Steve Schwartz writes in response to Stirling:

>>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.  If the
question is "who has the power to publish" then the only recorse for those
who do not have the power to publish is to take it away from those who do.

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.
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.

In otherwords it tosses us back in the kettle of saying that serial
music "isn't music", that its adherents "aren't sincere", and that "nobody
likes the stuff anyway but a fringe group of people who just happen to have
the power to push it through".  Actually looking at these attacks on the
avant-garde, they look pretty tame, I imagine with a bit of work one could
come up with much better accusations to hurl, and both Steve and Bernard
tell me that that is exactly what I should be spending my time on.  Because
in the current climate there is *zero* market for articles which talk about
the necessity for perspective and a fair market for those which stridently
rehash truths that the editors of various publications already agree with.
By the standard that Bernard and Steve offer me, I should write an article
entitled "Serialism is Stalinism set to music", fill it with every canard
of the tonalist cause from 1905 forward.

Or, should I point out, that is exactly what people like Donald Vroon have
been spending their time on.  Several people have laughed at his writing
style, his politics, his positions and his insistence on his viewpoint -
but people like him are gatekeepers.  As long as such people are kept in
position, then the only choice is extremism or silence.  Each article like
Griffiths only strengthens people like Vroon - because, as the people on
this list have pointed out *the press is free for those who own them*.

- - -

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.  I imagine
that if the New York Times published an article, in a news section and
without balancing view point, which read:

"Think of the World without Ronald Reagan!  Who, by his defense build
up single handedly brought the evil empire to its knees, who by his
wise insistence on supply side tax cuts pulled America out of its worst
recession in the post-war era, whose political influence is pervasive in
bringing back moral family values to America.  Without Reagan, America
would be in very sorry shape, and all real Americans should be thankful for
his presidency, and saddened by the immoral antics which have dimminished
the presidency since then."

Several people here would be howling with outrage.

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.

Either pure partisanship is acceptable, or it is not.  If it is, then
it is acceptable anywhere - up to and including statements such as "Jews
aren't real Germans".  If this makes you feel uncomfortable, then why
should "Music exists in the avant-garde or not at all" make you feel less
uncomfortable.  Both are, after all, declarations that the other side isn't
really human and doesn't have real equal access to the public discourse.

Most of us have watched in dismay as the situation between the Isrealis and
the Palestinians has deteriorated.  And there is a lesson that is generally
applicable - Isrealis will listen only when other Isrealis tell them to
stop, and Palestinians will listen only when Palestinians tell them to
stop. The extremists on both sides will not listen to moderates, but only
when people they recognise as being of their own criticise them.  Where
ever passions for party are invoked, this will hold.  To end these passions
does not happen by one side deciding to just lie back and enjoy 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.

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