Dave Lampson wrote in reply to me:

>>I have no doubt that Beethoven would have written like Berg if he had had
>>the permission ...
>
>I have every doubt he would have written like Berg.  I think it would have
>been nearly impossible for him to compose as anyone but himself.

Yes, but the point is that Beethoven was restricted by the aesthetics of
his day.  It would be very interesting to know (alas, it is impossible)
how he would compose today given all the artistic freedom contemporary
composers have.

>>(and remember, some of his late quartets were considered VERY dissonant,
>>disturbing and ugly by his contemporaries).
>
>So was Mozart's "Dissonance" Quartet, and the music of Gesauldo, and the
>music of Wagner, and the music of Monteverdi, etc.  I'm sorry, but in the
>context of this discussion, this is simply a canard.  Just because some of
>Beethoven's contemporaries were shocked by some of his music, didn't mean
>it wasn't accepted and performed throughout Europe and that Beethoven was
>not still considered the greatest living composer.  In all places and in
>all times we can find critics of any artist.  It's just not relevant to
>the conversation to drag the poor judgements of long-dead critics.

Again that is not the point.  The point is that Beethoven was so great
because he stretched the limits of his art.  He was bold, radical and
rough.  (And Lloyd-Webber is not.)

>>Dave, your aesthetics as stated above by yourself are exactly the
>>standards of Goethe.  So you are in good company.  But to me, sorry, it
>>sounds a little bit old-fashioned.  The world and the arts have changed...
>
>Here I'm being accused of being a reactionary, which is not at all
>surprising.  This is a common slur against those who dare criticize
>modern music, and all too often it sticks.  I too cringe when I read the
>uninformed, and therefore bigoted, diatribes of some, such as those of a
>certain editor of a certain review publication who shall for the time being
>remain nameless.:-)

I do not call you a reationary, I just question your ideals of music (as
you question mine).  You expect certain things from music as well as I
expect certain things from music.  That is okay.  My point is just: the
composer shouldn't care just a second for our expectations.  He or she
should do exactly what he or she wants to do, what he or she finds
artistically fit to the aim to be reached.

>But there seems to be something fundamentally different with modern
>classical music, and I believe it's often a lack of aesthetic.

It obviously lacks YOUR kind of aesthetic.  It certainly does not lack
any aesthetic.  Wouldn't it be a most rewarding thing to just tolerate
any (even the "ugly") artistic expression and learn?

>I don't mean an abstract Goethe-ian construct, I mean something like a
>basic human aesthetic.

It is always dangerous when someone claims to know what the human
condition, the common sense or a human aesthetic is.  There are as
many human aesthetics as there are human beings.

>>I do not glorify ugliness.  I just think that for the modern composer and
>>the modern artist in general it is no longer possible (and not desirable)
>>to compose like Mozart.
>
>This is a typical non sequitur (I intentionally skipped a bunch of others).
>Who said anything about composing like Mozart? How about composing like
>Vaughan Williams? Or how about composing like a 20th-century person not
>completely overwhelmed by ugliness, suffering, and terror?

Simply because the things Vaughan Williams wanted to say are said - by him.
Let the new composers compose as themselves.  That is the great adventure
of art: to always and boldly find new ways to say old things and to find
the adequate artistic expression for the present time.

Robert Peters
[log in to unmask]