Mr. Satz wrote:

>It must be that time of the year again - traditionalists vs.  modernists.
>As usual, the traditionalists, commenting on modernist music, will say:
>it stinks, dismiss it, it's not really music, and even those who listen
>to it don't really find it rewarding or enjoyable - it's a sham.

As I've been at pains to point out many time the "traditionalists v
moderns" discussion is a fiction.  Both groups are traditionalists, and
both traditions are grounded in the realities of the 20th century.  Fog
and verbiage aside, both groups really agree on two fundemental points:

1.  Our musical life should be an outgrowth of the imposition of a
particular viewpoint by an elite on an unwashed under-educated majority
who needs to be elevated.

2.  Aesthetic theory exists to buttress this cause.

Now they may disagree on who should be running things, and what elevating
the masses consists of, but these are largely matters of taste rather than
any fundemental disagreement of methods or purpose.

The real conflict, the one which matters, is between those who subordinate
music to words, and words to power struggles - and those who are attempting
to find an audience for the music that they create.  This debate is not
restricted to style.  It is easy to point to people like Rosen and Drury on
one side of the coin - but also to people like Teachout on the other.  The
printed word on the subject of music is a fog of principles declared and
unbashed cheering and jeering.

What makes Drury offensive is

1.  He isn't all that good a musician.

2.  He is intellectual dishonest.

3.  He is snotty about it because facts one and two have been parlayed into
a career.

Not the particular kind of music he wants to play.  It is that he is
fundementally anti-artist and pro-power mongery in his agenda.

Stirling S Newberry
allegro314@earthlink