Tom Connor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>So, I very much agree with Mr. Jacobsen's view that audiences must be
>challenged if the art of music is to be more than 'mere entertainment'.

There's no real point in me hiding the fact: when people use expressions
such as "mere entertainment", i immediately know why i disagree with almost
everything else they have to say.  Entertainment is anything but mere:
it's a skill possessed by too few people in a culture which tends to
worship (an expression used very carefully here - the attitude expressed
above is more reminscent of a theology than commentary) the ideal of high
art.

(Oddly: i think this statement is as true of people who have little or no
idea of what high art was supposed to be as it is of people who do.  Their
dismissals tend to be been so bizarrely respectful...)

I'm going to step to the hardline here: there's no a priori need for
art (viewed in the abstract) to challenge anyone.  There may very well
be artists (& audiences) who prefer the process of challenging in their
art (& this preference is, of course, their choice; though both need to
be prepared to live with their choice's consequences, just like everyone
else does); & there may be individual (historical; social; or whatever)
circumstances which may support a challenging artform within an individual
work (or group of works)...  but that's as far as it goes.  Everything else
is negotiable: if people want write self-consciously entertaining art (&
have the skill to pull it off), they have every right to do so (so long as
they, too, are prepared to wear the consequences of their actions).

On the program itself: whether they are right or wrong in the assessment
of the potential audience appeal (i suspect, of course, that the orchestra
has got it more write than Jacobsen), the Phillies have clearly thought
their political strategy well: they've explicitly rejected a conventional
view of artistic history & replaced it with one more convenient to their
artistic needs.  To be honest: i rather liked the bluntness of Mr
Horsley's attack:

>"In all this commotion, an essential point is being overlooked.  The
>orchestra's ambition in its centennial season, which happens to coincide
>with the end of the century and millennium, is in fact larger and more
>subversive than anyone might have imagined.  Our goal, quite simply, is
>to redefine 20th century music.

As that wellknown aesthetician - Bugs Bunny - would undoubtably put it:
I hope you realise...  this means war....

Where do i sit on this particular artistic fence? It should be obvious;
but to avoid accusations of ethical cowardice, i believe that the
Phillies's sketch of 20th century CM is an interesting - & subtly very
honest - crosssection of musical history.  It covers most of the bases
(if not all the basses); & states, uncompromisingly, that this century's
isn't always what the audience thinks it is...  but what _really_ scary
thing about all this is the possibility that the CM concert audience has
fossilised to such an extent that this pleasant, thoughtful & wonderfully
mischievous program may still be a financial risk....

All the best,

Robert Clements <[log in to unmask]>
<http://www.ausnet.net.au/~clemensr/welcome.htm>