Steve Schwartz replies to me:

>>What's wrong with (amongst others) Alfven, Arnold, Atterberg, Bacewicz,
>
>absolutely nothing, except that Atterberg wrote only one interesting piece

That's a matter of opinion (and not one I share).  As I haven't heard
anywhere near all of Atterberg's music, and I've enjoyed quite a lot of
what I have heard, I consider it to be worth my while keeping an eye out
for more Atterberg.

Stretching a point, I could say that Bartok only wrote one interesting
piece, the 3rd Piano Concerto.  However, recordings of the 3rd Piano
Concerto tend to have the other two as well, and when I came to listen to
them, I found that they weren't bad either.  There's still a lot of Bartok
I find uninteresting, but I haven't heard much of his piano music, and
maybe (like Schubert) he's best approached through his own instrument.

>and that several people in the list that followed wrote dodecaphonic
>serialism.

I know that some of the composers in the list used serial tone rows when
they thought it appropriate to do so.  I don't think any of them were
fanatical about it.

There seem to be several different arguments going on at once here.
I'm not against serial tone rows as such.  I don't really care whether
composers come up with their thematic material using native genius, or hard
work, or folk song, or Mozart's dice game, or serial tone rows, or even
using Bill Pirkle's computer software.  It's what they do with it that
matters.  IMO it's harder to write great music starting with serial tone
rows, but there have been composers talented enough to get away with it.

As you say, no-one likes everything, and I don't like the 1960s
avant-garde.  I suspect I'm not alone in this, so it's a default assumption
that if anyone says he or she doesn't like "nasty modern music" or "atonal
music" without naming a particular composer, he or she dislikes the 1960s
avant-garde too.

I dislike their outlook as much as I dislike their music, and in particular
I dislike their claim to be the only valid musical expression of the 20th
century.  I agree with those previous postings which expressed the opinion
that this attitude has done serious harm to CM in the second half of the
20th century.

1) There are truly worthwhile composers whose music wasn't heard because
it didn't conform to the avant-garde party line.  Some have been discovered
in the 1990s, and it's likely that there are others who haven't been
discovered yet.

2) There were worthwhile composers who stopped composing altogether, or
composed but didn't publish, because they knew that the music they wanted
to write would not be performed.  Only a fanatic would consider this
desirable.

3) There are people who refuse to listen to anything written after the
death of Tchaikovsky, or Ravel, or Richard Strauss.  They've heard some
avant-garde stuff, didn't like it, and have been told that it's that or
nothing from 1950 onwards.  Whether these people are numbered in dozens
or millions, I don't know.

4) There are people who refuse to listen to CM at all, because they think
it's a tradition in which nothing new and worthwhile is being produced.
They've heard some avant-garde stuff, didn't like it, and have been told
that that's what CM is like nowadays.  Again, whether these people are
numbered in hundreds or millions is something I don't know.

>>By contrast, the pantonality tradition lasted a few decades at most.
>
>In fact, it's still going on, whether you pay attention to it or not.

As we can now listen to modern music other than that written by the
commissars of the avant-garde, the extremist version of their ideology
has been overthrown.

Peter Varley
[log in to unmask]