Jeff Dunn, at the end of a well-argued exclusion exercise, says:

>So, my bottom line indicates recognition should go to Debussy, Verdi,
>Mahler, Puccini, Mussorgsky, Elgar and Strauss.  Seven, but not ten.

At the risk of repeating myself, I believe "significance" -- in any of
the three definitions cited by Jeff -- is a matter of personal choice.
Pundits may (infrequently) agree on a list of "significant contributors"
to such and such a movement.  But to exclude somebody from a list merely
on the basis of "they don't fit my definition" -- while perfectly in order
for the individual -- is scarcely an objective exercise in determination.
And since there will continue to be (at least) as many opinions as there
are opinion-holders, doesn't this become a slightly pointless exercise?

Somebody on another thread said yesterday something to the effect that "I
believe other people's opinions more readily when backed up with argument"
and I couldn't agree more.  I get much from this List in terms of other
people's opinions -- they help shape my own development, but they are
neither substitute for my own evaluation nor fuel for pre-emptive strikes
on others' preferences.

Bottom line? New Music is indeed nonsense for some -- and Nirvana for
others.  I derive great intelligence and benefit from arguments 'pro' and
'con' a composer's or artist's "worth", such as those put forward by Jeff
and others on this thread.  But at some point we have to recognise there is
no right nor wrong -- just a host of fiercely-held opinions.

Tim Mahon
[log in to unmask]