Mark Landson wrote:

>Even in the case of the 20th century.  Shoenberg, Cage, etc.  all
>reflected the worldview of those who deemed them great.  The difference
>is that there was a schism between the intellectuals and the general public
>that turned off the public.  When the intellectuals firmly gained power,
>and pushed forward their agenda, the public retreated.  I do think that
>these aforementioned "villians" were more relevant in their time than
>Rachmaninoff, even though Rachy is loved more (by me as well).

You scold the intellectuals (well, don't you belong to the learned?)
but you forget that music always was a pastime from intellectuals for
intellectuals and the nobility.  The "general public" you refer was a
pretty small section of the population.  What about the workers, the
pasants (did they ever hum tunes from the Pastorale?), what about the
sailors, the soldiers, the workmen? Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven didn't
write for them.  Classical music always was a pastime for the happy few.

>Indeed, communication IS the object of art.  A concept that would be highly
>debated by the avant garde.  But I stand by that concept strongly.  And
>what is the very first thing you must have to be able to communicate?
>Something to say.

Thank God there's no lawbook of arts.  Let the artists do what they like.
If some of them want to have a dialogue with themselves, well, just don't
listen.  I for one find it interesting.  And I am deeply convinced that
Mozart didn't write his works to communicate with us.  He did it because
he simply wanted to do it or maybe had to but not to "communicate" in the
simple sense of the word.  All great artists are self-centred.  And I find
nothing wrong about this.

Robert