>My main problem with classical music of the last 100 years (for the most
>part) is that it does not reflect a philosophy or worldview which appeals
>to me or to most of the other people who are its audience.

Problem? Are we equating 20th Century with poor old Arnold Schoenberg
again? Does all music need to "reflect a philosophy or worldview", or
anything else come to that? Not a question which we want to get into now,
though it's been much picked over on the discussion list before.

Leaving all that sort of thing well to one side, there's no doubt that
a huge quantity of the century's best music absolutely did engage its
audience, in a multitude of ways.  That's why we're still arguing about it.
200 composers, 200 "worldviews", even if - and it is a big 'if' - they had
only one such view, and even if that view is reflected at all in their
work.

Focussing hard for myself, for a start, I don't suppose my "world view"
(when I think about any such thing, which I don't very often or for very
long) would be any more constant than my choice of marmalades for my
morning toast.  I have views on that, but they change every morning, thank
goodness.  So it is when put pen to paper.

Does anybody sane ever have a genuine handle on "worldviews", as opposed to
the multitude of specific instances and thoughts which move us? I've always
been struck by Vaughan Williams's comment on his own 4th Symphony:

   "I don't know whether I like it, but it's what I meant"

In some sense, he felt the art work he himself created had escaped out
of his comfort zone.  It's worth adding that he got very hot under the
collar indeed when anyone tried to link the Symphony to the state of 1930's
world politics, or anything so tangible as a "worldview".  Others who
knew him better said that they weren't surprised, given his own domestic
circumstances, that he turned in such a hard, violent, uncompromising piece
at that moment in his life.  What did he know?

The fact is that the uncomfortable resonances of the 4th did register with
a large number of listeners who were very deeply affected by it, sour and
un-euphonious though the piece may be.  Any such sweeping put down of a
century's music clearly fails to take that fact into account, amidst
countless others.

>And THAT's why CM is in bad shape - because no one has gained attention
>that has articulated an aesthetic vision which is relevant today, and the
>past visions which were relevant in their times are fading in relevancy
>with each passing decade.

Who says it's in bad shape, apart from people like Mr Joel who not nothing
about it? "Relevant" how, and to whom or what? To quote Falstaff, that's
an ill phrase, a vile phrase!  Whether we happen to respond to them or not,
there are many composers working today in many fields who communicate
vividly to very many people - articulating "aesthetic visions", whatever
that may mean, is neither here nor there.  Communication, connection, is
the object.

As for Mr Joel: well, his arid pensees on the subject are hardly very new
(or, save the mark, "relevant"!) The bad thing is that they will be heard,
and that they will narrow the possibilities for a large number of people
who do take him and his pronouncements seriously.

Christopher Webber,  Blackheath, London,  UK.
http://www.nashwan.demon.co.uk/zarzuela.htm
"ZARZUELA!"