Dave Lampson wrote:

>So novels, movies, paintings, sculptures, etc.  that deal with these issues
>must themselves be ugly too? I don't buy that.  Just as I don't believe
>music has to be ugly to portray the unattractive components of human
>existence.

Here I go again...agreeing with Dave.  However I believe a bit like
Stravinsky that "music expresses itself."

and on the subject of Lloyd Webber...

>Millions disagree, including me, though I know that's de rigueur in
>classical music circles.  His music is exactly what it needs to be for
>what it is, and that's why it's so successful.

While I have not found anything of interest in what I have heard in Lloyd
Webber's music, one cannot deny its appeal to so very many.  I reminded of
the American Groves entry for Rod McKuen (written by a friend of mine),
"Although critics have generally found his works undistinguished, his
performances have been well received and his is acknowledge an effective
showman." Is Lloyd Webber a great composer? I try not to concern myself
with such questions.

>For music to have any meaning for me (and I suspect for most classical
>music lovers), it must have a strong aesthetic component.  It's what drew
>most of us to this music in the first place, and why so many of us feel
>betrayed by modern styles.

As Dave also points out, we all bring our own perspective to music.
For me, my reaction to modern styles was quite different.  I had heard
some early Schoenberg and loved it.  Yet when I heard some of the 12 tone
work I felt that my lack of appreciation was due to my own ignorance.
I listened a great deal and find that works like his Piano Concerto are
incredibly beautiful.  As for the String Trio...still can't find anything
in that piece!

>I realize I might be opening up old wounds here, but that is not my
>intention.  As I have stated before, I think we all perceive music so
>differently, it's a wonder we can agree on it at all, much less discuss
>it semi-rationally.  I just rail at the idea that "music of our time"
>shouldn't be beautiful, or that music that is beautiful is by definition
>old-fashioned or backward-looking.  This is just my take, and I don't
>propose it as a universal dictum, and I don't believe my personal
>definition of beauty should be everyones.  I just truly do not understand
>this seeking out and glorification of ugliness.

And for me...the use of the word ugly as the opposite of beauty is so
subjective that I find little meaning in it.  Some can find beauty most
everywhere and others will find ugliness just as often.  As for the
glorification of ugliness...I limit my television viewing.

Karl