Joel Lazar:

>We should be grateful that the author actually took the time to attend
>a second performance of any Scelsi; in doing that he reveals a higher
>degree of professionalism and plausibility than anything else in this
>silly effort suggests.

Sound thinking = sounds like me, thinks like me.

Scelsi has been the "next big thing" in many critics minds since the
1950's.  And it, should be noted, he has a fairly devoted, if small,
following.  Personally he bores the life out of me, and has such small
amounts of musical information to convey, that it is no surprise that
critics - such as Bernard Holland - who just can't hack listening to
Bartok run to Scelsi.

But this is beside the point - getting his scores is almost impossible,
one cannot purchase full scores of many of them- only rent the parts.
Consequently recordings, the obsession of many on this list, are in very
short supply.

What amuses me is the pure vitrolic of the defenders - such words in
defense of their composer seem more appropriate to a list devoted to CNN's
politics chat rooms than a discussion on classical music.  More over, it is
ironic that Janos, in attack, provided more information on the sonic impact
of the works than any of the supporters have in defense.  "Pines of Rome"
is a very popular work, and film scores are popular music.  A composer who
is a modern and yet captures some essence of this popular style might well
have a larger audience available.

That is, if he can be saved from his defenders who talk about themselves
rather than about the music....

Stirling Newberry