Robert Peters:

>But there is one thing mentioned in one of these posts I still keep
>thinking about: the notion of a kind of inner circle of classical music.

This sounds like paranoia.  Do they have meetings? Does one pay dues? If
there is an inner circle, I doubt anybody on this list is part of it.

>The members of the inner circle are practising artists (and scholars?).
>Uncomprehending people like Shaffer, don't belong to this circle and thus
>talk nonsense about classical music and classical composers.

How about he talks nonsense all on his own, in the circle or out of it?

>I think this is a most dangerous idea because it makes us classical music
>lovers look like a bunch of elitist people.

I really hate the word "elitist." I dislike its use in argument, because
so often it's used to make people apologize for knowing something.  There
are people on this list (not me, God knows) who have spent their adult
lives deeply studying the 18th century and Mozart in particular.  They
get paid in part for doing this.  They've done more than read a few books.
They've done original research.  In short, they know more than most of us.
This alone makes their opinion valuable.  If I think that their opinion is
thus more valuable to more people than, say, my own, that really doesn't
make me an elitist, any more than I think I'm elitist when consulting a
brain surgeon (rather than someone who's read an anatomy book) about
whether I need his services.

That said, one must test everything.  If the brain surgeon's advice makes
no sense to me, I'd probably consult at least another.  In other words,
some opinions are better than others.  Nevertheless, this doesn't make for
a cabalistic inner circle which excludes the worthy outside that circle.

Steve Schwartz