Edgar Beach:

> There are often very interesting discussions on this list about the
> value of atonal music such as ones "Blind Test" thread.  I, personally,
> have never learned to appreciate the music of composers like Schoneberg
> and Webern.  Is it fair for me to assume that the majority of serious
> (for lack of another word) music lovers also cannot tolerate much of
> todays disharmonic stuff?  Again this is an assumption and note a fact.
> Is it possible, for the lovers of Schoneberg and other atonal composer's
> music, to explain clearly why they do like it so.  I know why I don't
> care for it.  It is because it violates my personal sense of what is
> beautiful.

Certainly doesn't violate my sense of the beautiful.  But should art
only be beautiful?  Can't it be powerful?  Sublime vs.  beautiful has
been with us since classical times.  Niagara Falls looks nothing like
a Faberge box.  Is it ipso facto ugly?

Another question I have is why does it matter how many people like it?
After all, classical music-lovers are a niche market anyway.  Christina
Aguilera sells more than Alfred Brendel.

Finally, consider this: Beethoven's Second Symphony was considered ugly
modern music.  Is it still ugly?  What changed?

Steve Schwartz

             ***********************************************
The CLASSICAL mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R)
list management software together with L-Soft's HDMail High Deliverability
Mailer for reliable, lightning fast mail delivery.  For more information,
go to:  http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html