# Why are Gerschwin and Satie considered great?



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

*Why are Gershwin and Satie considered great?*

Two Founding Fathers of elevator music. What are their merits? I listened to the compilations of their "best music" and was thoroughly bored. After seeing them on various lists, I see no reason why is other easy-listening and muzak not considered worthy of a top 200 or top 100 as well. What do you think?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

It's spelled Gershwin... and he may be many things, but I have never considered boring as one of them. But brilliant-yes. His music is vibrant, American-sounding, and full of originality in his melodic and harmonic style. There are also strong jazz influences from Black culture. He wrote one of the great American musicals in _Porgy and Bess_. One would have to be dead to the world to miss out on his vibrancy... Satie was an iconoclastic eccentric who wrote with charm, often with a sense of relaxed ambiance, and a playful creativity. Some listeners find his music for the piano relaxing and soothing to hear, and I'm one of them. He followed his own muse and his music is unmistakable in personality and character for those who are familiar with it. There's often a subtle rebellion against outer conventions beneath the surface. Both composers absorbed some of the popular influences of the day that surrounded them.






Satie: https://www.wrti.org/post/enigmatically-beautiful-music-erik-satie. There's more to him than his three Gymnopedies.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

I am no expert on either but such a dismissive perspective on two composers who have brought such an individual contribution both to the development of music and perhaps more importantly the enjoyment of the listener seems inappropriate. I would have thought that whatever the relative merits of their music 'boring' is perhaps one of the least illuminating adjectives!


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Early Satie was a big influence of Debussy, who is credited for most of stuff that Satie actually innovated.

Gershwin is famous. I don't know, if he is great in any way, but I am not that familiar with the music from this time and place. (I doubt he was very original from what I have heard by other composers in the same period and location.)


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Gershwin has been a source of inspiration for Michael Finnissy, see what you think of this






Some information here

https://britishmusiccollection.org.uk/article/50-things-michael-finnissys-gershwin-arrangements

Earl Wild too


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Never cared for Satie. Some of his pieces are delightful, but his overall choice of pacing and theme development is up there with some of the most wretched I've heard. Debussy is a night-and-day difference.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Satie is a real influence in music, ever since John Cage wrote "Defense of Satie,"



> With Beethoven the parts of a composition were defined by means of harmony. With Satie […] they were defined by means of time-lengths. The question of structure is so basic, and it is so important to be in agreement about it, that we must now ask: Was Beethoven right or […] Satie? I answer immediately and unequivocally, Beethoven was in error, and his influence, which has been extensive as it is lamentable, has been deadening to the art of music.







I think you can hear his influence in Laurence Crane, refracted through Feldman and Cage no doubt, maybe one of the most interesting contemporary composers.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I think Gershwin is more of a musical/show etc composer than a classical composer, Porgy and Bess has some catchy tunes but so does G&S, but I enjoy both Gershwin and Satie.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Both composers were remarkably influential in their own way, as has been highlighted above. Gershwin for writing a "musical" that is just as easy to classify as a fully-fledged opera, and for being just about the most American-sounding of them all? Satie for his influence on Debussy and thence Les Six? Both are very important in the history of music, clearly, but I feel that if they are to be classified among the greatest, they needed to have composed more great pieces, surely? Sure, there are some popular ones, Rhapsody in Blue, Porgy, Parade, Gymnopedies, Gnossiennes. I'd struggle to put any of those pieces among the pillars of Western Music, sorry.

There are many other composers who have been highly influential, the likes of Glazunov, Balakirev, Henry Cowell etc. Doing something first is one thing, doing it best another......


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

If you think Satie is boring, you haven't heard all of his output. He went from spiritual/minimalist to musical Cubism (writing the same piece three ways, also introducing popular tunes like the Cubists put clips everyday items like Le Journal), to Surrealism (Le Piege de Meduse), also writing the first frame-by-frame film score (Relache). He was a skilled miniaturist (Sports et Divertissements), and wrote both art songs and pop songs. It has been said that he was the first to write Neoclassical pieces. And Socrate stands by itself (Ned Rorem called it in time and out of time). 

Elevator music has been mentioned, and it is true; he invented music specifically not to be listened to (Musique d'Ambulement), telling the audience to use it as a background to conversation. 

As has been said, he influenced Debussy, Ravel, and tons of American composers, like John Cage, Virgil Thomson, and Ned Rorem (who used to sing an excerpt from Socrate every day for inspiration), and he knew just about anybody who was anybody in France at the time. 

I wouldn't call him "among the greatest" so much as I would say he is an influential prophet. He anticipated most every movement in music that developed in the 20th Century. But what he did introduce was a way to write music which was not goal-driven or developmental; it just is what it is. John Cage pointed out how his music is not structured by harmony or melody but by time, which is an interesting thought. Pieces like the Gymnopedies take an idea and, instead of developing it, turn it different ways. And in this, his skill, as Ned Rorem noted, was knowing when to stop.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

If their music is played in elevators it's not their fault. Gershwin and his brother are one of the great songwriting teams in American history. An American In Paris is a great score worthy of attention. I love Satie as well. Sure, the world of commerce has a way of trivializing music that deserves more respect.


----------



## Faville (Sep 15, 2012)

Voted Yes to both since it's kind of unclear what constitutes "the greatest". The fact that they are still programmed, recorded, and loved is somewhat of an indicator that they are among the greats. I personally don't care for Gershwin's music at all. The couple of times I've had the opportunity to perform Rhapsody in Blue (in the strings section) it just seemed like a mess of a piece, but an exciting and innovative mess that I am definitely in the minority for not really liking. I respect the music, though, and recognize it for its place in moving music forward in the culture.
Satie I can't really agree on the elevator music comment. Gymnopedie 1 was certainly overused in commercials and films, and aside from that I can't imagine any of his other pieces being chosen to be played in that context. I'm much more attuned to the mood and sound of Satie than the chaos and noise of Gershwin. Satie's music takes me to places in my heart and mind that no one else does. I have a book of his piano pieces and they are wonderfully weird and unique.

For some any tonal classical music qualifies as elevator music. At the school where I teach they play music in the hallways for passing time between classes. I was able to get a disc of Brahms in the rotation, and I overheard the librarian once mentioning to another person, who asked about the music, that she wasn't sure but it was some elevator music. This included the 4th symphony Allegro giocoso. So I guess if Brahms can be included in the elevator music crowd, then so can just about anyone not composing with blatant dissonance or lack of fifth relationships.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

They are good, they have the niche, but they aren't great. There are a lot of composers that I like but I wouldn't call great.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Satie is a niche composer. He wrote some delightful and beautiful music, but remains pretty obscure for the most part. Now Gershwin - a great talent, no question. Porgy & Bess is first-rate and deserves far more performances; but that will require the Gershwin Estate relaxing the demands on who can perform it. I've heard and played American in Paris enough - don't need it again. Rhapsody in Blue is also overexposed. I loathe Cuban Overture. So for me, Gershwin was one of the great 2nd-rate composers.

What really gets me is the large number of all-Gershwin concerts (or nearly all) that show up around New Years. Who do these orchestras think they're playing to? Frankly, the people who were in their formative years when Gershwin was producing are all (or mostly) dead. Was Gershwin the last talented composer who crossed over from pop to the classics? Bernstein, I suppose did too, but never hit the pops charts the way Gershwin did.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Faville said:


> For some any tonal classical music qualifies as elevator music.


I'm not sure that the Gymnopédies are tonal -- modal surely.

He had an interesting life as far as I can gather from wikipedia. Is there a recommendable biography?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

^^^ Erik Satie by Mary E Davis in the Critical Lives series should be good, the others in that series I have read have been top notch.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> Satie is a niche composer. He wrote some delightful and beautiful music, but remains pretty obscure for the most part.


His music is not obscure at all. True, not many folks would place him in the top ten or twenty, but he's usually ranked in the top 100.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

CnC Bartok said:


> ^^^ Erik Satie by Mary E Davis in the Critical Lives series should be good, the others in that series I have read have been top notch.


It would be nice to have one in French just because . . .he was French. I suppose. Jean-Pierre Armengaud or Bruno Giner maybe.

There's a whole mystical side to Satie that I'm slightly curious about -- Rosicrucianism. I think that people think that his religion is encoded in the music, like J S Bach.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

Mandryka said:


> It would be nice to have one in French just because . . .he was French. I suppose. Jean-Pierre Armengaud maybe.


God, you're hard to please! 

The first biography was by Pierre Daniel Templier, 1932. You might be able to pick up a copy in French, there's an English translation available....a French one on amazon.fr for €14.....


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> His music is not obscure at all. True, not many folks would place him in the top ten or twenty, but he's usually ranked in the top 100.


His music seems to be popping up everywhere. In addition to the well-known Gymnopedie, His Je Te Veux right now is in a cat food commercial. His music was also featured in the recent films Chocolat and Hugo.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> His music is not obscure at all. True, not many folks would place him in the top ten or twenty, but he's usually ranked in the top 100.


Among musically knowledgeable people they will know the name...no guarantees. The general public might recognize a tune, but I am quite certain his name is will draw a complete blank. To people who primarily listen to orchestral music, choral and opera, he's al but unknown. To pianists he's much better known. But it's not surprising - for most people French music consists of Debussy, Ravel, Saint-Saens, Offenbach and that's about it.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Debussy, Ravel, and Satie are often grouped together because they were contemporaries and wrote a great deal of distinctive French music for the piano, among other things. Satie is generally well known though usually considered a lesser talent than Debussy and Ravel. Still, he had a distinctively imaginative style and his music can be readily identified when compared with the other two. 'Satie was also an influential artist in the late 19th- and early 20th-century Parisian avant-garde.' All three were writing what they felt was distinctively French music at a time when Wagner still seemed to be dominating the landscape.

https://www.wrti.org/post/enigmatically-beautiful-music-erik-satie


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2019)

Fabulin said:


> Two Founding Fathers of elevator music. What are their merits? I listened to the compilations of their "best music" and was thoroughly bored. After seeing them on various lists, I see no reason why is other easy-listening and muzak not considered worthy of a top 200 or top 100 as well. What do you think?


I think that your boredom is no more a justification for questioning their greatness than my boredom with Bruckner and Brahms or Wagner and Handel (or, to be less personal, anyone's 'boredom' with the works of any composer).

By all means mount an argument that is based on an objective comparison of their music with Mozart's or Beethoven's, using criteria such as "originality, impact, craftsmanship and enjoyability" (see the recent BBC poll where Satie was ranked at no 45 out of the top 50).

I'm not attracted to Gershwin's music, so I'm not in a position to comment, but I do like Satie's. But, never mind my likes and dislikes; as others have suggested, there's plenty to read on the question of what Satie contributed to 'classical' music, and the consensus is that he is an important composer. In the poll to which I referred above, Gerald Barry wrote, "Just as Beckett withdrew from Joyce to carve out his own world, Satie withdrew from Debussy to carve his. He came out of nowhere - nothing like him before or since [...]"


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I imagine Satie might have regarded "Founding Father of elevator music" as a compliment.

As for whether Satie or Gershwin are "great", I voted yes for both. I have some issues with how useful a term like "great" is, but anyway my vote was more of a rejection of the idea that they wrote muzak.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

between "the greatest" and "muzak" (at least in the sense of worthless music) there's like a ocean of difference. If I had to choose between the two extremes, I think they were much closer to the former. The fact that their music is pleasant and approachable is not a sin at all, and their originality is unquestionable.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

I think both composers are great but Satie is a class above; not just for his music but the for the whole package. I always think of Satie as the world's first conceptual artist. With collaborators of the calibre of Picasso and Cocteau his pedigree and influence can never be underestimated. As already mentioned his musique d'ameublement is pure Avant Garde genius. Listen/watch Parade and check out Vexations.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think it's appropriate for classical music listeners to see that permeating this area of music we know as "classical" is a strong influence of Germanic culture which should be appreciated not just for its great legacy of music, but also criticized for its hubris and mistakes of the past.

The existence of this thread, and the choice of these two composers, shows the inherent bias, and also the conservatism which is evident as a _subtext_ in classical music aficionados.

Without getting uncomfortably specific as to exactly why, the inclusion of George Gershwin ties in neatly to the "bias" side of this equation;

Satie's inclusion, besides being French and included in the "bias" category along with Gershwin, ties in neatly to the "conservative" side because he was so radical and "artsy."


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

what I think is even stranger is that in the thread about the japanese pianist Fabulin talked of "instant classic" for a piece of music that is way simpler and way less musically interesting and original that anything I've ever heard from those two composers.
I could understand someone who is just into heavy stuff like Wagner or Boulez or I don't know, but if you can appreciate a piece like that (and onestly, to my ears that is close to my idea of muzak) how can't you see the value in the music of a Satie that is incredibly better than that one?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

norman bates said:


> what I think is even stranger is that in the thread about the japanese pianist Fabulin talked of "instant classic" for a piece of music that is way simpler and way less musically interesting and original that anything I've ever heard from those two composers.
> I could understand someone who is just into heavy stuff like Wagner or Boulez or I don't know, but if you can appreciate a piece like that (and onestly, to my ears that is close to my idea of muzak) how can't you see the value in the music of a Satie that is incredibly better than that one?


And considering the _subtlety_ of Satie as well. In the Gymnopedies, the subtle change of one note is savored, and changes the harmonic meaning of the whole thing. To me, Satie's time has come.

For Gershwin, I like his Preludes the best.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

norman bates said:


> what I think is even stranger is that in the thread about the japanese pianist Fabulin talked of "instant classic" for a piece of music that is way simpler and way less musically interesting and original that anything I've ever heard from those two composers.
> I could understand someone who is just into heavy stuff like Wagner or Boulez or I don't know, but if you can appreciate a piece like that (and onestly, to my ears that is close to my idea of muzak) how can't you see the value in the music of a Satie that is incredibly better than that one?


Well that's what happens when you let the public in.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's appropriate for classical music listeners to see that permeating this area of music we know as "classical" is a strong influence of Germanic culture which should be appreciated not just for its great legacy of music, but also criticized for its hubris and mistakes of the past.
> 
> The existence of this thread, and the choice of these two composers, shows the inherent bias, and also the conservatism which is evident as a _subtext_ in classical music aficionados.
> 
> ...


If I hadn't read the twaddle you'd already posted on this subject in Area 51, I'd have wondered what you were on about.

It's still twaddle here. Make your own thread on German culture and leave Satie and Gershwin to their own biases.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I love Satie. He is a big influence on my own music, no doubt. Debussy and him are my two big piano heroes!


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Depends on the exact understanding of the OP; I appreciate Satie for his undeniable innovations & his interesting collaborations in the arts, listening occasionally to his music for a while. But there's a lot of the bagatelles, divertissements and trifles that just can't hold my interest for really long-lasting listening; in their own way, they can become monotonous in their insisting elusiveness and preference for irony, IMHO. I think this also applies to large parts of the orchestral works.

De Leeuw for example adds a reflexive dimension to some of the earlier piano works, but - needless to say, perhaps - his personal interpretations are no doubt very far away from those of Satie's own days and the environment of the Salons, music halls, bars and cafes.

As regards Gershwin, the number of works in the classical genres is just too low for him to be among the really greats, IMHO.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> De Leeuw for example adds a reflexive dimension to some of the earlier piano works, but - needless to say, perhaps - his personal interpretations are no doubt very far away from those of Satie's own days and the environment of the Salons, music halls, bars and cafes.


The early works come from a time when he was very interested in Rosicrucianism , and indeed in ancient Greece. I think it would be obviously wrong to present them as salon bagatelles. Unfortunately as far as I can see De Leeuw hasn't written anything about his approach to Satie.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I agree there's a more spiritual side to some of that music, cf. also the Messe des Pauvres, however I don't think that Satie or his public would recognize the De Leeuw sound. And the works are also from exactly the same period as some of the light-hearted Melodies, for example. De Leeuw plays the Petite Ouverture a Danser, the Gymnopedies, Pieces Froides and the Sarabandes in a similar, mystical and very slow way, like the Ogives, Gnoisiennes, or Sonneries Rose Ste Croix. Nobody else, including those who knew Satie, plays like De Leeuw.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2019)

I first fell in love with Satie in the mid-70s on hearing the electronic versions by the Camarata Chamber Group. My older brother had one of the albums and I've since been able to source an mp3 download. I also have versions of the most popular piano pieces by de Leeuw, Roge and McCabe and some of the orchestral by Plasson and the Orchestre National du Capitole Toulouse.

Great? I don't know. My reservations about 'greatness' have been well rehearsed in this Forum, but what I can say is that short form piano works are just as valid as any traditional concerto. I'd rather listen to the 12 Gymnopedie and Gnossiennes (which I think should be listened to as a set, not as individual pieces) than to Beethoven's Emperor.


----------



## Guest (Nov 20, 2019)

Dare I say I'm slightly confused by the differences between the poll question, thread title and the OP?
_
"Worthy of being among the greatest?"
"Why are Gershwin and Satie considered great?"
"What are their merits? [...] I see no reason why is other easy-listening and muzak not considered worthy of a top 200 or top 100 as well. What do you think?"_

I'm not being picky for the sake of being picky. It's just that 'great' implies that anyone who meets certain criteria can be defined as 'great'; whereas 'greatest' implies some kind of quota - only the top 10, 20, 50...where is the line drawn? If only Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are the greatest, then of course there's no room for either of these two. If a case is to be made for their being in the top 10, doesn't it require them to be compared with the other 'greatest', and not just the top three? How does Satie measure up to Wagner? How does Gershwin compare with Haydn?

If we can dispense with 'greatest', the task becomes easier.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> I first fell in love with Satie in the mid-70s on hearing the electronic versions by the Camarata Chamber Group.


.

They were fun. Like inserting a stripper and an atomic bomb into Parade.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

norman bates said:


> what I think is even stranger is that in the thread about the japanese pianist Fabulin talked of "instant classic" for a piece of music that is way simpler and way less musically interesting and original that anything I've ever heard from those two composers.
> I could understand someone who is just into heavy stuff like Wagner or Boulez or I don't know, but if you can appreciate a piece like that (and onestly, to my ears that is close to my idea of muzak) how can't you see the value in the music of a Satie that is incredibly better than that one?


Short answer: my sense of melody. Make of that what you will. I won't argue.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Gershwin was a great composer but not on the level of the usual classical master.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2019)

Manxfeeder said:


> .
> 
> They were fun. Like inserting a stripper and an atomic bomb into Parade.


Er, sorry, Manxfeeder...not sure I get this.


----------



## classical yorkist (Jun 29, 2017)

I think Satie's Nocturnes are absolutely amazing pieces of miniature delight.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Er, sorry, Manxfeeder...not sure I get this.


In the Camarata version of Parade, the section featuring the girl inserts a musical scene with her in a strip bar, and at the end, when all the managers collapse after dancing, they insert an atomic bomb blast.


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2019)

Manxfeeder said:


> In the Camarata version of Parade, the section featuring the girl inserts a musical scene with her in a strip bar, and at the end, when all the managers collapse after dancing, they insert an atomic bomb blast.


Ah, thanks - I've not heard this - it's not on the two Camarata LPs I've got.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I agree with Larkenfield's post #2 on this thread. Well said.

And … if anyone ever compiles a poll for "Worthy of being among the least significant polls ever posted on TalkClassical", please be sure to include this nonsensical Gershwin and Satie one as a candidate for inclusion.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Both pretty colourful. I prefer either over many German composers of the more serious vein. Among the greatest though, I feel is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Hardly know Satie. I would have thought Gershwin was obvious as a master of both popular and classical form


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

DavidA said:


> Hardly know Satie. I would have thought Gershwin was obvious as a master of both popular and classical form


As to Satie, he was a graduate of the Schola Cantorum, and he also was a master of the popular form. So in that sense, they are both similar.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Their Moms like them.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

I voted for both in the pantheon of the greatness. The reason is that the music of these composers has unique musical elements and is very beautiful and characteristic. George's piano and orchestra music are after Aaron's the most ''American'' They smell New York. Erik's piano works are the most ''Parisienne'' I have ever listened. They look like of an older - more mature Chopin's in another place and era. Of a Chopin's who has calmed down and is looking for simpler, but also beautiful, things from his life, far away from his illness and Georgia. An American in Paris, a French in a Polish body or not, what I say is a big YES to their music.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

I would vote if I could select, Not Worthy of An Answer.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Dimace said:


> An American in Paris, a French in a Polish body or not, what I say is a big YES to their music.


Polls are fun, and arguments pro and con are interesting, but in the end, what matters is the YES.

There was a time when I thought I should only be listening to the absolute greats, and even second-tier composers were a waste of time. Then I encountered Satie, and I discovered that I liked his music for no other reason than I liked it. That made me realize that it's my head and my ears, and if something feeds them, then it's worth the encounter.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Gershwin wrote one of America's most popular pieces of music, _Rhapsody In Blue_, and an argument can be made his _Porgy and Bess_ is the best American opera. He is one of America's greatest composers with only Copland clearly ahead of him.

Few would say that about France and Satie though he was a leading inspiration for famous 20th century French composers including Debussy, Poulenc and Milhaud. Satie is the epitome of subtlety and, especially so for people raised on or in love with German music, he takes greater exposure to unearth his beauties.

Most people know or have heard his _Gymnopédies_ and _Gnossiennes_; an ear to his _Parade_ will give you another side of him -- his humor and more outgoing character.

LP enthusiasts should investigate _The Velvet Gentleman _from the 1970s for a pleasant surprise.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Manxfeeder said:


> Polls are fun, and arguments pro and con are interesting, but in the end, what matters is the YES.
> 
> There was a time when I thought I should only be listening to the absolute greats, and even second-tier composers were a waste of time. Then I encountered Satie, and I discovered that I liked his music for no other reason than I liked it. That made me realize that it's my head and my ears, and if something feeds them, then it's worth the encounter.


.........................


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2019)

larold said:


> Gershwin wrote one of America's most popular pieces of music, _Rhapsody In Blue_, and an argument can be made his _Porgy and Bess_ is the best American opera. *He is one of America's greatest composers with only Copland clearly ahead of him.
> *
> Few would say that about France and Satie though he was a leading inspiration for famous 20th century French composers including Debussy, Poulenc and Milhaud. Satie is the epitome of subtlety and, especially so for people raised on or in love with German music, he takes greater exposure to unearth his beauties.
> 
> ...


Not Ives? Where would he figure?

See earlier posts (mine, Manxfeeder's) where the Electronic Satie is also referenced.


----------

