Deryk Barker writes:

>Your complaint is not an uncommon one - but it does ignore the fact
>that the "classical music" of the 20th century was more varied than
>any previous century in our history.

That's spot-on and all for the good.  It increases the choices for
classical music enthusiasts.  But are we glad? Hell no, we grouse about
the 20th century music we don't like - not a reasonable way to go.

Christopher Webber's astute comment:

>Who says it's in bad shape, apart from people like Mr. Joel who know
>nothing about it?

Unfortunately, there are folks on this list who consider it in bad shape.
I can't agree.  There are tons of concerts all over the place, and a
record collector can find abundant recordings of any classical sub-category
desired.  Take my situation, please.  I'm concentrating on baroque solo
organ music which is not one of the more popular classical categories
around.  Yet, there's so much of it on record, and the proliferation of
websites devoted to the sale of organ music keeps expanding.  Anything you
want - it's there for the taking.  That spells 'good shape'.

Still, when a major company announces 'drawbacks', we fret.  When a major
company drops a particular symphony orchestra, we fret.  When the cover
of a disc shows some enticing individual obviously trying to appeal to our
hormones, we fret.  Let's be glad for the wealth of what's available to us.
I'm so tired of hearing how these days aren't like the good old days.  I
was around for some of those good old days, and they weren't so good.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]