Book review gems -- And general snark.
So, after attending a performance that featured John Adams’s “Strange and Sacred Noise” on the program, I was rather curious about the place of noise in the more conventional and academic evolution of music. Tonight, using my astounding link-clicking and google-searching capacities, I ran across Adams’s website. It seems he has written a book. I like books, so I glanced through the reviews that he has chosen to feature in praise of his work.
Soon thereafter, I began to wonder: why are these writers employed, and why am I not?
(Aside from a reluctance to submit work for publication and a lack of belief in even the most basic of deadlines, that is.)
"Adams' writing is clear and bright and lucid; it fascinates and illumines. This is the best music book I've read for a long time."
– Rupert Loydell, Tangents
Ok, I get it, Rupe, you like light – but 3+ references to light in just one sentence? And you do know that clear and lucid are synonyms, right? Even I think that’s overkill. Also, illumines isn’t exactly a word that just falls off the tongue, particularly when it’s preceded by a word that ends in “-nates.” I understand that you probably avoided rhyming intentionally, so as not to sound trite, but since that battle has long since been lost, at least let the sentence have the cadence that it wants. (Seriously, you’re reviewing a book about music, and about percussive arts in particular. Pay attention to cadence.) Finally, you read this book for a long time, did you? Perhaps your mind kept wandering away after light-tangents, as opposed to engaging with the material.
"Adams writes like a poet; his words evocating the same spare landscape that he captures in his music..."
– Sequenza 21
And you, sir or madam from Sequenza 21, write like a college student trying to bullshit his way through a freshman composition course. Perhaps you were debating between using “evoke” and “are evocative of,” and didn’t have time to proofread. Maybe you’re pretentious enough to think that “evocating” is a more obscure form of either of the two aforementioned phrases, and that anyone who would use the word “evoke” is a plebeian who hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about. Either way, I’m not impressed. Finally, I’m curious as to what exactly you think a “spare landscape” is. If you know your vocabulary and etymology, the word does actually work to paint a frugally unforgiving landscape, but it’s hardly as descriptive as a “sparse landscape,” which I am sure is what you meant. Read what you write!
As for me, I do intend to write (and read) more about noise, and the state of music in academia, on Monday.
Soon thereafter, I began to wonder: why are these writers employed, and why am I not?
(Aside from a reluctance to submit work for publication and a lack of belief in even the most basic of deadlines, that is.)
"Adams' writing is clear and bright and lucid; it fascinates and illumines. This is the best music book I've read for a long time."
– Rupert Loydell, Tangents
Ok, I get it, Rupe, you like light – but 3+ references to light in just one sentence? And you do know that clear and lucid are synonyms, right? Even I think that’s overkill. Also, illumines isn’t exactly a word that just falls off the tongue, particularly when it’s preceded by a word that ends in “-nates.” I understand that you probably avoided rhyming intentionally, so as not to sound trite, but since that battle has long since been lost, at least let the sentence have the cadence that it wants. (Seriously, you’re reviewing a book about music, and about percussive arts in particular. Pay attention to cadence.) Finally, you read this book for a long time, did you? Perhaps your mind kept wandering away after light-tangents, as opposed to engaging with the material.
"Adams writes like a poet; his words evocating the same spare landscape that he captures in his music..."
– Sequenza 21
And you, sir or madam from Sequenza 21, write like a college student trying to bullshit his way through a freshman composition course. Perhaps you were debating between using “evoke” and “are evocative of,” and didn’t have time to proofread. Maybe you’re pretentious enough to think that “evocating” is a more obscure form of either of the two aforementioned phrases, and that anyone who would use the word “evoke” is a plebeian who hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about. Either way, I’m not impressed. Finally, I’m curious as to what exactly you think a “spare landscape” is. If you know your vocabulary and etymology, the word does actually work to paint a frugally unforgiving landscape, but it’s hardly as descriptive as a “sparse landscape,” which I am sure is what you meant. Read what you write!
As for me, I do intend to write (and read) more about noise, and the state of music in academia, on Monday.
posted by Beth | 3:08 AM
1 Comments:
OK, I suppose I have to re-read the addendum to my astrological article critique, which addendum you so mercilessly ground to dust describing it as (already) chopped.
Post a Comment
<< Home