Judith L. Zaimont responded to me:
>>There seem to be several un- or semi- stated assumptions running
>>through this thread. .. esp. the prejudice (excusethe term) agains
>>"cross over". Would people care to expound on what is
>>wrong with "cross over" or "fusion"?
>A good many of today's composer chat groups hover on this topic, but
>the nut is otherwise: advocating greater openness to include many kinds
>of music within the new-notes mix. Where - if at all - do we place
>boundaries? It's a composer's issue that doesn't go away. ...
Thank you very much for the thoughtful answer. I have read your piece;
I think I will postpone trying to give a more thoughtful answer till
after I get a chance to listen to your music (this may take aabout two
Just a terminological point- neither "corss over", nor "fusion" are terms
with which I feel particularly comfortable with- to describe the kind
of music I mean, I probably would use a term like "interstitial" (if
there is a word like that).
And finally I must confess that I share the prejudice that Pablo Massa
has so aptly summarized:
Some people seems to believe that cross over --being a way to bring fresh
air into classical music-- is necessary, so it's welcome notwithstanding
some particular results. They seem more worried about the smell of
straight contemporary classical (which deserves at least some discussion)
than about the smell of bad works made out entirely of good intentions.
Even when both smells are equally ungrateful, they will choose the second
one, making "attitude" the decisive point. Personally, I think that
cross over is nothing but a potential: something that may or may not
give birth to a nice work.
"Iskender Savasir" <[log in to unmask]>
The CLASSICAL mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R)
list management software together with L-Soft's HDMail High Deliverability
Mailer for reliable, lightning fast mail delivery. For more information,
go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html