Greg Conn writes:

>Following your line of reasoning that you "don't know how to meaningfully
>compare...their music" would you also consider Elliot Carter to be on a
>par with Beethoven?

Why what that be so hard to believe? Every century has provided at least
a few great composers.  Can we assume that the only 20th century composers
who will be considered great in future centuries are those who were born
in the 19th century? That's a myopic view that likely will turn out to be
inaccurate.

My point is that we, in current times, can only conjecture as to which
composers future generations will love.  It might be a Carter, or Cage,
or Berio, or Ades, or even a John Williams (ouch).

Beyond that, there must be some folks who prefer Carter to Beethoven; you
can count on it.  What do you tell them? They are wrong? I again fail to
see why a person who dislikes a particular composer assumes that the
composer is not worthy of other listeners as well.

My example, as usual, is Vivaldi.  I don't appreciate his music and don't
want to listen to it and don't buy any of it.  But that has nothing to
do with what other people go for.  There are persons who actually prefer
Vivaldi to Bach.  I don't know how they get to that point, because it can't
register musically within me.  But they do get there, it feels quite
natural to them, and their opinions are as good as mine or anyone else's.

I think that most of the talk about "atonal" compositions not constituting
music simply stems from a strong dislike of it.  "I detest it, so it isn't
music to me".  That's fine, as long as it's recognized that it is music to
many others, and exceptional music at that.  Carter does not have to take
a backseat to Beethoven or any other composer; he only has to meet or
exceed his own standards.  The fact is that Carter, within his chosen
area of expertise, is one of the leading exponents and composers.  I have
no idea what future generations will think of his music, and I consider
my view the reasonable one.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]