Allan Gotthelf wrote:

>The relevance to music is profound.  More music is sad, is minor-keyed,
>expresses darkness or pain or resignation or a sense of abandonment, etc.,
>because more composers have shared some or all of the malevolent view I am
>rejecting.

With great respect, I have to disagree with Allan.  I think if you did
an actual survey, you'd find that the vast majority of music, certainly
between 1600 and 1830, is comedic in nature (either in the sense of Dante,
or "ha ha ha").  Be that as it may, many composers write music that is sad,
minor-keyed and expresses darkness etc.  because it is easier to elicit a
*powerful* emotional response this way, and eliciting this kind of response
is what composers do.  Furthermore, lest we forget, artistic "feelings"
are *analogues* to real emotions, and consequently are not freighted with
the same ethical baggage.  "Tragedy" is not a real-life emotion, it is an
imitation of a real-life emotion; good, happy, benevolent, rational people
pay a lot of money to experience it.  The real-life analogue to tragedy
is *misery*, and no sane person seeks to be miserable.  As with
tragedy/misery, so with pathos/sadness, whatever/anger,
whatever/malevolence, etc.  The attempt to extrapolate from an artist's
choice of expressive mode their actual psychology is to misunderstand the
nature of artistic expression, IMHO (with the possible exception of some
Romantic music, but even here, "psychological criticism" has limited use).

>I agree with John Smyth's teacher to that extent.  But for those of us
>who hold the view of the human condition I have described, the view Ayn
>Rand called "the benevolent universe premise", that makes us treasure all
>the more great music which is also deeply triumphant, and joyous, or which
>preserves positive sensitivies in the face of struggle and pain and grief,
>music which speaks to the glory of the human "condition".

I admire Ayn Rand so much that it pains me to say this, but in her
application of "the benevolent universe premise" to artistic preference,
she's just dead wrong.  For example, many actors like to play villains
more than heroes because, except for the *really* great plays like
*Cyrano*, *Hamet*, etc.  (and movies, I guess), they find villains (or
at least, negative characters) to be more interesting *as characters* than
they do heroes; this preference has nothing to do with the actor's sense of
life, but rather, has to do with their work as an actor!  I think it's the
same for performers (and listeners) of music.  For example, if someone told
me to chose what I love more, the Rachmaninoff *2nd Concerto* or *The Rite
of Spring*, I would refuse to answer, as both have an equal place in my
pantheon of masterpieces.  If, however, a Victor Herbert operetta were
substituted for the Rachmaninoff, *The Rite* wins, hands down, and this
has nothing to do with my having a malevolent view of the universe.
Simply put, *The Rite of Spring* is better written and much more powerful
than anything Victor Herbert wrote; therefore, I personally find it more
rewarding to study, and exhilarating to listen to, and this doesn't mean
I'm about to go and sacrifice a virgin to the goddess of spring, either
figuratively, or literally!  (Hey, I like Victor Herbert, but really,
there's no comparison, is there?).

Leslie Kinton
The Royal Conservatory of Music, Toronto.
Anagnoson and Kinton piano duo website: http://www.pianoduo.com