Dave Lampson replies to me:

>>...  I have yet to figure out why aesthetically this music constitutes
>>a special case - why people should get so much hotter over this than over
>>other music whose appeal is equally limited.
>
>This is interesting.  Frankly, it never occurred to me that someone
>might think that this is what it's all about.  From my perspective, it's
>not that modern classical music is unpopular or has a small cadre of
>proponents.  This seems self-evident.  The point of contention comes when
>grandiose claims are made by this cadre such as "a modern Beethoven is
>among us but we're too stupid/lazy to find him/her", "all tonal systems
>are equal", "this is the music of our time" or, especially, "there is
>only one valid art music style for our time".

I, for one, don't believe any of it, and in the 40 years I've been hearing
such claims, never did.  I know Dave isn't accusing me of believing the
stuff.  Yet I want to go on record.  I don't care whether another Beethoven
is among us, because I probably wouldn't recognize this music as that
important anyway.  I, too, deny Christ.  As far as I'm concerned, *any*
music written in my time is of my time.  If someone cares to write in the
style of Mozart, that's part of my time (and probably, as a cultural
phenomenon if nothing else, a fairly interesting part).  Hell, the music
Mozart actually wrote is part of my time.  Otherwise, it would make no
emotional sense to me.  Finally, I believe I've shown a fair amount of
eclecticism (I've raved about Barber and Sessions, eg) to demonstrate that
I don't believe there's only one valid path.

>Likewise somewhat vexing is the idea that this music really has a large
>following.  Achim's otherwise well-argued posts sometimes seem to make this
>claim, for example (but maybe I'm just misreading).  Add to the list the
>apparently inevitable non sequiturs, and ahistoric claims that things have
>always been this way, and you have a full-scale brush fire on your hands.
>But Stirling's right:  both sides have their extremists.  It's important to
>keep the politicking to a minimum.  How to do that and still have a
>discourse is the challenge.

I'll complain, because I like to and because I feel I have a legitimate
beef.  Yes, there's a market and a box office people must pay attention to.
There are also scarce resources.  I don't mind an all-Tchaikovsky or
all-Beethoven night, for example.  Those two composers have enough variety
in their music that one can put together an interesting program.  BUT ...
even here, it's possible to come up with a program that has at least one
legitimate rarity.  Instead of the Tchaikovsky violin concerto (my favorite
violin concerto!) or the first piano concerto, why not the Concert Fantasia
in G.  Instead of the 4th, 5th, or 6th symphonies, why not the first? I'm
looking for any signs of intellectual curiosity, and I'd be satisfied with
damn little.  The two works I haven't heard on the Louisiana Philharmonic
program are enough to get me to subscribe.  I won't complain about the
Beethoven or the "Night in Italy," because I don't want to rain on anyone's
parade.  But I do wait to be rained on by those for whom Menotti is
unacceptably way out.

Why should an organization that depends on the box office risk anything? A
legitimate question.  One reason is the greying of the audience.  I know
some young people (and to me, anyone under 40 qualifies as young; anyone
born after 1963 is practically a toddler) hook up to this music, but it
doesn't *feel* like a large part of that population hooks up.  Further,
I don't see a significant part of the general, college-educated audience
hooking up, at least not in New Orleans, and this seems confirmed by the
tonier talk shows, in which classical music really doesn't exist.  What
worries me no end is the attitude that what we have is enough, rather
than how we expand.  I don't know whether Modern Music, Tonal, Atonal,
or otherwise is an answer.  I believe, however, that it's not been given
a real chance.  Instead, it's gotten the same poor chance for a long time.
On the other hand, it's received the same poor chance as most other
classical music, but that music has already found a small, solid base.
With each half-hearted measure more or less biting the dust, perhaps it's
time to initiate a major effort - including education - rather than just
throwing music against the wall to see what sticks.

>The issue of how many people like a certain composer only seems to have
>relevance when discussing who's popular, or perhaps "important".  For
>instance, if someone was to claim that Alkan was the most important
>piano composer of his generation, there might be some vigorous mention of
>other, more likely candidates.  It's somewhat the same when speaking of
>modern composers.  Let me construct a little straw man to beat upon for
>demonstration purposes only.  Messiaen is the greatest living composer.
>The very thought is rather sad.

Particularly since Messiaen is no longer the greatest *living* composer.
 [Wow, what a lapse that was.  -Dave]

>Boulez composes music of great beauty.  Even worse.

Why on earth would this distress you?  I admit certain pieces are rough
going.  I've yet to love, or even warm up to, the piano sonatas.  But there
are gorgeous pieces in his output.  I should also say that I truly dislike
Boulez's writings about his own work - pompous and ultimately unhelpful.

>And so it goes.  For many, and not just some small sect of
>classical music lovers, there is a disconnect on a very basic level about
>all this.  It's not necessarily about being right or wrong, as far as I'm
>concerned.  It's about understanding why and where the disconnect is.

I'd like to learn how much Boulez those who hate his music know and what
pieces.

>The reason the discussion becomes so heated is not a mystery to me though.
>It's simply a reflection of how much each of us cares and how deeply we
>love our music.

The heat I understand.  I once gave a reviewer hell for not liking Vaughan
Williams ENOUGH.  What mystifies me however is the difference between not
caring for a composer or a work one has heard and not caring for an entire
procedure, most of whose examples one hasn't heard.  Furthermore, there's
a difference in the justification of the dislike:  that one dislikes
Bellini is put down to personal taste; that one dislikes Schoenberg is
often attributed in some magical way to how human beings are wired or to
Mother Nature.  What's insufficient about simply disliking Schoenberg's
Pierrot Lunaire, as one might dislike Bellini's Norma? I knew a very good
musician who hated Bach's music.  He hated it because he hated all music
founded on figured bass (and he had heard - if not everything - then at
least every work I knew).  It wasn't just Bach.  Now one can call this a
silly reason, although it wasn't silly to him.  It's certainly a rare,
possibly unique, aversion.  However, the guy was well aware of this, and he
didn't call for all Baroque-music groups to disband or for expunging every
trace.  He also didn't generalize beyond what he knew or stop listening,
simply because the odds were by this time against him.

I've got no grand summing up.  I'm confused as well.

Steve Schwartz