Stirling Newberry ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

>Paul Griffiths, resident Goebels of the New York Times writes:

It's spelt Goebbels BTW.  In view of what follows such a lapse does you no
credit.

>in the regular orchestral repertory. There would be no ensembles for
>new music, since it was Mr. Boulez who invented the idea in the early
>1950's. Wagner interpretation would not have been revitalized. ...
>
>Before the 1950's Schoenberg formed a society for contemporary music.

Schoenberg founded a society, not an ensemble.  I presume PG is referring
to the Domaine Musicale.

>I can think of two string quartets that formed expressly to play new
>works: one for Bartok's quartets and another for Shostakovich.  Boulez
>didn't invent the idea.  Lie number one.

a) they were string quartets, with consequent limitation on the repertoire
they could perform and b) from what you say they were formed to play
specific music.

I also find it significant that you use the emotive word 'lie' rather than
'mistake' or 'misconception'.  By imputing malice to Griffiths you hardly
paint yourself as objective.

>Nobody in modern times would have been pushing for contemporary music?
>What about the guy they named the tanglewood shed after? Doesn't he
>count? Or the entire New York School of Symphonists - Hanson, Piston?
>Griffiths should chekc his encylopedia - Stravinski, Britten, Prokofiev,
>Schostakovich, Rostapovich all lived in the 20th century, all, last I
>checked, were big supporters of 20th century music.  Clearly he says
>"contemporary" when he means "avant garde".  Lie number two.

Terminology.  Many people see contemporary and avant-garde as synonymous -
just see what size audience you get for contermporary music and ask people
who don't attend why not.  Argue with his terminology if you like, but
don't call it a lie.

>If the avant-garde supporters on this list want to know where fore much
>of the anger is directed at them, realise that you are judged by who you
>choose as leaders.  Griffiths is an influential and important critic, with
>connections to many of the most prominent figures of the avant-garde who
>are still living.  Reading his *disinformatzia* is an affront, and what
>is more it is an affront that many who support avant-garde music take
>advantage of by its prominence.

Why not write a letter to the NY Times? Nobody here appointed Paul
Griffiths prophet or anything else.  They employed and printed the 'lies'
that seem to exercise you so much.

>I have been preaching truce, clearly this is stupid of me - the avant-garde
>and its art is based on lies, because it chooses a dishonest version of
>history as the support for its existance.

Is Griffiths an avant-garde composer? No. So why dismiss their efforts
because of the zealotry of one of their admirers? Was Griffiths leading
the cheering at Donaueschingen in the 1950s?

Deryk Barker
[log in to unmask]