Laurence Sherwood wrote:

>At least non-sacred music from before the 20th century had origins in
>dance.  Therefore, it had to be accessible in a way that the more absract,
>cerebral music of the 20th century did not.  Heck, Schoenberg might as well
>have been writing for disembodied Platonic forms as far as I can tell.

Well, anyone can easily dance to Schoenberg's Suite, opus 29, for one, and
John Cage and Pierre Henry, amongst others, worked in close collaboration
with choreographers, in addition to the many ballets written in the 20th
century, and all the 20th century compositions that choreographers have
chosen to work with - quite recently, for example, four pieces by Pascal
Dusapin for a ballet in Paris.  Do you consider _all_ 20th century music to
BE more abstract and cerebral in a negative sense? Would you consider Bach
was never abstract and cerebral, for example?

>Much of 20th century music- particularly that written by academics-
>avowedly appeals to the intellect, and most certainly does not attempt
>to appeal- in fact frankly disdains- any urge to get up and dance.

I know this type of music exists, but, surely, it is only a small part of
20th century music...

>Moreover, I also wonder about what musically unsophisticated people are
>embracing when they say they "like" much of 20th century music.

I am musically unsophisticated.  If I may serve as an example, I attend
every concert I can programming music dated c.1900 to 2001, and I have
quite a collection of 20th century 'classical' music (composers born 1880
to 1970), the greater part of which I certainly do not intend to part with
ever.  (I hasten to add that most of the concerts and my other recordings
concern music from Gesualdo through to Dvorak - whose last pieces, by date,
were just 20th century, by the way).

>And that's not to say I look down on any form of appreciation:  I'm
>working with some pretty unsophisticated, but increasing appreciative,
>reactions to the string quartets of Robert Simpson (about which this list
>shall hear more!).

Your comments will be most welcome.

>Are they responding to novelty (of course that would not explain why the
>novelty of The Magic Flute would leave them cold)?

A reponse to novelty can also be a resounding no, thank you.  Thanks most
probably to you, they are appreciating Robert Simpson.  Good.

>Do they distinguish between the music of Alban Berg and the Spice Girls?

;-) If you distinguish between the music of the Spice Girls and that of
Alban Berg, there's hope for them yet.

>Would they distinguish between an inspired and a merely competent
>performance?

Who knows? Maybe not, but what would it matter at first if the music
pleased? And an inspired performance would give it more chance.

>Do people whose first experience with "classical" music cultivate an
>interest in the genre, or does it tend to be a passing fancy to be tossed
>aside like yesterday's rock idols?

This must depend on the person.  A jazzman friend of mine discovered Ravel,
side-stepped to Debussy, then forward to Webern then Boulez, and the circle
is still widening.  He's keen.

>Until I see evidence that such questions are answered "the right way", I'm
>going to remain suspicious of the notion that complex 20th century music
>is as good a gateway to classical music as is Beethoven and Tchaikovsky.

There has been proof on the list...  So much depends on the individual.
It's impossible to generalize.  Of course, you can't be suggesting
Beethoven and Tchaikovsky are not complex so I won't rise to that one;-)

Regards,

Christine Labroche