Riding down in the elevator, I heard someone ask: “Did you enjoy it?” Her friend’s answer came back: “Me neither.” I intruded tactlessly: “What makes you think it SHOULD be enjoyable?”

When we look at great art, do we insist on enjoying it? Music is written for all sorts of reasons and purposes.

As I hear it, this piece is expressive of moods and feeling states evoked by the crumbling defenses of Nature against the inroads of Man. We hear awe at the wildness of Western landscapes and the stomping and grinding of man’s machines as they crush all. The music is challenging to the ear as befits this struggle. No wonder we saw people leaving during the performance.

Is the video irrelevant trash? Not to me in this case. Yes, art should not be exploited for political purposes. I found that in this work music and film were compatible. I found neither distracting from the other. Certainly this film was made at a time of great public concern with the fate of Nature — more active concern than at the time when the music was written. But reinterpretations are, for better or worse, very common today, both here and in Europe. I’d say the film arguably put the music in a plausible context. Which is why I should enlighten Timothy Tikker that a reinterpretation by a later film maker of a an earlier composer’s work — even if he finds it wrong-headed and even if the film maker is a Jew and the composer an anti-Semite — is not necessarily an act of revenge. (“Stupidity,” he writes, is the ONLY other possible explanation he can think of!) I’d be happy if he passed this news on to the “countless” others who allegedly share his appalling bigotry.

I do have questions: 1) Was this theme of man against nature Messiaen’s (probably not) or is it Landau’s (or just mine)? 2) Did Messiaen anticipate any multi-media presentation? I ask because I thought the visual material was very well done and evocative (even though a bit repetitive and obvious at times. Clichéd it is not. If you prefer a film with scenes of the great parks of the West, then please don’t think that this would be highly original. National Geographic has scooped you.) Which means that if Messiaen had the theme in mind, but not the visual reinforcement, then I wonder how effective the music would be by itself in expressing it.

And two suggestions: 1) Listeners would do well to attune their ears to Messiaen’s rhythms, sonorities, and harmonies before they witness this work, (e.g., by listening to the Turangalila Symphony) to feel somewhat familiar with these cadences. 2) I wonder whether UMS has ever considered organizing post-concert sessions with its Education department. I would have enjoyed — yes, enjoyed — getting clarification of some things and hearing how people felt and what they thought. I bet I’m not the only one. Now that weeknight concerts start at 7:30 (a splendid idea) an optional session of this sort would provide some closure of the experience for those people who want it. Naturally, not every concert needs this to the same degree. (Einstein would have benefited.) Such an institution will make concert going more satisfying for many in a way that pre-concert talks cannot.

As is true so often, UMS gave us a most valuable experience.