Stirling S Newberry wrote:

>John Bell Young wrote:
>
>>...  Certainly, it would have been far more prudent (and accurate) for
>>Griffiths to have written:
>>
>>   "...in one of the unpredictable and incomprehensible sea changes of
>>   history, tonality has again become the preferred means, among composers
>>   whose principle interest is to pay lip service to the status quo, of
>>   compositional procedure".
>>
>Which status quo - the status quo in many places is certainly not tonal
>composition.  It has been noted by many observers how uncomfortable it
>is to be in the "wrong" camp at an institution.  Writing in a style
>reminiscent of Carter is a sin in an institution that makes much of
>pseudo-Schostakovich vocabulary as writing tonal music is in a city
>where old serialists go to die.

Of course, there is more than one, depending on what camp (or camps) an
individual allies himself with.  My comment - or re-writing of the Times
citation - is done in the spirit of breaking down, indeed, turning on
its head, the kind of blanket critical statement that would suggest, as
Griffiths does, that a particular compositional genre has a greater stake
in musical development than another.  He overtly impleied that the return
of tonality (as if it ever left) was some kind of inevitable fatum, the
great womb to which all music must return.  Well, that's an argument we can
have all day, but it is not in fact the issue I'm addressing per se.  what
I object to is the kind of broad, ahistorical journalism that rationalizes
its poistion with generalities and jargon instead of concrete evidence and
critcal acumen.  That this kind of thing should turn up in the New York
Times I find astonishing.  So you see, it's not the musical argument that
interests me here as much as it is one of writing and saber sharp prose.


>Come now, there are equally ludicrous assertions from the other camp that
>tonality is also devoid of interest having been replaced by more advanced
>procedures.

Sure, but I'm not sure I follow you here; perhaps you misread me, because
what you say here is in fact precisely what I wrote, and am in agreement
with, and what the sentence implies, to wit:  it is indeed ludicurous for
anyone to suggest that tonality (or any other compositional procedure for
that matter) has some kind of monopoly on truth content.

>>Indeed, I have noticed in recent years this trend at the NY Times; its
>>prose is becoming increasingly sloppy, and the thoughts behind it even
>>sloppier.
>
>If by "recent" you mean the last 20 years...

Well, I've been reading it regularly for at least 30 years, though
admittedly I'm a good deal more savvy and critical now then I was in 1964
And where prose is concerned, I'm a stickler for specificity and a logical,
compelling argument.  Of course, it's perfectly true that I rallied against
certain bits of musical criticism in the times as long ago as 29 years
back, when I read an appalling critigque, by Allen Hughes, of Peter Serkin.
Allen excoriated Peter for having shown up for his concert at Hunter
College in Indian summer attire and long hair.  He wrote virtually nothing
about the concert, or how Peter played.  So I wrote Allen, complaining
about his useless comments.  He sent me back a long, typewritten letter,-
nearly 3 pages -(and which I still have to this day) explaining why it's
important to kowtow to the status quo and the music consumer who, after
all, has paid for their tickets and deserve something that conforms to
their bourgeois expectations.  Long hair and oriental clothing, so Allen
protetsted, does not.  So why upset the apple cart? Well, if that's not a
bunch of s-t, I don't know what is.  I thought so then, and I think so now!
And Allen, if you're out there, I think the world of you, but, really, you
were wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!

John Bell Young