Mark Landson replies to Margaret Mikulska:

>>I'm very enthusiastic about 20th-C music; that's why when I see composers
>>like Kernis or Corigliano winning awards for their tepid, easy neo-tonal
>>pabulum, I'm quite appalled.  Thanks goodness Carter, Boulez, and others
>>do get some recognition as well.
>
>Do you think music needs to be atonal to be taken seriously today, or to
>not be considered "pabulum" by your standards?

Margaret can, of course, speak for herself, but I find this an obvious
straw man.  "Tonal" vs.  "Atonal" means very little aesthetically.  I'm
sure that Margaret respects the output of the tonal J.  S.  Bach.  I think
the real question is how many contemporary tonal or atonal composers with
high profiles and lucrative commissions are actually worth the money and
the resources spent on them? I can think of more than a couple.

Steve Schwartz