by jrs » Thu Nov 16, 2000 2:21 pm
serge--<BR> In my opinion inborn, inate talent is crucial, a must in the development of a sustainable musical vision, one that will live on peacefully and persistantly unscathed by the sometime humiliating ravages of indiscriminate time. Whether Paul McCartney, Lennon, U2, Beethoven or Mozart, I think all composers were born with natuarl, inate musical abilities. And does Mozart get all his adulation from his music, or his skill? To me the two are so intrinsically involved so as to be inseperable. They're two halves of one outcome.And how about Bach's fugues. These are all things academia can teach, but inate musical vision uses it rather than it using the composer. The only example I can come up with now to clarify my point is the difference I perceive in Handel's concerti grossi op. #6, and Corelli's concerti grossi op.#6. Handel using the procedures of his time, in this work sounds alive and spotaneous to me. A fraught intuition seems to emanate freely from the schackles of the technique of the time. On the other hand, comparitively speaking, Corelli sounds like a textbook to me. Handle here has hold of the stuff transient in rainbows--yet it leaves a lasting imprint on one as if it were the spoor of some passing, wild animal. Corelli sits in my mind like a stiff, dried fact, like some stiff pedagogue full of all the facts, yet miserably lacking in musical spirit. The difference between the two can't be taught. It's instinct and intuition, something that works so fast in the moment of creation, it slips past the textbooks as quietly as the twilight sneaks past on its way to the night. Sincerely, jrs
