I first read Victor Hugo's Les Miserables in high school. Not in a Lit class, but in French class. We read the book first in English, then gave it a try in the original French.   I have since read it twice more (in English) for the sheer enjoyment of the story and of the writing. I have also seen two movie versions:   the 1935 version with Fredrick March as Jean Valjean and Charles Laughton as Inspector Javert (watched it in French class) and the 1998 version starring Liam Neeson (telecast). I found the 1980 musical, written by Robert Hossein, composed by Claude-Michel Schönberg, with libretto by Alain Boublil an excellent musical adaptation, and apparently others share my estimate because "Les Miz" has become one of the most popular musicals of all time.

One reveals a great deal about oneself by sticking music into various categories, then harshly judging certain categories as "middle of the road" or "music of the great unwashed," hence, totally unworthy of notice by anyone with any musical knowledge or taste—especially when one claims an interest in and knowledge of folk/traditional music, or "music of the people." Truly fascinating. Like a snake starting to eat its own tail. And then, when that person declares proudly that they listened to only three measures of a piece of music and cut it off in order to keep from polluting their minds with "that kind of schlock," methinks one then has a pretty good indication of their depth of analysis, and therefore, the value of their opinion on just about anything they care to pontificate on in the future.

A person with truly superior musical sensibilities is generally very inclusive, finding something worth listening to in almost all forms of musical expression. The person who claims "superior musical sensitivity" and then trashes just everything they hear except their own musical specialty establishes beyond all doubt that they lack any musical sensibility whatsoever.

It saves time knowing which posts one can safely skip reading.

Don Firth