Well, I really should have known better than to get involved on this
thread.  It crops up every so often, and no one seems to emerge anywhere
different from where they started.  I doubt if I will, either.  However, I
will be going out of the area and therefore off-list for several weeks, and
thus will be unable to respond to and spared the remainder of this thread,
so I willingly let others have the last words on this topic, since I won't
be able to read them anyway.  However, I will not be surprised if, when I
return to the list, there is a raging debate over repeats.

I also should have known better than to go a few days w/o checking my
email.  There is no way I can respond to every little cloud of indignation
my post stirred, but I'll see what I can do.

Steve Schwartz replies to me:

>>It's the old atonalists' mantra:  Hardly anyone likes what you want them
>>to like, so that means they haven't heard enough of it, are closed-minded
>>toward it, etc.  SNORE!
>
>Well, you *are* close-minded toward it.  You condemn it all, without having
>heard it all.

No, I haven't heard it all.  But if all the few hundred or so atonal
Works I've heard each made me want to head for the exit and find the
nearest bottle of Tylenol, then it' safe to say that it is extremely
unlikely that, after I have dealt with such a representative sample, that
I will have any other reaction.  It is certainly remotely possible, just as
is the existence of Santa Claus, but it is not likely enough for me to head
for the North Pole in hopes that magic elves will produce an atonal work of
beauty.  I say, if I give something a fair shot, and I find it stinks just
as much the umpteenth time as it did the first, than I have dealt with it
in an open-minded fashion.

You seem to think that still makes me closed-minded, and you are entitled
to your opinion.  Fortunately, I don't operate by your criteria.

Donald Satz responded to me:

>>Since the entire process of atonal composition is inconducive to
>>producing anything resembling beauty, it does not take a leap to dislike
>>every last one of them.
>
>What an extreme and inaccurate declaration!  Many members of this list have
>stated that they have found beauty in atonal music.  Even I have, and I'm
>not a regular listener to this music.  Besides, each of us decides what is
>beautiful and what is ugly.

Therefore you are in a weak position to decide that for me, as I am for
anyone else.  I was merely voicing my reaction.  I was not asking others
to share that reaction, although I do know that many others do, probably
the vast majority of classical music lovers.

>The overt hostility to non-tonal music is amazing.  You'd think that its
>existence has caused lasting damage to classical music lovers.

It has.  It has rendered a large number of listeners unreceptive to almost
anything post-Ravel.  I understand being wary (I am), but unwillingness
to give something new a shot IS closed-minded.  The worst of the damage is
that composers who do write melodic, tonal works (and they do exist) have
audiences that often react like an animal that flinches as soon as it sees
someone do anything that even resembles raising his hand.  That, sir, is
lasting damage.

Bernard Chasan <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Ms. Wang unhappily exhibits a dogmatic intolerance which a bit surprising
>in a person who runs a concert series.

Ah, there's a bit of the old atonal-lovers' mantra:  I don't like what you
want me to like, therefore I exhibit a dogmatic intolerance.

Secondly, someone elsewhere described it as a 20th-Century concert series,
or something like that, and it is not that.  We do perform a lot of works
by living composers.  We have an enormously talented Composer-In-Residence
in R.C. Barrows. Many unknowns send us their works, and if we and the
performers like them, they get played.  (So much for being closed-minded.)
Almost all of our concerts feature at least one work by a living composer,
if not two or three.  But those works are presented in programs that also
feature works by Brahms, Beethoven, Mozart, Prokofiev, etc.

The modern works we perform are tonal and tend to be melody-oriented.  I
can't even begin to say how often I've heard audience members say something
like, "You know, I was worried when I saw that new work on the program,
but it wasn't like most of the awful stuff I've heard from the past 70-80
years, and I actually liked it." No one from our audience, however, has
ever expressed the desire that we program more (or any) atonal works.

OTOH I am also aware of the frustration such living composers experience
when they have their works automatically dismissed by other venues because
the atonal-lovers who program them are unreceptive to works that do not
fall in step with what they think modern works should be.  How's that for
dogmatic intolerance?

Kevin Sutton replies to me:

>>Who the devil is frightened of it? No one.  Saying one is repulsed by it,
>>can't stand it, wish it never existed so as to drive audiences away from
>>modern works, and so forth, is a far cry from being frightened of it.
>
>This kind of editorializing is as useless as it is uninformed.  If you
>don't like it, fine, Ms. Wang, but kindly leave the rest of us to form
>our own opinions.  Your sermonizing completely discounts your credibility.

Never once did I say anything that does not allow others to decide for
themselves.  Even if I wanted to, no one here has that kind of clout.
That you accuse me of it completely discounts YOUR credibility.

>Surely, however, you don't expect an audience as enlightened as this one
>to be influenced by such an undergraduate rant as that, do you?

Yeah, that's right.  Don't attack the argument, attack the arguer.  How
impressive.  I certainly don't expect them to be influenced by that.
Kicked off your debating team, were you?

Achim Breiling writes:

>I would like to ask a general question to Mrs. Wang and Mr.Heersink:

I'm not married.  "Miss Wang" or "Ms. Wang" will do.

>What do they expect a contemporary or 20th century composer (as I have the
>impression they like to mix all this music together as atonal) to compose?

I expect them to compose as they see fit.  I and other listeners can take
it or leave it.  And, no, as I have described above, I do NOT lump it all
under the smothering atonal blanket.

Brian Blackwell <[log in to unmask]> writes:

>Since the vast majority of non-European music (ie Indian ragas, Chinese
>opera, Bulgarian folk song etc) is totally removed from the diatonic
>tonal Western tradition, we could probably describe this music as 'atonal'.
>Therefore Ms Wang is essentially writing off the musical efforts of
>thousands of years of Asian and East European culture as worthless; their
>music is 'without tonal center', so by definition there is no possibility
>whatsoever of it being beautiful.
>
>A little subconscious cultural imperialism here, methinks.

Apparently you haven't noticed my last name.

I hesitate to make generalities because non-European music covers a lot
of ground.  However, much of the music you describe is somewhat different
from, but not "totally removed from the diatonic tonal Western tradition."
Nor would I necessarily refer to it as atonal.  And I have experienced my
share of Chinese Opera.

Satoshi Akima wrote:

>it is still preferable to start somewhere easier rather than to
>dive into the deep end of 20th century music.

I think a better analogy would be diving into an empty pool.

-Jocelyn Wang
Culver Chamber Music Series
Come see our web page: http://members.xoom.com/culvermusic/