wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comment from jeff
Date: June 2, 2008, 7:45 pm

I’ve been enjoying your show. I think your approach is refreshing.

Thanks,
Jeff

Comment from Keith T.
Date: June 2, 2008, 8:06 pm

Labels for music are interesting, but not ultimately significant. Most composers don’t go into a piece thinking it’s “classical” or “pop.” Labels may have a direction for an artist, though, I would think. Moreover, the mainstream media review albums and songs, and try to fit artists into templates. Record stores, and now digital download sites, organize artists into categories for purposes of simplification, perhaps, but all these moments of categorization move many people to believe those very categories. And what is “pop” music but popular music at that time and place? I’ve seen the marking “Classical/Pop” in a record store because these categories are so fluid.

Comment from Julie Diamond
Date: June 2, 2008, 9:07 pm

Dear Terrance McKnight,
I just really want to listen to classical music. There isn’t any radio station now that plays classical music except QXR, and that entails listening to ads. Can’t you please play classical music - PLEASE??? It is very sad.

Comment from Ken Trotta
Date: June 2, 2008, 9:56 pm

Terrance,
I think your show rocks, don’t change a thing. I’m addicted. What was the name of the last song and who was the composer?

Thanks,

Comment from rahimah lateef
Date: June 2, 2008, 10:00 pm

i love the show
the eclectic nature thrills me
i don’t know classical music but i enjoy listening to the show
at times wync is my station of choice–that’s my rhythm right now–continue despite the fundamentalists, ok?

Comment from Stephen Herschkorn
Date: June 2, 2008, 10:12 pm

We can argue for days about what is classical music and what is not. In my opinion, jazz is not classical. Whatever you want to call it, you have not been playing the music I care for (which ranges from Gregorian chant to Ligeti Adams, Pärt, et al.). I find it a significant loss, and my repsonse has been to turn off the radio. Soon, I will not bother to turn it on.

Comment from moe cipher
Date: June 3, 2008, 2:22 am

i understand people’s frustration terrance but i’m glad you’re doing what you’re doing. if many of these people had it their way the classical audience will continue to grey and shrink.

i listened before and i listen now. you will lose longtime listeners but you will gain new listeners and turn alot of people on to some good music.

Comment from Emma Missouri
Date: June 3, 2008, 6:41 pm

Dear Terrance McKnight,
I call it “Western European Classical Music.”
All cultures have “classical music” whether they’re found in Africa, Asia or the Pacific Ocean. I love experiencing music from all over the earth, from just about every era and almost every instrument. Your program has that lush variety that makes music a wonder and the people who compose and play music wonderful. Thanks for the variety!

Comment from danica phelps
Date: June 3, 2008, 7:17 pm

Hi Terrance,
I just realized that I should add my support to your wonderful program. I heard you read some of the negative things that people have been saying about your program and it didn’t occur to me till now that I could counter that on this blog! (I’m not a blogger in any way). I LOVE your program. I think the the combination of you and the also very wonderful David Garland makes for the perfectly encompassing music that I love to listen to in the evenings. I never listen to anything else.
Thank you for persevering!

Comment from Michael Kowalski
Date: June 3, 2008, 7:32 pm

Dear Terrance McKnight,

“Classical” strikes me as almost useless. The Brazilians use the term “música erudita,” which strikes me as just as bad, though for different reasons. But there is a category that cuts across cultural and epocal boundaries: discursive music, which is a term I use for anything that’s involved in spinning out time frames longer than a couple of minutes. I published an article on this idea couple of years ago in “Perspectives of New Music” (Summer 2006). I know that “discursive” has the ring of academic jargon, but at least it doesn’t imply a value judgment. Here’s what I meant by the term:

“Discursive music is music which uses purely acoustic means to justify its own length. It may be allied with text, but it doesn’t rely on text for its primary sense of unity. It may be long or short, but it tends to be long . . . It may be in any style, from any historic period or culture, and it may be more or less allied with mundane nonmusical uses, although it tends to rise above its original context by the sheer force of its argument. It may be improvised or written down in advance, although it sets goals for itself that are quite hard to bring off without some sort of a score. It may spring from Hollywood, Harvard, Harlem, or Cape Verde, but it strains to grow away from it roots without ever quite severing the bond. Its argument is circular. Its raison d’être is to justify its existence. It is as much an attitude of listening as it is an approach to music making.”

Comment from listener in brooklyn
Date: June 3, 2008, 7:58 pm

love the show - what is this playing right now?

Comment from kathy gaffney
Date: June 3, 2008, 9:02 pm

Your program is a joy. Every evening is a new adventure. Please keep expanding my mind with your selections.

Comment from MCD
Date: June 3, 2008, 9:42 pm

Terrance,

I didn’t know you were the “Barack Obama” of classical music:

“A pair of Obama counterparts in radio are Limor Tomer and Terrance McKnight of WNYC (Evening Music), ready to lead the listeners (non-traditional listeners, maybe?) into fresh sounds. They try to be inclusive, non-elitist (no, I don’t think Obama is elitist), and they don’t pander. They present honest but unusual choices without apology.”

You can find the article in its’ entirety here:

http://www.adaptistration.com/scanningthedial/2008/04/ive-never-been.html

Go Barack!!!

MCD

Comment from Joe V
Date: June 3, 2008, 9:43 pm

Simply stated, I try to get beyond labels to what interests me. Mostly I enjoy hearing works that are unfamiliar to me (which is easy enough as a thousand years of music with more every day is a bit more than I can wrap my arms around). I like to think of your show as one big advertisement for music. I admit it, I am a consumer. If you play something that interests me enough, I’ll buy it. In that way I can spend as much time as I like with it. What I do not need from any radio program is incessant repetition. I expect to be educated and freed, not numbed and enslaved. You keep up the variety, I’ll keep listening.

Comment from KF
Date: June 3, 2008, 10:05 pm

Terrance:
You certainly are a breath of fresh air which I enjoy ‘most’ of the time. You played a piece by Steve Reich. I must say that that music says nothing to me. In fact, I find it mildly annoying for its apparent lack of content. BUT, I assume that there is something there and I am willing to learn. May I propose a mildly educational component to your presentation. Maybe it is just ignorance on my part that prevents me from enjoying this kind of music more. So, here is a new challenge for you.
Thanks.

Comment from Tony Stewart
Date: June 4, 2008, 8:42 pm

I’ve been a huge fan of Evening Music for years. Although I enjoy your voice and in theory I’m a fan of your approach, I find myself listening to the program less and less on the nights when you do the programming. Tonight, for example, you seem to be playing piece after piece that consists mainly of rhythms but little or no melody. Five or ten minutes of this is great but the Steve Reich piece that’s on right now is 30 minutes long and you’ve been playing similar things all evening as well as most of this week. This isn’t the wide-ranging show I used to enjoy. I urge you to find a better balance between the great richness of 500 years of fascinating and varied music that has been the hallmark of this program in the past, and the mostly more modern pieces that you like to play. You’ve brought some nice new touches (and sounds) to the program but I miss the breadth and quality of what we’ve lost much more.

Comment from A. Cherson
Date: June 4, 2008, 10:04 pm

Can we get a now playing or playlist for the show?

Comment from Gerald Jonas
Date: June 5, 2008, 7:40 pm

I agree with the comment about not enough melody. I am a longtime EVENING MUSIC fan, and I admire your approach. But keep mixing it up. Jazz, World, classical, folk, blues, good pop — it’s the mix that makes me sit up and listen. The AMerican Music Festival was good. When I hear hitherto unexpected connections between supposedly different musical traditions, that’s when your show shines. Keep it coming.

Comment from Richard Mitnick
Date: June 5, 2008, 7:55 pm

Terrance-
I have to counter 15. Tony Stewart. I think that you are smacking the ball out of the park.
I am the guy whose first post here to you was “don’t screw it up.” for which I was admonished by George P.

I don’t catch Evening Music enough. I am basically a wnyc2 listener, and a WNYC music listener since about 1985.

My day starts with the superb serious music programming at wprb.com, Princeton University, from 6:00AM-11:00AM; then the same hook-up for the best Jazz in the area until 1:00PM. Then wnyc2 till about 4:00PM. Then the office chills out with something from Live365.com like Kyle Gann’s Post-Classical, or American Composers Forum’s Innova.mu Experimental, or their Jazz; or some mellifluous Goth from In Dark Faith Eternal or The Engulfed Cathedral also at Live365; or one of Rusty Hodges’ eleven chilled streams from Soma.FM at Shoutcast; we often mix in some Hearts of Space. In fact, we just did a solid week of a Hearts of Space retrospective.

So, I am all over the map, and, take it from me, you have brought light and life to an Evening Music which was already well transformed to “500 years of new music” before you got here. You have embellished the work of George and Brad and you can be really proud of what you have done.

I am out of the car and busy in the house, so I won’t hear more tonight, but I needed to counter with my opinion the opinion above by Mr. Stewart.

>>RSM

>>RSM

Comment from mike
Date: June 5, 2008, 8:39 pm

terrance ,

Please address my comment about your scratchy CD’s instead of just removing them off your website. Its a viable concern.

Comment from John Hudak
Date: June 5, 2008, 9:10 pm

Debating the difference between Classical music and Non-Classical is similar to debating the difference between music and sound. Usually it is a no-win situation. In this spring time, I am also reminded of a quote I heard once regarding weeds: weeds are any plant you don’t want.

So, here you go making the people that like the comfort of familiar melodies have to actively listen to what you are playing. I think most people use radio as background while doing other things; so when you play things that they conceive of as being out of the usual, and/or challenging, and/or boring, well, then you have a great radio show.

Personally, I had given up listening to evening music long ago; but just today, while listening to the end of All Things Considered, let the radio stay on for Evening Music. To my surprise, I was able to tell my son who John Cage was, because that’s whose music was playing on the radio. Thank you!

Comment from Roseanne Alvarez
Date: June 5, 2008, 9:41 pm

Great talking point and question; I feel your work and program explore this each time I listen, and I love to do just that: listen. Thank you for making me–and others I know–NOT be able to turn off the radio come 7pm. I will deviate a bit from the question which prompted the discussion to say, Amen for breaking beyond binary/oppositional thinking (classical/not). Clearly, you celebrate MUSIC–in all its diversity–and explore connections and a language across generic “limits,” suggesting a narrative of and in rhythm and melody that has compelled me to post this comment (and listen).

Comment from Gil Zicklin
Date: June 5, 2008, 9:43 pm

I’m reading The Rest is Noise and have a new interest in post-Mahlerian and contemporary music. So I’m enjoying your playlist tonight in a way that I haven’t on Evening Music for a while. Thanks for giving me that opportunity.

Comment from MCD
Date: June 5, 2008, 9:54 pm

What is this piece that has been playing for the last few minutes? It’s exquisite!!!!!!!!!

MCD

Comment from Paul J. Schaefer
Date: June 5, 2008, 10:06 pm

Terrence:
I am 74 years old and have been listiening to so-called classical music for over 65 years and I have never had such consistent pleasure as I have had listening to your seamless selections of fresh and interesting new and old music. Where do you find it? Your erudition seems bottomless. Please continue just as you are.
The only thing I am unhappy with is the so-called wordless music that has cut your program short this past week. Its not wordless; its nothing but words. I have had words all day. At night, please, I want music selected by you.
Paul

Paul

Comment from Richard Mitnick
Date: June 5, 2008, 10:34 pm

24 Paul is definitely a cool dude.

>>RSM

Comment from Michael Brunas
Date: June 6, 2008, 6:05 am

As a sometimes member of WBGO, all-jazz public radio outlet of Newark, I certainly don’t consider myself a classical snob. It seems obvious to me, however, that WNYC has lost its faith in classical music as viable programming venue. Since New York is unquestionably the most sophisticated market in the country, this is a real pity.

Comment from Melissa C. Beckman
Date: June 9, 2008, 7:46 pm

Hi Terrance,
Here I am, working late at the office, listening to your show tonight.

I just love the pieces you’ve played so far (well, maybe the Cage was a bit too jarring for my mood). Who sang “It’s Too Darn Hot” and the lovely [Chinese, Asian inspired?], chilling vocal piece? That vocal before the Cage was “chilling” as the air around me slowly warmed (a/c) is off. In a few minutes I’ll be shutting down my computer to head home. For me, Keith Jarret is appropriate winding down music (ah, Hollenback (sp?)is now airing, also appropriate). I hope you’ll post tonight’s playlist on your site.

Thank you for the nice selection of eclectic music.
Melissa B.

Comment from Anne
Date: June 9, 2008, 7:57 pm

The start to tonight’s show was real NYCity. I like the way you mix it up, and I wish you’d give us the playlist a bit more consistently so we can find out what we’re listening to before it goes out of our heads, and also wish you wouldn’t truncate some of the pieces you play. If you really want to cross the line, give us some Lovin’ Spoonful on a day like today. The perfect NYC song. If you can play Meredith, you can play that!

Comment from Tim Trompeter
Date: June 9, 2008, 8:11 pm

Hi, Terrance - Blurring the lines is a wonderful, creative practice. From Billie H. to John Cage hits me right how I listen. Thank you for playlists like this - now, and into the future. I believe that true musicians hear the real thing in music of all genres, across all boundaries. I’m thrilled and gladdened by your approach. You are making a wonderful contribution to the cultural mix.
Tim Trompeter

Comment from steve kaufman
Date: June 9, 2008, 8:46 pm

First of all, I really enjoy your show. Lately you’ve even wooed me away from KCRW during the evening hours.

…mostly because I’m a total polygamist - one day totally craving Arvo Part or Luigi Nono, the next Coltrane, or Bjork, or Burial. (Now there’s one for you - I’d totally flip if you played some music from Burial on your show.)

As to your topic, the difference between ‘classical music’ and ‘pop’, I feel a real need to respectfully disagree with the comments of one of the bloggers who says ‘Labels for music are interesting, but not ultimately significant. Most composers don’t go into a piece thinking it’s “classical” or “pop.”’. Well…I personally think they do think that way.

I really think that the difference between ‘classical’ (a word that is probably severely outmoded) people and ‘pop’ people is one of intent. I think ‘classical’ people think in terms of the tradition, which is usually a more intellectual approach. It is almost inevitable that someone who spends time thinking of the almost 500 year arc that stretches between Palestrina and Stockhausen spends part of that time thinking about how they fit into that continuum. I read a recent interview with Rhys Chatam, a composer I admire, who makes music with electric guitars and drums, but who talks about Webern and Ligeti and Kagel. He is NOT a pop musician even though sometimes his music sounds like Sonic Youth. And Thurston Moore is NOT a classical musician. Golijov and John Digweed both use laptops - and maybe the same software programs - but one of them is thinking Carnegie Hall and the other is thinking Pascha. The forty years of cross-fertilization we’ve had since “Sargent Pepper’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band” has not changed the fact that Carnegie Hall and Pascha are two very different places. Depending on the type of person you are, one might bore you to death, or the other might give you a bad headache.

I don’t see any of this as being overwhelming important. I like Golijov and I love John Digweed…but there’s no use pretrending they’re the same.

p.s.

I have one request. Years ago I heard on WNYC a version of Stravinsky’s ‘Les Noces’ with singers who had that “Bulgarian Voices” vocal quality. Amazing!! Can you dig that out some time?

Comment from Alan
Date: June 9, 2008, 9:33 pm

It’s all music. If it moves you, it achieved its purpose.

Comment from Jason Wallker
Date: June 10, 2008, 9:50 am

This show is really special and should be a model for radio everywhere. I must admit that I can’t seem to find where it is offered as a podcast on itunes. any help here? loved the “fix m” spiritual and the piece by Ollabelle.

Comment from Barbara Crafton
Date: June 10, 2008, 6:52 pm

I am a pastor by profession, and your work strkes me as having this in common with mine: you have to lead, which means offering both challenge and comfort by turns. I think you’re doing a fine job at that, and love the blend. I especially like it when you give us a few different musical ways of accomplishing the same thing. Evening Music has always been wonderful, but it’s much more exciting now.

Comment from Kurt-Owen Richards
Date: June 10, 2008, 7:33 pm

Why is it so hard to find a link to comment on WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW? I wanted to comment on how courageous your programming is tonight (and ask for more context to prepare us for the appreciation of it) but, as in previous visits, I can’t go right to a place to leave comments. In fact, I’m not sure you’re going to get this one within any appropriate time-frame, and my comments are probably in response to a completely difference post. C’est dommage.

Comment from MCD
Date: June 10, 2008, 8:20 pm

Thanks for the Cook pieces. Just so you know-it sounds as if you are having way too much fun at work! We should all have jobs/careers that we enjoy as much. Keep it coming.

MCD

Comment from Tom, Cooper Sq.
Date: June 10, 2008, 10:10 pm

Classic music is, in each culture’s epochs of youth, mid-wisdom, and decay THE music which displays the struggle to apply imagination to address the crisis of the epoch. This means that there is classic music from a time, never for all time. It also means there’s classic music and everything else… so there’s no classical vs pop, or jazz, or anything else that can make sense in usefully differentiating how the music works on the listener’s mind. (The composer is, after all, the first listener.)

Each new generation of music listeners makes its independent discovery that childhood is a handicap. Feel-good sound, no matter what it’s rapture, is a substitute for living rather than an enhancement to living. Feeling good in body and mind is not a sufficient supplier of happiness. What to do about this? Re-listening in depth, with examining attention, with analysis and synthesis, to music for what it offers us. Classic music is not just a question of survival, of something lasting as a “tradition”. What keeps older epoch’s music being reheard is that musicians feel it is compelling (under exacting examination and analysis), thus replaying it. Why does this happen with certain music and not with other music? It is because certain music CONFRONTS us with a way of looking at how to deal with our contemporary crises (personal psychic, historic, civilizational, etc.). It’s rather uncomfortable to even consider that we actually have crisis around us… but it’s really undeniable. Music that addresses our crisis, our vibrant anxieties and disquietude, and presses the questions we have to face for imaginative solutions keeps us actively intelligent. Classics focus us and don’t let go. If we dawdle, we can and must relisten. Here’s a little way to think of this: National anthems are not classical music, even though they persist historically and are played very very often. They are tokens of an ideology, but they don’t speak about a contemporary crisis. Repeated often, they are not listened to as outstanding openings in the imaginative fabric, nor as speaking to crisis and its solution. They are substitutes for examination, and they are repeated so that there will be conformity to a putative identity, not so that there will be dispassionate examination and therefore new answers where old answers to crises have failed. Much of popular music has a very similar static standing, whatever the play-frequency.

A classic of music contains an important challenge. It’s importance is, in fact, that THAT SPECIFIC challenge is fertile for contemporary inventiveness. Many who listen are not quite able to hear the specifics of the challenge, though it is in plain evidence for everyone to find with a bit of practiced aural skill. The challenge arrests complacency and drives attentiveness in a productive way. It isn’t solace. A classic will not suffer identity-parameters to be the final import. This means that its rigor of internal discipline refuses to be ethnic or culturally-bound. (It’s fine in general reasoning to classify “western classical” apart from “eastern classical”, but when it’s classic in its preoccupations, whether east or west, it meets the standard of facing challenges without shirking them.) A genuine classic is revisited primarily to re-initiate the revolution in some human crisis, and this chiefly means that a classic keeps-on breaking the bones of personal identity and its petty fixations.

In the aesthetics of music classics there are aesthetic focuses and non-aesthetic focuses. The aesthetic is comprised of challenges that sound in some orderly way, in radical rhythms, radical melodies, radical harmonies. These are radical because that’s what can address crisis. Were jingles able to do so in one common rhythm, melody or harmony, those would have lasting expressive power. The uncommon-enough to undo the old patterns is what’s required. We hear this distinction in the selected comparisons of music played on Evening Music night after night, (more-so earlier in each week, but sometimes over the weekend too).

The non-aesthetics of music take up subjects that are actually not musical in any technical sense. The cultural component of music’s meaning develops from conventions and the musically extraneous titling and commentary that gets attached to music, the “talk” about it. Listening to the music as music benefits from aesthetic pointers, but not so much from cultural references. This principle has exceptions, of course. Music will fail to be classic if it is anthem or admonition; because these are ultimately closed ended statement forms. A classic can survive and perform it’s role of facing crisis and offering renewed answers if it’s form is as query or antimony. Examples of the latter are robust in Bach, in the rogue wit of Beethoven (except for his drinking hall ironic “song of Joy” setting), in Debussy, Satie, Webern, Schoenberg, Berg, Cage, Kapustin, Sorabji, Takemitsu, Rzewski, and there are many worthy others on this general trajectory. It might be said that we can foresee already who will be early among the imperatives to study at conservatory in 3030. Why is such a venture more than a guess? The answer is in looking carefully at the crisis of epochs and of HOW those crises repeatedly need and obtain imaginative vigor and lucid rigor.
Ciao, T

Comment from rgw
Date: June 10, 2008, 10:33 pm

After reading these comments, what do they say, “you can’t please everyone”. I feel sorry for Julie-3 and Tony-16, and other grumblers. However, what’s a music show to do, with such varied taste in the audience?
I guess if WNYC is going to be about 500 years of new music, which is a good program theme, all you can do, along with Garland is try to distribute all that is available, classic, jazz, etc, over the given air time, and shoot for pleasing most of the people most of the time, which, I think in all fairness, is achieved.
p.s. Also go back further with some early music as well

Comment from Richard Mitnick
Date: June 11, 2008, 1:55 pm

31 Steve Kaufman makes a very important point.
KCRW’s largest market outside of Los Angeles is New York City.

That probably means member dollars lost to WNYC.

Mr Kaufman, obviously an internet listener, should not be limited to Evening Music. I hope that he will try wnyc2 for 24/7/365 “non-generic classical music”, and “500 years of new music”.

Comment from steve kaufman
Date: June 11, 2008, 7:14 pm

Gotta be Art Tatum (???) (with all those chops)

Comment from Jenny Hirschowitz
Date: June 11, 2008, 7:21 pm

Terrance,

Don’t change a thing. Your program not only rocks, it makes my evening. Thank you for your wonderful and eclectic selections and your comments are always spot on. Bonus: Your mellifluous voice goes miles to soothe away the harangues of a Manhattan day.

Gratefully, Jenny

Comment from Jenny Hirschowitz
Date: June 11, 2008, 7:37 pm

Someone to watch over me? Errol Garner maybe?

Comment from Carol Marsh
Date: June 11, 2008, 7:40 pm

Steve reich

Comment from Cliff Walker
Date: June 11, 2008, 7:47 pm

Greetings,

Like Mr. Kaufman, I too, think it’s the fabulous musicianship of Art Tatum.

Comment from Tom, Cooper Sq.
Date: June 12, 2008, 7:44 pm

It’s Maurizio Pollini, I believe. Ciao, T

Comment from MCD
Date: June 12, 2008, 8:01 pm

It’s either Maurizio Pollini or Murray Perahia.

MCD

Comment from steve kaufman
Date: June 12, 2008, 8:06 pm

god, i love/hate these radio quizzes!

I’m guessing it might be Rubenstein, except it’s so dark sounding for Rubenstein. But it’s obviously an old recording, and maybe that’s why it’s so dark.

Comment from Oliver
Date: June 12, 2008, 8:14 pm

Think it’s Dinu Lipatti.
BTW, it ain’t easy to find the link to this blog. With all the $ WNYC must spend on web development, it should be a lot easier.

Comment from Paul
Date: June 12, 2008, 8:26 pm

The 1940’s solist is Rudoff Serkin

Comment from susan
Date: June 12, 2008, 8:31 pm

1946 ? athletic. rubenstein comes to mind.

Comment from Davis Erin
Date: June 12, 2008, 8:36 pm

I vote for Rubinstein as well.

As for tonight’s topic - I think the lines between what we call “classical” and pop (or what have you) have become spectacularly blurred - and all for the better, IMO! What we’re hearing these days is a true amalgamation of styles, the influence of which can be found most recently in the critical and academic success of groups like the Kronos Quartet, Meridian Arts Ensemble, Alarm Will Sound, ETHEL and Bang On A Can.

To catch an audience these days, composers will have to reach deeply into the common vernacular (a la John Adams) for themes that are familiar to people. Doing so will necessitate a strong understanding of a broad range of musical styles and other cultural issues.

I love your show - you’ve made a tremendous difference in the scope of WNYC. You’ve influenced me to become a monthly sustainer, as a matter of fact.

Comment from MCD
Date: June 12, 2008, 8:36 pm

I agree with #47-Steve-I feel like I’m in class and I hear my teacher saying, “Don’t give up Casey-you’ve almost got it. Since it’s preludes and not etudes and it was recorded in 1946 it either has to be Artur Rubinstein or Vladimir Sofronitzky-otherwise I’m stumped. Waiting for Professor McKnight to give us the correct answer
MCD

Comment from eric
Date: June 12, 2008, 8:48 pm

i think its Sviatislov Richter or Schnabel

Comment from eric
Date: June 12, 2008, 8:57 pm

arthur rubenstien

Comment from steve kaufman
Date: June 12, 2008, 9:44 pm

One last shout-out:

Thanks for that crazy choral thing you’re playing now; it’s like Goretcki on steroids - dig that zany East European mysticism. (I’m half Latvian)

Comment from je
Date: June 12, 2008, 11:42 pm

shapey stockhausen boulez nono berio lachenmann rihm lansky babbitt dallapiccola martino ran berger kurtag sariaaho gubaidalina schnittke xennakis and so many others deserve to be heard. too much glass/reich/adams/muhly/monk. you want to be “inclusive” which I admire but you exclude too much. forget labels and play music. avoid the trendy. find the valuable. challenge us. challenge yourself.

Comment from Kristin du Fosse
Date: June 25, 2008, 5:28 pm

I am finally getting to enjoy your show. Please don’t change. I miss the banter.

Comment from Kristin du Fosse
Date: June 25, 2008, 5:29 pm

I am enjoying your show. Such a variety of music. Keep up the banter.

Comment from Tony Stewart
Date: June 26, 2008, 9:26 pm

Hi Terrence -

I posted a comment much earlier in this thread (#16) during a week when I wasn’t much enjoying the mix. I just wanted to say that tonight I’ve been listening for about two hours (Paganini variations through Bach’s Italian and now a soprano singing something whose name I didn’t catch, with lots of 20th century stuff in between) and I’ve enjoyed every minute of it. Obviously the tastes of your listeners are all over the map and you can’t please all of us all the time, but I thought you’d like to know that you’ve definitely pleased this listener tonight.

Comment from Mort
Date: July 22, 2008, 9:31 pm

Terrance,
I posted a comment not long after you started. In it I said that you were playing music without changes and constant rhythms. While I feel that lately you have been more diverse and devoted less time to that type of music, I still find it annoying and turn off the program if it continues too long.
If you use literature as an analogy, it would be like reading the same word or small sets of words for pages. For dance, it would be constantly repeating the same steps or sets of motions for a long time. To me it is quite tiring. I enjoy both classical and jazz if you will allow the categorization. I like melodic sequences and chord sequences. All art is a sensory experience and it should evoke feelings, hopefully not negative as some of the works you play.
I will continue listening and enjoy the variety that appeals to me, but I may selectively turn it off.
Mort.

Comment from Carol Tyson
Date: July 24, 2008, 4:29 pm

I am so enjoying your hosting of Evening Music . Am often driving home from work at 7pm and am hearing so much new (to me) music, with wonderful and surprising segues from classical to almost anything else. I find myself smiling in the car, sometimes wishing I had further to drive…
And.. you have a nice manner and great voice. Thanks.