I can't think of someone who considers himself a disciple of Schoenberg
who doesn't think of himself as a visionary.  Judging from the program
notes of the Alea III concerts I've attended, CD's I've bought and articles
I've read anyone who can put 12 notes together thinks of himself as a
visionary artist railing against the stupid conservative audience that
doesn't understand.  Mr.  Smythe's formulation, while it has a certain
Romantic appeal, doesn't seem to hold up to examination.  To paraphrase
Steve Martin, there are many people who get up in the morning feeling very
visionary that day, and who just don't have the ability to do it...
("There are more people who get up in the morning and feel like writers
than can actually write.")

The era of completely ignoring the effect that music had on the audience
as a whole and equating loud and dissonant with advanced is basically over.
Compare the most recent round of critical darlings with the set from 25
years ago and you will see the difference:  MacMillan, Knussen, Lindberg,
Ades, Dun and Thomas, whatever their merits as composers, are simply not
engrossed in devoting themselves to ignoring the general public the way
Wourinen, Martino and Stevenson - to pick three critical darlings of
yesteryear - are.  Stravinski's ghost haunts the music stands with a
vengence - and Stravinski's modernism was always congenial to a wide array
of people.

The wind is indeed changing, and one can see this from what even the most
laggardly of groups in music - major critics - are writing.  Even composers
who were steadfast in their adherence to the idea that a composer should
compose as he likes have modified their stance somewhat.  Another good
litmus test is noticing the works from previous composers which are singled
out for attention.  15 years ago the name Lutoslawski was usually followed
by the word "Chain", now it is his symphonies, 15 years ago it was the
"birdsong" music of Messiean that was being pressed as his most important
work to present first, now the focus has returned to his organ music,
Quartet at the end of Time and the slow movements of his middle period.
Very different take in both cases.

The myth is that critics and the chorous are the most advanced part of
music.  In truth they are the most retrograde, stuck mouthing the pieties
of thirty to fourty years ago, generally in support of music from thirty to
fourty years ago, or recently composed music in the manner and aesthetic of
30 to 40 years ago.  Since right now our musical life is dominated by what
old guys think about dead guys, this is to be expected.  It is annoying,
but it is to be expected.  It might be nice to be able to trust what one
reads in the paper, it might be amusing to have something new be said about
music, it might be interesting to have people who've actually read abit
about recent advances in our understanding of how music is processed in
the brain re-examine their long held dogmas.  But none of this is going
to happen in public as long as being a Neaderthal Modern is socially
acceptable.

Stirling S Newberry
[log in to unmask]