Wes Crone:

>Does it seem possible that one class of music is taken more seriously
>than another?

Of course, but the hierarchy changes over time.  Two examples:  Opera used
to be considered the highest form.  Now it's probably the symphony or the
string quartet, which in turn rose out of purely social music-making, at
a time when a cappella mass settings were probably considered the highest
genre.

>Being a composer myself I have been subject to harsh criticisms of my
>music.  What has always troubled me is the basis for the criticisms.  I
>don't recall when someone said I wrote out of range for the oboe or wrote
>passages too difficult for the trombone.  Almost 100% of all negatives
>heaved at my music were because it sounded like Bach or like Beethoven (not
>like their quality but like their harmonic/melodic/rhythmic language) or
>something along those lines.  People (esp.  other composers) were quick to
>judge my music immediately because of the style rather than what I had to
>say.

I haven't heard your music, so I can't say anything really meaningful.
Ideally, one shouldn't criticize on the basis of idiom alone.  In other
words, we should be grateful to have a good piece in whatever idiom.  On
the other hand, if you write in the style of Bach or Beethoven, you are
competing with Bach and Beethoven - two masters of those styles.  People
might be comparing you to those two and, not surprising, preferring them.

Then there's a poem by Robert Browning called "Andrea del Sarto," about a
"perfect painter." One of del Sarto's feats was to draw a perfect circle
freehand and in one stroke.  However, Browning means "the perfect painter"
ironically.  Del Sarto has all the technical equipment anyone could
wish for and no inspiration.  In music, I've encountered a 19th-century
composer who wrote three oratorios that could be performed sequentially or
*simultaneously* - an incredible feat of counterpoint, far beyond anything
Bach ever produced.  Yet, it's one of the dullest pieces of music I know.
There's very little surprise to it.  In New Orleans, we have a composer
dubbed (behind his back) the "Mahler of Metairie" (a white-flight suburb
of the city).  Lots of people like his work.  He's just had a performance
of his latest symphony, and, to be fair, I should tell you it won a local
prize.  It begins with Vaughan Williams's Flos campi, moves to Respighi's
Pines of Rome, seques into Tod und Verklaerung, uses a Mahlerama theme
("Not the Real Thing, but an Incredible Simulation!") for the slow movement
(does nothing meaningful with it).  There's nothing remotely interesting
about any of this stuff to me, except the source of his next crib.

Again, not having heard your work, I can't say that there's anything
relevant or remotely helpful in any of the above.  However, that's the
music which has elicited the kind of response in me that you have gotten.

>I don't want this posting to be about me specifically but I would like
>to hear some opinions on the matter.  I feel certain that someone would
>be taken more seriously from the start if the person listening heard
>something more atonal or 21st century or maybe something along the lines
>of a chainsaw hooked up to a digital delay.

The problem here is that you yourself classify music and judge the
music's value solely on its idiom.  There are atonal pieces I don't
care for.  I'll go so far as to say I find some atonal music boring and
badly-done, including the atonal music I've written.  I find I don't like
a lot of avant-garde stuff, but I don't race for the exit so I don't have
to hear it.  Again, I've even liked some of it and found it as beautiful
as Debussy or Ravel, although in its own way.  In short, I refuse to
generalize on the basis of idiom, because the history of criticism from
Aristotle on tells me that a masterpiece will come along that my
generalizations tell me can't be a masterpiece.  At this point, I'd prefer
to scuttle the generalizations than to ignore the work.  The work always
takes precedence.

Steve Schwartz