Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Sun, 23 Dec 2001 15:38:12 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Mark Landson replies to Margaret Mikulska:
>>I'm very enthusiastic about 20th-C music; that's why when I see composers
>>like Kernis or Corigliano winning awards for their tepid, easy neo-tonal
>>pabulum, I'm quite appalled. Thanks goodness Carter, Boulez, and others
>>do get some recognition as well.
>
>Do you think music needs to be atonal to be taken seriously today, or to
>not be considered "pabulum" by your standards?
Margaret can, of course, speak for herself, but I find this an obvious
straw man. "Tonal" vs. "Atonal" means very little aesthetically. I'm
sure that Margaret respects the output of the tonal J. S. Bach. I think
the real question is how many contemporary tonal or atonal composers with
high profiles and lucrative commissions are actually worth the money and
the resources spent on them? I can think of more than a couple.
Steve Schwartz
|
|
|