Re: Why do you like Mozart's music?

In article <MPG.1e1224126b6360c989fbf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wayne Reimer
says...
>
>In article <do97fb0vjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sdsr@xxxxxxxxxxx says...
>> In article <MPG.1e11843f17502bd0989fbc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wayne Reimer
>> says...
>>
>> >But still, I'm curious about who Simon Roberts thinks are the
>> >equivalents in Philadelphia circa 1790 to Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven.
>>
>> ? I was responding to this portion, and this portion only, of Mr. Schaffer's
>> post:
>>
>Well, ok. And I think you were right in when you said the process
>itself was fairly similar in various cultural centers. I think his
>point, though, was that, if that learning process takes place in an
>environment that is steeped in the history that produced a major chunk
>of the canonical works, it is different in kind than going through the
>process in an environment that didn't, such as Philadelphia.

Assuming you agree with that point, why do you think it's different "in kind?"
How do those differences actually manifest themselves? (I don't think it's
helpful to invoke such concepts as "steeped" without spelling out exactly what
that means.)

So, in a
>roundabout way, I was pointing that out by asking who in Philadelphia
>would be the equivalent canonical composers, the ones which would help
>bring the Philadelphia experience into par with the Austro-German one;
>there are none, of course. Does that make any sense?

Not really (maybe I should try again when I'm more alert). Why do you need
local canonical composers for the educational process in question?

Simon

.