Christopher Webber said:

>Who says it's in bad shape, apart from people like Mr Joel who not nothing
>about it?

Well, if CM were in good shape, we wouldn't have over 40 messages on this
topic.  Everyone would say, "God, Billy Joel has no idea of what he's
talking about, and just drop it." All the great orchestras in the world
would have huge recording contracts, Tower Records wouldn't have just said,
"Uh, Classical Music isn't worth our investment.  We're going to just take
it on consignment." The major labels wouldn't be a shadow of what they
were, and the classical market wouldn't have shrunk from 7% to 3%.  So,
apart from me, Billy Joel, and a dog named Boo, there are many more that
would agree that CM is in bad shape.

None of this is intended to invalidate your experience of enjoying what is
currently out there, however.

>"Relevant" how, and to whom or what?

I use relevant to mean something that reflects the current contemporary
worldview.  In every era, you can see that the emerging or prevalent
philosophy was expressed and reflected in art and music.

The Baroque reflected the clockwork universe of Newton, for example.
Beethoven was influenced by the ideals of personal freedom in the French
Revolution.  The Romantics harkened nostalgically back to an agrarian past.
I truthfully cannot think of one composer thought of as great that was not
reflecting the ideals shared by the normal educated class.

Even in the case of the 20th century.  Shoenberg, Cage, etc.  all reflected
the worldview of those who deemed them great.  The difference is that there
was a schism between the intellectuals and the general public that turned
off the public.  When the intellectuals firmly gained power, and pushed
forward their agenda, the public retreated.  I do think that these
aforementioned "villians" were more relevant in their time than
Rachmaninoff, even though Rachy is loved more (by me as well).

>Whether we happen to respond to them or not, there are many composers
>working today in many fields who communicate vividly to very many people -
>articulating "aesthetic visions", whatever that may mean, is neither here
>nor there.  Communication, connection, is the object.

Indeed, communication IS the object of art.  A concept that would be highly
debated by the avant garde.  But I stand by that concept strongly.  And
what is the very first thing you must have to be able to communicate?
Something to say.

Mark Landson
http://LandsonMusic.com