An important element of this matter, which has not been discussed in enough
detail, is the fact that pre-twentieth century composers and other artists
created in the style of the day using their intuition as a guide.  However,
with the introduction and acceptance of "progressive" ideology in the 20th
century, as promoted by the likes of Theodore Adorno, artists began denying
their own personal nature and intuition.  Instead, they strove to outdo
each other in modernity, complexity and innovation as they went down the
road of "progress" to an unstated goal.

An external ideological goal of "progress" gives very different results
than being guided by own's most intimate personal internal thoughts.
How idiotic that across the USA it became fashionable in academia to
write German-style 12-tone music.  What kind of legacy has that left
besides leading so many talented young composers down the garden path to
ideological conformity and sterile creations? Just compare late Stravinsky,
the "progressive" idelogy follower, to young Stravinsky, the naive
intuitive artist.

Where does this situation leave a great artist such as Sibelius who was
never radical by nature but, nevertheless, very innovative in his use of
forms and orchestration? He found his own personal solution by earnestly
trying to be modern in his Symphony No.  4 and then realizing that the path
of deliberate self-conscious modernity was not for him.  Considering the
wonderful symphonies that followed, we can be happy that he found his own
personal solution to his struggle.  That has, however, earned his the
derision of "progressives" such as Adorno.

So what is progress anyway? What is the goal of progress and whose idea
was it anyway?

Jan Jarvlepp, composer and cellist
Ottawa, Canada
www.janjarvlepp.com