|
estebanana -> RE: Have you read any good books lately? (Oct. 3 2015 16:13:00)
|
quote:
Estebanana and I find ourselves in complete agreement in our assessment of Leonard Meyer's difficult book on 20th century trends in music and the arts, Music, the Arts, and Ideas-- it is definitely not a book to read in airports, etc. The book requires three things (at least) often in short supply in many readers: a degree of pre-existing familiarity with the book's topics, an ability to follow the author's detailed arguments, and an open and receptive mind. Lacking any of these qualities, some readers fall into somnolence, or, worse yet, lash out at the book or its author or its enthusiasts with spasms of resentful bombast rather than respectful, civil expressions of disagreement; Stephen and I find that sort of behavior inexcusable.
Nobody teaches this book because it's marginal. In six years of college course work in the arts I've never seen this book on a syllabus. None of my professor friends are or ever have been teaching this book, I've never seen this book in an anthology. I don't currently know nor have I ever met a professor who even mentioned this book. This book is not taught, because it's a mess.
And I find it funny as hell you flaunt such a lemon. If you really want to read something good about music, Stravinsky's and or Copland's Harvard lectures are far better. Copland talks about how to listen to music and Stravinsky talks about interpretation. I would take those on a trip if I wanted to read something "theoretical".
One of my friends heads the Spanish dept. a major university, she teaches some of the philosophy classes that use Iberian texts. It's funny how she refers to Ortega Y Gasset. She says 'Ortega Und Gasset', then clicks her heels like an SS officer. Then she laughs and teaches the class. Ortega y Gasset is kind of narrow, comes off as dictatorial, so she takes the piss out. She knows the material cold; A pro does not have to have breathless reverence for a text they find problematic.
It's far better to find problems and question a text, than to just read and accept everything. It's not an essential book, in my book. It's about three times as long as it needs to be and it reads like a telephone book.
One of the things I dislike about this book in particular is the constant reference-name dropping that is only clever, but becomes a cloying waste of my time. I don't need to read a book like this to make me feel smart because get the references. I get the feeling he is showing off the breadth of this knowledge at the expense of making the book much, much longer than it needs to be to make his point. It's fine to be smart and be able to drop references, but there a difference between making a book work and flattering the reader for getting though a mine field g gratuitous reference making name dropping. This kind of academic game is boring, even perhaps 15% of what he talks about resonates, they rest is filler I don't need.
Do I care what anyone thinks of how and why I read? How I judge a book, how determine what reading I need to do? Hell no. Not one bit.
|
|
|
|
