Re: GG: descendent?

[Karl Berry <karl@cs.umb.edu>]

    done after Opus 19.  This seems chronologically incorrect.
    Does the word mean "ascendent" here?  

Perhaps he meant `ancestor' (ascendant wouldn't be the right word). 

    Was it a mistake by GG or was there any intention of his?

It was probably just a mistake, perhaps simple confusion since other
stuff he was talking in that letter about pre-op.19, I believe.  (Le
Sacre was early 1900's, wasn't it?)


Whichever way chronologically op.19 and Boulez go, the main point of his
statement (that op.19 was historically important more than
intrinsically) is unaltered, it seems to me.

(Irrelevant personal aside: I have a soft spot in my heart for op.19
even intrinsically since it's one of the few 20th-century piano pieces I
can both play (sort of) and enjoy playing :-).  It was the first 20th
century piece I learned.  Not counting the Bastiens :-)