Replies

>>The objective of raising children is NOT to feed them "children's music" but rather to form them with (good) adult taste.

>>There is room for "children's music"--e.g., the 1812 Overture...but not for education in culture.

Wow. I'm reminded of a line from a bad movie: "Were you potty trained at gun point?" Only teasing.

I agree in part with your comments... If the goal is to teach music, for instance, better to teach, "Twinkle, twinkle little star" than "Disco Duck," since it has simple building blocks which become the formation for more advanced musical learning.

On the other hand, an adult's perspective on what is good for children sometimes doesn't fit. I remember the horror of having to sit through "Peter and the Wolf" numerous times throughout my education, because some teachers thought, "it's classical, and it's about a child... it must be great for kids."

That said, I think you misread my post... What I wrote was "*I* like Godspell... it's a *child's* view of Jesus." There was a nature to Jesus which inspired children to run to him, even when adults in the area disapproved of it. There's a simplicity to it which is very appealing.

A good, formal Mass teaches us to say, "My Lord and Savior." Once in a while, a little something is good to remind us we can also say, "Daddy." That said, I was never comfortable with the depiction of Jesus as a clown or fool (as my Daddy was neither), which is why I was curious as to the meaning of it. (I've seen many versions. I know the original featured him as a clown because I've seen the album cover, but I've never seen him portrayed as a clown... the closest is the poor movie version, where he is sort of something between hippie, clown and jester.)

Sorry--my sarcasm sometimes goes over the top... and yes, Twinkle Twinkle is a goodie for the kids--have you heard the orchestrated Variations on that tune? Good stuff. More seriously, the more children are exposed to "good stuff" the more they will recall it AND understand it as they get older; thus the oboe theme for the duck in "Peter," where the oboe mimics the sound of a duck's voice; and the dark, moody minor-dominated tonality of the Wolf theme; the happy strolling music of Peter, etc., etc. Prokoviev was good at using the orchestra to illustrate, and the picture is painted. As to JC: seems to me that JC was never "in a costume." Perhaps the clearest refutation of the "clown" theorists is simply that: JC was Truth unadorned--that is, no disguise is necessary--moreover, a disguise would be contrary to His mission. Mutatis mutandis same for the "fool" theory. It is a wild distortion of reality (God AND Man) for Him to be portrayed as a 'fool,' although it is clear that in relationship to Christ, mankind is the 'fool.' Perhaps the role-reversal these theorists propound is indicative of their massive egos.