdi to late Mahler. I love big -- Verdi's Requiem, Bach's B Minor Mass -- and little -- teeny chamber works: trios, violin sonatas. I DO dislike "light" music -- waltzes, operettas -- the Boston Pops level of music does not appeal. I didn't feel hostility from the rest of the net.music group, to respond to another of Rosen's questions. Indeed, I know that my son would enjoy reading net.music for its informed discussion of the music he loves. I didn't feel hostility -- I just felt a tired "n" finger. I make no claims that other subgroups are not needed, and I wouldn't oppose them. One wonderful aspect of net.music.classical is to discover the many levels on which others appreciate classical. I am learning SO much that I didn't know, and learning to listen for nuances I hadn't heard, thanks to the .classical contributors. My bottom line, Mr. Rosen, is that I feel on the same "wavelength" with the contributors to net.music.classical. I feel no such communion with most of those on net.music. Why should I HAVE to? And my bottom bottom line is -- look at the number of contributions to this net. group in its brief life. What principle concerning subgroups is being violated when this group has been met with such enthusiasm? Linda Pearlstein AT&T Consumer Products Indianapolis 317 845-3691 ..ihnp4!inuxc!inuxd!linda