Bill Pirkle replies to me:

>I agree with music development, and your remarks, with the caveat that if
>music develops to the same extent that art has (modern art) it might cease
>to be music at all - no harmonic center, incomprehensible melodies (themes),
>obscure form, etc.

Well this depends a lot on your personal definition of what is music!
Atonal composition fits very well with mine, maybe not with Bills (or with
many other music-lovers).  As usual, as there is not a kind of law-book we
could refer to, its a question of opinion and taste.

>My only complaint is that it is somehow obliged to evolve, especially
>past the point of becoming music in a traditional sense, and somehow that
>writing in traditional styles is forbidden as if the composer is taking a
>step backwards.

I never claimed that!  I am perfectly happy with *modern* compositions in
a traditional style!  I do not think we need development for the sake of it
and all art that draws back to traditional forms is per se dated.  Not at
all!  I greatly enjoy this music and as the example of Paert, Tavener and
Bryars shows one can create even something new going back to traditional
forms.  I just tried to explain why people like Schoenberg started to
compose atonal music, because they wanted to try a new approach.  If you
have some good arguments against this approach, fine, lets discuss.  But
I do not see a reason to start such generalising hostile attacks.

The Adinsell (spelling?) Warsaw concerto was on one of the first LPs I got
from my father (it was coupled with the Grieg piano concerto).  I must have
been 10 years old.  Its truely a fine piece!

Achim Breiling