So this idiot--tell us his name again Prager, dammit--has to diversify his list. What the hell is the matter with people, anyway?
His name, by the way, is Anthony Tommasini and he is the classical music critic of the New York Times.
Here is what he says:
For any attempt to determine the top 10 classical composers in history, like the one we embarked on in the Arts & Leisure section on Sunday, the Viennese Classical period presents a special challenge. If such a list is to be at all diverse and comprehensive, how could 4 of the 10 slots go to composers — Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert — who worked in Vienna during, say, the 75 years from 1750 to 1825? What on earth was going on there to foster such achievement?
Is this guy a boob or is this guy a boob? As Prager points out, it is not a top ten list. The list has been altered to include composers who were not Viennese, not flourishing between 1750 and 1825. How come it doesn't include women? How come everyone is white? Why no Hawaiian composers, or Greeks, or Nigerians, for that matter? There are no carpenters or politicians on that list. Maybe we should have a representative from the jockey community, too.
To put it simply, if someone was a top ten composer, he belongs on that list, regardless of Tommasini's desire to have a diverse list. Handel and Haydn both deserve spots.
Here is the list in descending order:
1 Bach
2 Beethoven
3 Mozart
4 Schubert
5 Debussy
6 Stravinksy
7 Brahms
8 Verdi
9 Wagner
10 Bartok
The problem with this stupid list was Tommasini's "feeling" that it shouldn't be mainly 19th-century Viennese guys. So Haydn is booted and ... Bartok?! is in. Debussy also wrote some stuff that I love, but a top ten he is not.
If you want one of the stupidest replies ever, check out this woman's opinion at the guardian:
Idiocy on the hoof
Her problem? She wants the list to be "more daring".
No comments:
Post a Comment