Re: GG: not quite _Time_

[William Brooke <wbrooke@uniserve.com>]

> 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?

stravinsky should probably go first. bernsteins' contributions to the
musical
world are perhaps more wide reaching, but so far as advancing the
form/art
is concerned, igor deserves double bill with their poster-boy picasso. i
was quite dismayed to see but a meagre mention of g. gershwin, who along
with
stravinsky has moulded the twentieth century music scene...with
leviathans
like rhapsody in blue, et al, gershwin made quite a stink.

it's no simple task to choose the most important artists and
entertainers
of any age; the poor folks at ~time~ have done a rather reasonable job,
considering
their typical output. i can't see throwing all of twentieth century
opera
into a small box in the corner of a page, manifested in one singer,
but...

as for our boy GG, 

> Then GG, as much for his influence on the recording industry
> and for his thoroughly 20th-century musical approach as for his
> performances.  

i might consider his "20th-century" approach a little more attuned to
the
21st century...although mcluhan's communication visions (from the same
vintage
as prime GG) are now being actualized, it seems as though the potential
of
GG's intentions cannot be currently satisfied by current technologies. 
that is, putting tempo and articulation in the hands of the home
listener, etc.. 
the 1:2800 ratio has not yet changed...his ideas are still breaking. 

being a fan of GG, i immediately skipped the horowitz write-up. shame!
shame!
it's quite alright, though...even here in canada, we typically hear more
about
the antiquated, faded work of van cliburn (american hero) than our own,
canadian 
content artists. bother. 

merry part, 

whillis