Denis Fodor replies to Margaret Mikulska:

>>You just refuse to believe that for some people, modern music has always
>>been more "natural" than the traditional, canonical repertory.
>
>The ingenious thing here is that it comes to the core of the problem,
>namely that there's a warp between these two kinds of music.  This has
>been accorded recognition in the fine arts, where we now go to the
>Guggenheim to enjoy the modern and to the Uffizzi to enjoy the classical
>canon.

I think it would be more accurate to say that many people perceive a warp,
just as they perceive warps among pop music and the Trad/Nontrad classical
music.  I'm not saying that these things don't work in different ways, but
I doubt that most people listen that closely to appreciate the differences.

I've observed that children in musical households *don't* distinguish
among these things, which makes me wonder about the "naturalness" of
such distinctions.  My nephews certainly did not separate music into
pre-measured bins, up to the age of 13 or so.  I certainly didn't.  My
favorite pieces were Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker -- arranged by Fred Waring --
and Symphony No.  6, Art Tatum, Beethoven's Fifth, Jimmy Durante's "Bill
Bailey," Cab Calloway's "Minnie the Moocher," Teddy Wilson, Benny Goodman,
Fifties pop hits by the likes of Rosemary Clooney, Guy Mitchell, Kay
Armand, and Perry Como, Rodgers and Hammerstein, and my mother's piano
repertory, which included Bach's English Suite No.  2, some fugitive
Debussy, and preludes and fugues by Shostakovich (written prior to the
currently well-known set).  To me, it was all "music." Even today,
obviously, the idea of drawing lines to separate these types for any
purpose other than convenient discussion strikes me as bizarre.

Steve Schwartz