Dave Lampson responded to me:

>>For me art is totally free. For me art is satisfying when it reaches its
>>own aim. When the aim is to show total terror and show it through the
>>utmost dissonant it is satisfying for me.
>
>I have to wonder how anyone would find terror satisfying in any context.

I do not find terror satisfying but sometimes the artistic display of
terror.

>>I HATE ugly things, you know.  But art has the right to show ugly things
>>by ugly means.
>
>And you say you enjoy that same art, even though you hate ugly things, so I
>think I'm even more confused about what you look for in music than
>before.  This is one o the things that makes many of us so incredulous when
>claims are made for enjoying a certain type of music.

When a composer has the aim to show suffering, depression and malaise he
is in my opinion free (and sometimes artistically obliged) to use "ugly"
(i.e.  harsh, rough, dissonant, painful) means.  I respect his efforts
and take his pains seriously.  I "consume" his music and can find it
artistically satisfying when it reaches its aim.  You know, I hate the
world that Berg's "Wozzeck" shows: a world full of egoistic people, people
solely driven by their animal instincts, a world full of lost creatures.
I know and feel that the world we live in is very often very much like
this.  I listen to Berg and feel: his music hurts me but it is full of
truth.  He uses the right "ugly" means to bring his message home.  And I
can "enjoy" and respect and admire his successful work.  So this iswhat I
look for in music (and all arts), Dave: truth.  It is more important for
me than beauty.  (And in Lloyd-Webber I find no craving for truth.  No
boldness.  No risk.  No courage to be ugly if it is necessary.  And that
for me is the mark of great art.)

Robert Peters
[log in to unmask]