Pablo Massa wrote:

>Dave Lampson to Edson Tadeu Ortolan:
>
>>>Debussy researched new sonorities and he is a pioneer at
>>>end-19th/begin-20th centuries.  His music is significative in the
>>>History of Western Music.
>>
>>Easy to write, easy to believe, harder to prove.
>
>Why is it harder to prove?

I was being generous.  It's not harder to prove, it's totally
impossible.  Though as humans we tend to value our opinions, sometimes over
facts, these opinions are still just that: our subjective truth.  There is
no objective truth about the quality of music because it's all based on
subjective perception.

>One may read this on books, but one can also prove it easily just listening.

I'd be interest to hear about the mechanism that proves anything just by
listening to it.

>...  The fact that his work was significative in the History of Western
>Music hardly needs an evidence:

All proof needs objective evidence to back it up.

>the "historic importance" given to anything is mainly a matter of
>agreement.

Right.  The coincident agreement of subjective opinions.

>However, the written testimony of the subsequent composers
>is there to proof it.

Prove what, exactly?  The quality of the music?  I don't think so.  All
that's proved is that some writers have agreed.  You could easily assemble
a group of writers that dissent.

>>>c) minimalist repetitions
>>
>>You mean like Reich, Glass, Young, Riley, Adams, Monk, Nyman, Andriessen,
>>Part, ....
>
>In fact, there are some people who thinks that Nyman, Glass and Part
>should be catalogued as "New Age" composers.  I don't know exactly why, ...

It's meant pejoratively.  Happens in the jazz world too.

>>But does such political slogan-slinging really raise the level of
>>discourse?
>
>Of course it will, ...

On that we'll have to disagree.  Politics is concerned with the
acquisition and exercise of power.  It has little to do with the quest
for either subjective or objective truth, and therefore does nothing
to illuminate the issue.  In fact, as far as I'm concerned, purposefully
politicizing any issue is a most subversive form of dishonesty.  Tell me
what you think, not what you think I need to hear to come around to your
side of the discussion.  Stick to facts and your own perceptions, and we're
in good shape.

Dave
[log in to unmask]
http://www.classical.net/