Why does Scarlatti suck so bad?
Ok, to clarify, Alessandro Scarlatti.
1. He really liked opera. Not that opera is inherently evil, but it did eventually start to suck (thanks, in part, to Scarlatti and his innovations)
2. " His style was the culmination of the Baroque leading to the inevitable characteristics of Classicism"......to which I reply, so he's the sperm donor that allowed Haydn to come around. Blech! Couldn't we have stayed in the Baroque a little longer had it not been for Scarlatti?
3. He's not Purcell
4. He's not Handel
5. He's not Bach
6. He's not Monteverdi
Ok, I feel as thought I've been enough of an asshole today
1. He really liked opera. Not that opera is inherently evil, but it did eventually start to suck (thanks, in part, to Scarlatti and his innovations)
2. " His style was the culmination of the Baroque leading to the inevitable characteristics of Classicism"......to which I reply, so he's the sperm donor that allowed Haydn to come around. Blech! Couldn't we have stayed in the Baroque a little longer had it not been for Scarlatti?
3. He's not Purcell
4. He's not Handel
5. He's not Bach
6. He's not Monteverdi
Ok, I feel as thought I've been enough of an asshole today
posted by Jaques Cartier at 9:03 PM
2 Comments:
no one ever liked A. Scarlatti. Domenico was the scene stealer.
I'll tell you why Scarlatti sucks so bad: cause I can't tell you a single, solitary thing he did which was innovative. And if you try to fill me in, I'll just forget in 2 minutes, which thus renders his innovation as not innovative, since it's immemorable (as being memorable, I think, is necessary for being innovative).
there
or unmemorable. whatever.
Post a Comment
<< Home