Re: Stephen Edgar
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 5:15 pm
David, I couldn't agree more with you (and Clive)!
It's a bit the same in classical music. In order to sound "fashionable", some modern so-called critics dismiss the much-aired, well-loved works that have stood the test of time, in favour of extremely odd-sounding dissonant stuff, which as the great pianist Arthur Rubinstein so aptly put it, amounts to a cacophony of "fart, whortle and tweet"!!
That's not to say that lesser known works cannot be beautiful, just as some well-known works can grate on the ear. Whether a piece of music or poetry was written yesterday or a thousand years ago, and whatever its style or theme - the fact remains, it is either bad or good!
I will certainly take a look at more of Edgar's works.
Cheers, Shelley
It's a bit the same in classical music. In order to sound "fashionable", some modern so-called critics dismiss the much-aired, well-loved works that have stood the test of time, in favour of extremely odd-sounding dissonant stuff, which as the great pianist Arthur Rubinstein so aptly put it, amounts to a cacophony of "fart, whortle and tweet"!!
That's not to say that lesser known works cannot be beautiful, just as some well-known works can grate on the ear. Whether a piece of music or poetry was written yesterday or a thousand years ago, and whatever its style or theme - the fact remains, it is either bad or good!
I will certainly take a look at more of Edgar's works.
Cheers, Shelley