I’m from the Middle East, specifically Iraq, where the harp was invented during the Sumerian civilization, along with some of the earliest forms of musical notation. We have a rich tradition of musical forms, but we also cannot deny the impact of Western music. It has transcended cultures and influenced our music deeply. Western music’s history and the foundations it established have endured over time, proving its lasting influence. In fact, in most countries, you’ll find at least one orchestra or chamber ensemble playing well-known classical pieces, as well as local compositions in classical forms. This is because classical music provides a framework that makes any music more accessible and understandable. Moreover, classical music is highly adaptable and can seamlessly integrate with different cultural forms.
Nietzsche said: "Ohne Musik ist das Leben ein Irrtum" (“Without music, life would be a mistake.”). 😊I think it’s great how you bring classical music closer to people. Your enthusiasm is contagious and your channel is more than educational. Thank you for all, Dave!
I challenge anyone to tell me where else on the planet will you EVER find 100% of a group of disciplined human beings who come together to attain-and actually achieve-100% perfection in their endeavor than in the professional symphony orchestra on a concert stage, having spent years perfecting their craft. Yes, there is military discipline on the battlefield and team discipline in sport, but in those arenas there are also those whose sole purpose it is to prevent you from attaining perfection. They work to make you fail…..hopefully miserably! Not so in a profession orchestra.
Bravo Dave. Your channel has stimulated many others, and this is great for classical music. The monuments of our civilization- Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak, Schubert, Verdi, Mahler, and on and on. And that the technology to listen to such a variety of performances and interpretations! I often agree and sometimes disagree with your evaluations but am always enlightened by your discussions. So, like many others I will KEEP ON LISTENING. Thanks.
Duke Ellington once said there's good music and then there's bad music I have come to conclude that classical music is best for me. When I get depressed I'll listen to a symphony and it lifts my spirit and makes me joyful . Classical music has that effect on me. I listen to other genres of music also but for first time I my music collection is mostly classical. Thank you Dave for you continue to challenge us with your years of experience and knowledge of classical music.
Hi, I'm a longtime classical music and orchestra player and lover (it is my whole life, basically) and have really enjoyed your channel. I think that stating the things that are special about the orchestra (size, timbral contrast, etc.) and certain forms is really important, because the elitism thing is worst when people fall back on saying classical music is sublime and universal and transcendent without providing any concrete reasons why they think so. So I appreciate you focusing on that and think that institutions should do that too, for old audiences and new audiences. I think that celebrating what is special speaks for itself, and I don't understand why we have to continue to assign it that value at the expense of other cultures' music. I really like the way your channel encourages discerning listening between recordings, and even pieces and composers to some extent. But all that is basically within the context of one tradition (European-derived classical music) so it makes more sense to me than putting the whole tradition up against traditions from completely different contexts, though of course there are long and fascinating histories of hybridity. Meanwhile, I see the importance of forming an opinion on a recording or piece of music, articulating it, and defending it as though it were objective -- that is a key hallmark of music criticism as you point out -- but you often acknowledge the reality of subjectivity lurking in the background, such as in the "works I don't 'get'" video. So, for example, I think a lot of works that use these special large forms and the special ensemble of the orchestra are boring or stink, even when many people are telling me that they're the pinnacle of civilization or something, and even as I swear by other canonical "masterworks". And just because musicians from popular and classical traditions around the world tend to understandably draw on the influential, successful, familiar large forms of European-derived classical music when they decide they want to write in large forms doesn't mean that the result is better than what they were already doing, or even good. In terms of Western musical culture being the greatest, that is objectively true in the sense of largest: greatest amount of powerful institutions behind it, greatest investment of wealth, and in general greatest size of ensemble and greatest length of forms as a result of those institutions and that investment of wealth. Like many things, it is certainly because of generations of people (from hyper-powerful people to not-powerful people) that believed fervently this musical culture is the best in the world that it is all over the world and we still have it at all. People are generally exposed to more kinds of music now, though, and can't be convinced (I would say "fooled") by this supremacy argument as easily. So again, I think it is urgently important to craft detailed and specific arguments about what is special about classical music, on its own terms, if we want it to continue to be heard and made. I think your channel is a great contribution to that, even if I was demoralized by this video and many of the classical music supremacy comments on this video.
I find Classical Music that requires musicians that specialise in their particular musical instruments to the point of extreme excellence. The listener becomes involved intellectually and can be a music critic for themselves just as David is.
Absolutely agree. I love other cultures' music, but the degree in which western music has developed music theory and thus, a so rich variety of creative posibilities that is really incomparable.
Thanks for saying all of this. Many years ago Harold C. Schonberg wrote in the NY TImes about elitism in the arts being a good thing. He got a phone call from Admiral Hyman Rickover saying to call him. Schonberg did. Rickover said "Damn fine column on elitism" and hung up. The real anti elitists want everything dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. They have been and always will be that way. I was happy about your pointing out that elitist or not, composers have so often been happy to include influences outside of the Western tonal system in their works. David Snyder
OMG!!!! This video is BRILLIANT!!!!!!!! In fact, it's so good that I immediately had to listen to it again! I'm a tad older than you, and all this "cultural appropriation" stuff and anti-Western music crap was just beginning during my PhD music history studies in the 1980s. At first, it was very "soft pedal", but now it has taken over the performance world with opera companies and symphony orchestras afraid to program some of the most popular and best music ever composed for fear of "offending" certain demographics (most of whom have NO interest in "classical" music and/or opera in the first place...their choice!). YES....good music is GOOD music! I am SO tired of Western classical music (and Western culture in general) being trashed! Just because a composer "borrows" or is influenced by a non-Western culture's music does NOT make that composer an imperialist or colonialist, or for that matter, a sexist! You are correct, these labels are about politics and have NOTHING to do with the quality of a composer's output. (Do I hear someone yelling "Wagner" in the background?) I am an opera fanatic, and my dissertation centered on Puccini. 30 years after EARNING my PhD (more than you can imagine, with an adviser that was convinced I was researching a "2nd-rate" composer!), I continually am mortified that some American opera companies now are afraid to produce some of Puccini's works as written, because his musical depiction of the cultures of Japan, China, Native America, et al., and so these companies try to rewrite his operas or totally reconceive their productions to make them "politically correct"! Maybe "mature" males should protest because of Puccini's nasty depiction of our "type" in TOSCA's Scarpia! The same goes for countless American musical theatre pieces that can no longer be performed for fear of "offending" a certain demographic. (I will refrain from making an all-too-long list of specific titles.) I apologize for this being so lengthy. At any rate, please keep up your excellent critical work while many of us "keep on listening"!
Heartily agreed. In particular, there indeed is nothing esle like the incomparable expressive musical capability and sonic range of the symphony orchestra. It is the greatest mode of musical performance ever devised.
Agreed! BTW, all three "cheers" mentioned owe a significant debt to the staff/pentagram notation. The very existence of the symphony orchestra depends on the Western notation system, with its meticulous focus on pitch, harmony, and counterpoint. This system has also enabled the widespread transmission of musical works and practices across regions and generations. It is precisely this foundation that has allowed Western classical music to flourish in the way it has, for better or worse, shaping its structure, performance standards, and global influence.
This video makes a reasonable and objective argument, but there are two main issues with it as I see it. 1) As was pointed out in the video and in comments already, the inclusive nature of the definition of Western classical music means that pieces get subsumed into the Western classical music fold even if they take incredibly basic structures, like ABA or ABACA for example - trio/song forms respectively, but forms that exist in all sorts of other musics. The Western classical music heuristic for understanding musical form and the aesthetic and emotional effect that it has, is useful, but such an analysis or understanding is not absent from those other cultures, and certainly not any inferior in depth. Western music pieces can easily be understood to fall within certain definitions present in non-Western music. The reason they aren't, is because of the cultural hegemony of Western music and (German) music theory in the "official" analyses, which are relative accidents of history connected to Western cultural hegemony generally. 2) You're certainly not an "imperialist" or colonialist or whatever else for making these arguments, those are sloppy critiques, and the Western symphony orchestra probably is the instrument with the greatest emotional and timbral range. But there is a difference between talking about the supremacy of Japanese cars, or individual consumer products/inventions, and the supremacy of Western artistic culture even if just in the music sphere. As with all discussions about cultural supremacy, on what metric is this supremacy determined? It is unclear. In India there is as thorough and wide-ranging an (Indian) musical appreciation on a daily level, from high secular Hindustani to sacred devotional music to Bollywood film music, as any in the Western world. Such discussions, I think, need to get even more quantitative if they are going to have any kind of merit, and without it one runs the risk of coming close to culturally chauvinist positions, undeniably a problem in Western classical music appreciation circles.
I literally said this to my friends yesterday so I agree entirely. I would even go so far as to say, yes, we should definitely talk about other cultures of music, but the best way to do so would always be through the modes of analysis that Western music theory and philosophy have bestowed upon us. PS: in my chosen field I have to suffer through a lot of PC BS, so I can sympathize!
I think we need two words for elitism. Elitism because something is outstanding is a good thing. Elitism that is denigrating other people or cultures from a position of being regarded as culturally or materially superior is horrific. They’re not the same thing. The Western classical composers we revere generally earned their status because of their talent, creativity, hard work and genius. That is not an excuse to be lazy and dismiss other cultures. Dave is right that curiosity and openness to all forms of music is the right stance, and then feel free to make judgments based on musical qualities. And all musicians (indeed all artists) appropriate. Nobody creates art in a vacuum. Responsible artists acknowledge their influences and seek to elevate them (to take an example from pop music, the Rolling acknowledged and revered the black American blues artists from whom they borrowed liberally. And they made lots of money doing it. But they were very open about having done so and revived the careers of dozens of blues musicians who otherwise would likely have been forgotten. If that’s appropriation I’m fine with it.
I know it's not what your channel is about, but as someone who is unfamiliar with music from around the world, it would be interesting to hear your recommendations Anyway, thanks for the video!
I understand your perspective; yet I'd like to make an observation: I think the reason why, if someone "Non-Western", by applying "Western" musical aspects to their own musical culture, is thus making music that is more "Western" than "Non-Western", has more to do with how we, as musicians or listeners, define and clasify music. This is, perhaps, embedded by our knowledge of "Western music theory", which (as you've pointed out in previous videos) comes from 18th to 19th century central European composers and musicians' classification of the music that surrounded them, often ignoring others that didn't. And since "Western music theory" is how we understand music, all of music is filtered though it, therefore leaving some objective musical aspects (which you mentioned) to be labeled as "Western", even if they're present in "Non-Western" works, giving the impression those are part of the "Western" canon. This allows for the (in my opinion, incorrect) perception of "Western" music being more flexible and overarching, since those musical aspects are simply what they are, and not inherently "Western" or "Non-Western" in the way they're used: just effective or ineffective. I believe there's enough nuance in music as a whole for the "Western/Non-Western" dichotomy to be unnecessary. Just my two, long-winded cents.
Bingo--a classic "when all you have is a hammer situation." Some late-nineteenth-century Japanese musicians similarly made the claim that Western music was "basically gagaku" because it used kinda-similar modes.
Your summary is bang on, Dave. If you are unfortunate in not either knowing or appreciating the great composers of the past then your life is missing one of man’s greatest achievements. It’s as simple as that. As for this “elitist” crap, words fail me, if anyone wants to be a loser in life, fine, that’s up to them.
Fantastic video. You are absolutely right. You also seem laudably tough minded, which I'm sure will help you during any upcoming backlash against your channel now. I plan to keep on listening (basically every day lately) to your videos!
Thank you. I'm not worried about "backlash." One of the more delightful aspects of talking about classical music is that many who do it think that they're terribly important, whereas in reality most of the world couldn't care less.
Yes classical music is the better than other musics of the world. However, it is only because we give a leniency to the definition of classical that we don’t give to other music. When classical music adopts different tuning systems it still counts as classical, but if gamelan starts using tonal harmony then it gets recategorized as classical or as a fringe sub-genre. Also, while you point to features of classical music, like form and the modern symphony orchestra, those features arose over time and not all classical music has those characteristics. In today’s globalized world, classical music and western composers can take any musical cultural object and still be called classical but the reverse is not true. This isn’t a feature or some unique tolerance it’s just how we choose to define musics.
That's an interesting argument, but it's not quite correct, I think. The problem is not just how "we" define those other musics, but how "they" do themselves. As I noted, the issue is that we have chosen to define "classical" music in a broad way, and the techniques and conventions of classical music permit us to do it without losing its basic identity. That seems not to be true of the other stuff, not because we say so, but because of what it is and how it's defined within its own culture.
May I suggest a topic for a future music chat (or maybe an Ask Dave)? What makes interesting booklet notes for you? Describing the music? BIographic details? The recording process of the CD?
As someone who was born, grew up, and still lives in the UK the tradition of Western classical music is, to me, somehow 'ingrained'. Listening to your presentation today led me to consider whether "westerners'" apparently natural affinity for this genre and its derivatives (especially in terms of scales) is somehow inherent to human neurological development, or whether it only seems that way to those of us brought up within this milieu. I wonder whether any studies have been conducted on whether those from other cultural backgrounds, such as those from the Far East, also have an innate affinity for Wsstern musical intervals, etc., or whether these individuals instead have their own apparently innate musical sense. This would indicate whether or not the 'Western Tradition' has, in fact, codified a universal musical sense. By the way, Mr Hurwitz, please do not change; your unique combination of great knowledge, lightly worn, with humor and an approachable style would be greatly missed by many!
'Evolve' or development is the key in this talk -how western music has changed over the centuries with regard to form, as well as the instruments used to make it. But just as western Cuisine is impossible to separate from the foodstuffs 'we' took from America, Africa and Asia, so western music has links to other regions -consider the early recordings of Jordi Cavall which show a seamless link between Europe and the Middle East. Best to celebrate these threads rather than try to unravel them -to find what?
Great rant! Modern people are drinking too much kool aid. I had listened to several music forms before I immersed myself in classical music. I had the happy thought that I had saved the best for last. I still feel that way.
And as they say in Polish, "nic dodać nic ująć", "nothing to add, nothing to take away". Bravo Maestro Hurwitz, we badly need more people with the guts to maintain their well informed, well educated views. And should you find this comment irrelevant, please feel free to delete it! 🙂
Seems sensible, Dave, and I share your view. It would be interesting to hear the point of view of musicologists expert in non Western Musical Cultures : I think in particular of Alain Danielou who had a great expertise in Indian classical music ... but, unfortunately, he died in 1994 !
I'm so eager to post the following comment that I won't be able to stop myself. Yet I'm obliged to express a frustration: my aim is not to “participate” in the other comments (which I haven't read, by the way), but to dialogue with David Hurwitz. And I know, Dave (I call you that because many others do), that you don't like long comments. So I'm going to force myself to be very brief, which is very complicated on what I consider to be such subtle and important subjects. Of course, this would require lengthy arguments, but I understand that these are not the ones you'll read attentively (ideally, we'd have to be able to dialogue live, which isn't possible). So I'll try to express myself in a “telegraphic” style. And I'll take this opportunity to repeat what I've already said in other posts: please excuse my English, as I'm French. An essential subject. I'll say it right away, to get to the heart of my “point of view”: I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's all there is to it. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that I consult your channel daily, and while I don't ALWAYS agree with your analyses (I don't think that's the point), I do appreciate the commitment and variety. Back on topic, since I'm in a hurry: yes, you're right. But as you know, this is a delicate issue. It deserves clarity, and that's what you've shown. It also deserves courageous and committed rejection of “political correctness”, as you are doing. With these two things in hand, we can start talking seriously. Let me also make it clear (I could go into detail elsewhere): this is a subject I believe I have a legitimate grasp of. I've listened carefully to the few topics you've devoted to this issue, and I think I've detected a growing clarity, a more committed and courageous way over time, of gradually getting to the area that apparently angers. And so, yes, you're a thousand times right: the ability to evaluate is essential, and we must not give up on it. And even to recognize a cultural specificity, a particular excellence. In my view, it's essential to make this clear. Since we're in a hurry, allow me to make two observations. The first is a nuance, the second a suggestion. On the nuance: while I recognize the importance of your argument about the variety of forms inherent in Western music, I wouldn't make this argument (this observation, in fact) the final argument for judging the excellence in question, in comparison with other music from other cultures. For me, the final argument is as follows (and I'm aware of this because of my initial training in History): what has happened in the history of Western art (music, but also other forms such as the plastic arts and literature), is based on the gradual emergence of the artist, as an individual consciousness that detaches itself from popular and collective expression, to do something else and work in a particular field that didn't exist before this emergence, and that in this case is “learned music” as we call it. This thing, this reality, this evolution, is not only crucial, it's unique in the history of mankind: it's in the Western world (in the broadest sense of the term) that this mutation has taken place. And everything we're talking about stems from this evolution, which for me is the most important criterion. Of course, I'd have to elaborate. I'm already too long, and I'm not sure you're reading me yet. For the suggestion (which would still deserve so many arguments): far from the mirages and stupidities of the “colonialism” argument (quite ordinary according to “woke” ideology), what would be essential to distinguish is what stems from the UNIVERSAL identity of Western art. Thus, when a culture, whatever it may be, reaches a degree of excellence, it must belong to all mankind. For me, this is self-evident. And I'd love to expand on it. But I must confine myself to this (already long) intervention. If you've read this far, “thanks so much for joining me, take care.”
Three cheers for David Hurwitz. The circular argument of the folks charging you with elitism is also worth pointing out. If they are saying their analysis of this issue is superior to yours, does that make them elitists? If they say you should not judge aren't they making a judgment about judgments? The snake is always swallowing his own tail when ethical relativism is asserted. When someone says that everything is merely a matter of opinion, I ask them if they are saying it is a FACT that everything is merely a matter of opinion. If so then they have have refuted their own claim. If not then their claim is nonsensical and literally meaningless. Not trying to be rude here, this is how Wittgenstein describes thoughts that cannot stand on their own two feet. Now I am off to listen to Mahler culturally misappropriate Chinese poetry in Das Lied. And thanks so much Dave for the Suk Katchen Starker rabbit hole you sent me down recently. Still loving it.
There is, I think, a certain element of cultural upbringing in the enjoyment of music. The music that we are exposed to in childhood and in our daily lives influences how we perceive all kinds of music. To provide a very simplistic example, a minor scale, which is associated with sadness in "Western" musical culture," may be associated with festivity in another culture. This creates an impediment to the appreciation of the music of one culture for a person from another culture. I think this point may be at least tangentially related to the topic that you discuss in this video, so I thought it worth mentioning.
That's fair, but for "cultural upbringing" just substitute "experience." You can learn to associate minor key music with joy if you love the idiom where that's the case and take the time and trouble to understand how it operates. It doesn't matter where you start.
One could argue, that Western classical music was responsible for introducing Eastern style music to a wider audience. I'm thinking of Saint Seans' Africa or Rimksly-Korsakov's Antar, for example. David's Desert Symphony is a wonderful merging of the two styles. The work opening with an Islamic prayer.
A lot of Britten's music would be very different without the Balinese influences that he embraced from the 1930s (with Colin McPhee) through his last masterpiece, Death in Venice. Not to mention the inspiration he derived from Japanese Noh drama in the church parables, etc.
Indeed, as I understand it, Philip Glass's output is primarily a fusion synthesis of the Western tradition with Buddhist philosophy and Eastern forms (from which his focus on cyclical and repetitive forms suddenly makes total sense).
I'm not really interested in what makes something great. I'm interested mainly in understanding why I like what I do. I'm perfectly willing to agree that some music I don't care for is great, especially if there are observable musical facts in support of the argument.
I agree, classical music is amazingly wonderful and we are very lucky to have it. But music is always political, in one way or another, and I think the ability for classical music to absorb various different cultures, and the inability for non-western musics to absorb classical music, speaks more to soft power than it does to musical greatness. Western culture has enormous influence across the board, from clothing to architecture (even to Japanese cars!), which indicates something much broader than the inherent qualities of classical music. I'll happily call Claudio Abbado's Beethoven cycle terrible, because it is, and I'll happily call Barenboim's wonderful. In the question of musical greatness, though, this power dynamic muddies the water enough for me to say "I don't know". Although it's a lot less fun, I think it's closer to the truth. But, to be honest, I'd rather just raise a glass to classical music. It's definitely great, even if I can't say it's the greatest :)
Practically speaking, you're right. Politics is unavoidable, but it doesn't and needn't prevent us from taking a clear-eyed view of what music is, how it works, how it has developed over time in various cultural contexts, and how one school or idiom compares to another. There's no need to complicate what is, ultimately, a pretty simple task.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Well, questions of what music is, how it works, and how it has developed over time in various cultural contexts, encapsulate just why the task IS so complicated! But never mind...we can agree to disagree
Sadly, musicology has been on a steep decline since the introduction of The New Musicology in the 1990s. Now The New Musicology does have some merit, but the inmates overtook the asylum and it quickly became a mess. And now we have Woke Musicology. Both The New Musicology and Woke Musicology are more concerned with sociopolitical issues than with the music itself. The music simply serves as a foil for whatever sociopolitical issues are trending, and, sadly, that is what gets programmed at conferences these days.
Respect your position all around, and if you want to delete someone (incl. me), go ahead and I will still enjoy your show. One statement that unfortunately might have to be modified is that there are plenty of other avenues for the free exchange of ideas. Is youtube such a space, for example? I think you are safe for now, though, and cheers to that.
It's fair to say that classical music could have developed anywhere, it just happened to develop in Europe. It may also be the case that in the not so distant future classical music will find its most sophisticated expression in a part of the world not historically European. And that would be fine. I hope one day we can see achievements like classical music simply for what they are: human achievements. Not European, not Western, just human. Think of the vast scope and span of world history that led to its development. What a story.
Those first two sentences and not true at all. The development of classical music in Europe was not simply a matter of luck or coincidence. It was the direct outcome of the Catholic church's desire to systematize and standardize musical notation and the performance of liturgical chant, and that is just one of the factors that could not, and did not, occur anywhere else.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Sure, that's true, and also very interesting by the way, I just meant no one's trying to claim that only Europeans could have developed classical music. It's an accident of history that it happened where it did. I think that puts it accurately, no?
@@dem8568The conditions were right in Europe for further musical development beyond the generally monophonic traditions of music in the Middle East, India, China etc. Beyond the Catholic church, power and money played a big part in the development and stimulation of Western Classical music, and the Aristocracy, especially monarchs like King Louis XIV of France, played a big role from the 17th century onwards, declining after the French revolution.
@DavesClassicalGuide Wow! Interesting point, Dave. While I know the influence of the Catholic Church on especially Medieval and Renaissance music, I never considered what influence such systematization had on music beyond that period.
So if I suggest--no, say outright, that native British cuisine is far inferior to, say, Thai or North African fare, I suppose I'm being elitist. Even though it's demonstrably true. Similarly with Western classical music vs. other musics while recognizing that those other cultures have had great and beneficial influence on Western musical operations by Britten, Puccini, Debussy, etc. Cultural appropriation? No, cultural celebration. Or, to return to cooking analogy, fusion with delicious results for tongue, eye and ear.
Who on earth would watch this channel if they weren't "an elitist"? I mean that's the main idea, right? To decide on what is better or worse. Anyway, I can't stand this (post)modern culture of "anti-elitism" since inherently it is just a different and more insidious kind of snobbery (snob: a person who believes that their tastes in a particular area are superior to those of other people). In this case, I'm better than you because I choose not to make any value judgements about anything, ever. Well, firstly, that's plainly a lie. Everyone does have tastes that they regard as better - and generally about most things and all of the time. Second, who cares? I mean it just makes you more boring to feign such a position. But lastly, please just get over yourselves!
Oh dear mr Delius. The handle says it all. People claiming everything they don’t agree with from across the globe is “ideology” or something. With all due respect you needs perhaps to get around a bit more, talk to people from other cultures and listen to their sophisticated music
@@murraylow4523 You don‘t know me, so please don‘t get personal. I have hundreds of recordings of other cultures‘ music (Indian, Afroamerican), and I travelled many countries. No point made. Greetings from Berlin.
I am interested in politics - I've been a politician, of course I'm interested in politics. BUT not cultural politics, oh please God save us from that.... I'm so sick of it.. I love many forms of music - Qawalli (spelling bound to be wrong), Klezmer, Chinese and Indian classical music, some forms of rock, the blues - I love it, I revere it even: John Lee Hooker, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Ravi Shankar and the treasury of Indian music he revealed: love it, love all of it. Why would I not? But taking these corpuses and pretending they can reach the sublime levels of great Western classical music? NO. No, no, and again no - it's just stupid to do that. I didn't watch your first video when you advanced this thesis, knew that the mob would descend on you, and God love 'em, but I just don't want to hear these crass arguments ever again: they aren't even arguments, they don't deserve the name. Without the consolations, the insights, the power, the sheer quality of classical music, I seriously believe I'd have jumped off the nearest convenient cliff years ago - it has sustained me, supported me when I needed it, allowed me to indulge my grief, enabled me to enjoy and share my joys: there is nothing like it, there could be nothing like it, and I value every video you give us (for nothing!) because you explain and expand and share so much more than I'd ever otherwise be aware of. I can find the rest - it's out there: I can try to understand Manashe Skulnik, I can attempt to share the passion, if not the religious impulse, of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, I can be swept away by Chinese classical music which represents the flow of water and the flight of birds, but however much they may stir my emotions and evoke my nostalgia, and relax my mood in times of stress, it's Western classical music that gives me all that and more; while political correctness just gives me a sharp pain in the fundament. Away with it! (I've mentioned God twice in this disquisition, but I'm afraid that doesn't reveal the merest hint of religious faith: whatever my soul may be, and wherever it might reside, music satisfies and nourishes it. ) Apologies for lingering so long in your space!
