Music Guides - Feh!
More scolding, and once again in connection with getting rid of books. Reference guides, however, aren't be judged as literature; they're either useful or they're not. The two books that I got rid of (once I'd had my sport) weren't even interesting.
Nothing is more difficult than writing about sense impressions. Words are absolutely powerless to convey such impressions themselves; all we can hope for is a web of connections stout enough to let a ghost of the writer's experience cross the abyss between any two minds. Music presents special problems, because it has a fully-developed theoretical language that can be clipped back and simplified for general consumption. The problem, of course, is that this conveys little to nothing about the experience of music. It is formal, and sometimes analytical, but not informative. To read that "Mozart's consummate use of string tone is unparalleled" is really to waste one's time. I can imagine writing sentences that might include "consummate use of string tone" and "unparalleled," but I hope I'd say more about that string tone. What does it sound like?
In any case, before I got rid of two classical music guidebooks, I did a bit of venting.
Comments
Nice post, RJ. I think you hit the nail on the head: "The problem, of course, is that this conveys little to nothing about the experience of music. It is formal, and sometimes analytical, but not informative." Of the arts, I think music is the most difficult to write about because of the limitations that language imposes when writing about experience; which means critics just need to try harder. :)
Posted by: Michael | August 4, 2006 12:18 PM