Professor Bernard Chasan wrote:

>Stirling makes some good points, The schism between the avant gardists and
>the tonalists(not a great label) is not pretty, with intolerance on both
>sides of the divide.  But how in blazes do we "erase (art) to the bed rock?
>What can those words mean? And why should we want to erase art? It is an
>imperfect world, Sterling- live with it.

   "The reasonable man adapts, hence all progress is made by unreasonable
   men."
     GB Shaw.

Simply because the world is imperfect is no excuse for sitting idly by
while those perfections are exploited for specific advantage.

We do indeed have to live in this world, and we do indeed have to deal with
the consequences of what is said.  What is the natural reaction to one side
publishing clear lies and falsehoods, such as those promulgated in a very
influential paper? Well obviously it would be something like Teachout's
articles, or those of some other tonalist, who can't believe that any 12
tone work should be considered music at all.  Give a person a choice of
being either a victim or an extremist, and enough of them will choose the
latter to make the situation artistically useless with a miasma over it.

I find it interesting that people take my objection to not playing
avant garde music for a century, because numerous people have called for
not playing Beethoven for 50 years, and not raised an eyebrow from the
avant-garde.  I'm sorry I don't have many specific references as it is my
habit not to buy books that say such stupid things, but I imagine a bit of
digging would come up with some examples.

Again - as long as the public discussion - as defined by what is widely
published - consists of extreme positions, naturally it is going to force
people to either shut up, or become extremists themselves.

So I have to ask - why the special permission to lie and censor given
to one side? Why the special permission to publish - with a circulation
reaching millions - unrebutted falsehoods? Let us not be coy here - one
side has the backing of a great deal of money, position, and it seems,
special social priviledge.  Faced with such inequity it is difficult to
do anything but agree with the revolutionaries who say that it is time to
start toppling statues.  After all, if one side cannot reign in its own
extremists, the only way to change the situation is to remove them from
any position of responsibility.

And again I point out that anyone who is not a hard core avant-gardist
will have their criticism discounted.  In otherwords if the avant gard
music lover does not object to falsehoods being told for his benefit, then
he is culpable because he seeks to enjoy the advantage that they gain him.

- - -

Steve forgets just how much group identification once meant.  There were
attacks by Wagnerians on just about anyone who wasn't, while particularly
directed at Brahms, were not limited to him.  And the attacks against
Wagner and Wagnerites is seen in expressions of contempt directed at the
"New German School".  Liszt and Bruckner took their hits, as did French
composers who followed Wagner.

Before this the hot button word had been "Romanticist" - Schumann, in fact,
had had trouble with getting approval to marry Clara, in no small part
because her father saw him as a "Romanticist".  Eventually it went to
court.

- - -

So the net result is that yes - these fights crop up over and over and
over again - and the result is generally the same - the people who have
made their livelihood as spear carriers for the previous revolution and
propogandists for its worst excesses do not change their minds.  They die,
are removed, or are forced out by public out cry.  The general "well there
is nothing to be done about it but beg and plead for a paragraph buried in
the letters page" is tantamount to saying that there is nothing to be done
at all.

Sounds like the joke about the texas weather to me.

stirling s newberry
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mp3.com/ssn