Paul Griffiths, resident Goebels of the New York Times writes:

   Imagine this for a moment: no Pierre Boulez. Not only would we be
   without some of the most fascinating music of the last half-century,
   but everyone else's music would also be different, for Mr. Boulez's
   influence as a composer has been ubiquitous.

   In the sphere of performance, nobody would have been encouraging the
   Vienna Philharmonic to discover Webern as its birthright, the Cleveland
   Orchestra to take Ravel and Messiaen as its own. Nobody in modern
   times would have been pushing for a firm place for contemporary music
   in the regular orchestral repertory. There would be no ensembles for
   new music, since it was Mr. Boulez who invented the idea in the early
   1950's. Wagner interpretation would not have been revitalized.

These two paragraphs point at the heart of the problem in the discussion
of art - blatant, objectively disproveable statements put forward as truth,
axiomic and pure.  If one is an opponent of new music, it is infuriating,
if one is a supporter - it should be even worse.  After all - who wants art
founded on lies.

Before the 1950's Schoenberg formed a society for contemporary music.  I
can think of two string quartets that formed expressly to play new works:
one for Bartok's quartets and another for Shostakovich.  Boulez didn't
invent the idea.  Lie number one.

Nobody in modern times would have been pushing for contemporary music?
What about the guy they named the tanglewood shed after? Doesn't he
count? Or the entire New York School of Symphonists - Hanson, Piston?
Griffiths should chekc his encylopedia - Stravinski, Britten, Prokofiev,
Schostakovich, Rostapovich all lived in the 20th century, all, last I
checked, were big supporters of 20th century music.  Clearly he says
"contemporary" when he means "avant garde".  Lie number two.

If the avant-garde supporters on this list want to know where fore much
of the anger is directed at them, realise that you are judged by who you
choose as leaders.  Griffiths is an influential and important critic, with
connections to many of the most prominent figures of the avant-garde who
are still living.  Reading his *disinformatzia* is an affront, and what
is more it is an affront that many who support avant-garde music take
advantage of by its prominence.

I have been preaching truce, clearly this is stupid of me - the avant-garde
and its art is based on lies, because it chooses a dishonest version of
history as the support for its existance.  Clearly the only hope for art is
to erase it down to the bed rock, and perhaps, in a century or so, people
will rediscover it, this time divorced from its propoganda, and treat it
as art, rather than as excellent raw material for tank treads.

stirling s newberry
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mp3.com/ssn