Stirling replies to me replying to him:

>>>The editor of the New York Times picked Griffiths because he knows
>>>that Griffiths will, reliably, draw the support of a particualr group
>>>of individuals.  As Deryk so ably points out, people who are not in
>>>agreement with the avant-garde world view don't count in criticising
>>>him.
>>
>>How would the Times know, outside of a few names, what the aesthetic
>>affiliation is? You write a critical letter to the Times.  They publish
>>it or they don't.
>
>As soon as you say that power justifies doing what ever it does, it ends
>the question of discussion and begins the question of fighting.

I'm not talking about justification, but about what will happen.  Write a
letter to the Times.  I guarantee you that either they will publish it or
they won't.  Either they will reprimand Griffiths or they won't.  My guess
is unless you write a really, really good letter, Griffiths's superior will
not care one way or the other, since very few newspaper people care about
classical music at all.  The question becomes, then, what you will do.
There are indeed other forums, including this one, but very few with any
sort of clout.

>This precise process - of attempting, by argument and invective, to deny
>the other side a place at the table is precisely what has been going on for
>the last 90 years.  It is precisely the intent of the Griffiths article.

I don't know about the 90 years, but it is definitely one feature of the
Griffths.

>If having the money and power to print justifies printing whatever you
>like, then it also justifies saying whatever is necessary to humiliate the
>powers that be.

I strongly doubt you're humiliating them.  I doubt that either the NY Times
or Griffiths knows or cares.  Consequently, it seems to me that you address
the people who do care, at least enough to read and think about what you
write.  This forum is such a place, and you're certainly doing that.

However, I think there's a bigger issue.  The negative work is necessary
but in the long run inadequate.  There has to be a positive agenda,
a vision of Jerusalem.  I'm guilty of this myself.  I happen to see
very little meaningful difference between tonal and not and a lot of
misconceptions (not from you) about the latter.  In order to save myself
work, I resort to the negative job of correcting misconceptions and saying
that Schoenberg should be judged by the same standard you judge everybody
else.  It's lazy of me, since every good composer differs from other
composers.  There's something individual about a good composer - something
a listener gets from one that he doesn't from another.  I should do the
hard work of saying what it is exactly that Schoenberg does for me, in such
detail (and probably with a particular work) that the listener can at least
see my point.  I've never done this for Schoenberg.  In this way, one
really makes a case *for* something.  If I'm right about the same set of
standards, one should be able to do this for Schoenberg as for Tchaikovsky.
On the other hand, I've never seen it done for Schoenberg.

>The principles offered in defense of Griffiths should make anyone
>uncomfortable - move them to another context, such as race or political
>affiliation, and instantly people would become uncomfortable.

Who's defended Griffiths? I must have missed that post.  As far as I can
tell, neither Bernard nor I have defended him.  Therefore, I wonder what
the rest is about.

>I imagine that if the New York Times published an article, in a news
>section and without balancing view point, which read:
>
>...
>
>Several people here would be howling with outrage.

Undoubtedly, since I doubt anyone takes the Times, or any other newspaper,
as automatic gospel.

>And yet what Griffiths wrote - and the Times published, without rebuttal
>on an equal footing - is exactly the same thing.  People who don't support
>Boulez are not contemporary, they're accomplishments count for nothing, and
>anyone who is worth listening to is indebt to him.  All real music lovers
>have to agree on this.

It's not *exactly* the same thing, but it's sure reasonably close.

>Either pure partisanship is acceptable, or it is not.

I don't know of anyone on this list to whom it *is* acceptable.  My
question is why, if I like certain pieces of music, I automatically become
a partisan of some musical faction, whereas if people like Beethoven and
Brahms, nothing more is read into it.

>Only when it is clear that the extremists no longer speak for their group
>is their the potential of dialog, becuase only then is the question of
>power removed from the equation.  While classical music, as a whole, would
>be better off if all of this nonsense came to an end, it will not happen
>until the respective camps state clearly that the kinds of statements that
>are regularly made in public of the sort that Griffiths, Teachout, Rosen
>and Vroon publish are not acceptable, and say so with sufficent force that
>the message is understood clearly.

You can speak with all the force you want, but you still need a forum.  You
have access to certain forums and not others.  Those others tend to be the
ones with the greater number of listeners and, furthermore, listeners with
influence.  Of course, I'm merely assuming that those doors are closed.
Maybe I'll write a letter to the Times.  Maybe you should, too.  Maybe it
will get published.

Steve Schwartz