RE: not in _Time_

["Cline, Eric" <Eric.Cline@reichhold.com>]

With all of the hype surrounding "the Maestro". I am surprised that
Arturo Toscanini wasn't listed. BTW I am not a Toscanini fan. 

Eric Cline x 8116 
Senior R & D Chemist 
Emulsion, Urethane & UV Polymer Synthesis 
Sun Chemical Business Team 
e-mail: eric.cline@reichhold.com
http://www.reichhold.com


> ----------
> From: 	Bradley P Lehman[SMTP:bpl@umich.edu]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, June 03, 1998 10:55 AM
> To: 	f_minor mailing list
> Subject: 	GG:  not in _Time_
> 
> Got the June 8th _Time_ magazine yesterday, the one whose cover
> features
> "100 Artists and Entertainers of the Century."  I tried a guessing
> game: 
> which classical musicians would be chosen for that category? 
> 
> I knew they'd pick Stravinsky as #1 because I'd peeked at visual arts
> already and they'd chosen Picasso there, so the parallel was obvious. 
> After that, my guess was that Bernstein would be in the top few
> because of
> his extremely influential work as conductor, composer (sort of a
> classical
> fusionist), pianist, and educator of the public, the ideal all-around
> popularizing disciple for classical music.  Then the other list
> choices
> would be up to _Time's_ whims.  Would GG make it? 
> 
> Sure enough, Stravinsky won "The Classical Musician" for his
> compositional
> influence, and it mentioned also his exciting conducting.  (Didn't
> mention
> his huge influence on minimal-interpretation performance styles, which
> I'm
> sure Taruskin would have brought out if he'd been on the panel.)  Then
> a
> sidebar has "Prodigious Performers: three virtuosos who inspired cult
> followings and made unforgettable music:" a tiny photo and short
> paragraph
> each for Maria Callas, Vladimir Horowitz, and Leonard Bernstein.  All
> three are of course the "wow the crowds" type. 
> 
> What do you think of their choices? 
> 
> Personally, I would have put Stravinsky first, Bernstein a close
> second. 
> Then I'd put Rachmaninoff: on the evidence of their recordings, he was
> at
> least as gifted a pianist as Horowitz (better, in my opinion), plus he
> composed and conducted, and his compositions are very popular and
> accessible.  (But he perhaps wasn't rated as "progressive" enough to
> make
> the list.)  Then GG, as much for his influence on the recording
> industry
> and for his thoroughly 20th-century musical approach as for his
> performances.  Then if there was a fifth spot, maybe Nikolaus
> Harnoncourt: 
> as conductor, player, and writer he takes historical scholarship
> seriously, fitting it into an especially vital performance style (and
> having a huge discography, both on old instruments and on modern
> instruments).  Horowitz *might* make it into the next five, but I'm
> not
> sure about that.  I'd have to get Leonhardt and Landowska in there
> somewhere for their immense influences on 20th-century performance
> styles,
> and maybe get some more composers in there.  If Callas was to be on a
> list
> at all, I think they should have made a separate opera or vocal
> category
> instead of sweeping all of "classical music" into one, and I'd put
> Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau ahead of her...but she was before my time and
> outside the areas of my interest, and so I don't know much about her.
> 
> Other opinions on how "classical musicians of the century" should be
> ranked? 
> 
> Bradley Lehman ~ Harrisonburg VA, USA ~ 38.45716N+78.94565W
> bpl@umich.edu ~ http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/ 
> 
>