Jan Templiner replies to Mike Leghorn:

>>In short, evolution doesn't mean improvement; it means adaptation to
>>change.
>
>But doesn't in this context adaption is pretty much the same as
>improvement?

Why would it mean that? Andrew Porter once said he believed in "progress"
in the arts -- not that things were constantly improving, but "progress"
like a river.

>>Forms that are best suited to the environment thrive, while less suitable
>>forms die off.
>
>This raises a question, which I couldn't find an answer to: Why do
>certain periods have certain forms? Why did the central Europe of the late
>18th century create the sonata form? What was the driving force behind
>that?

Read Charles Rosen's The Classical Style.

And why didn't the late romantics come up with something new?

They did.  They came up with two major structural innovations:  the
"organic" musical form (actually, Beethoven has this as well, but the
Romantics went in for it in a big way, particularly from Wagner on), and
the adaptation of classical form to Wagnerian harmonies (that is, harmonies
which changed much more quickly than those of the 18th century).

>>Our cultural environment is much different than is was 500 years ago,
>>thus, our music is much different also.
>
>Does this mean that the music from 500 years ago is irrelevant today, or
>does it mean that the music that was performed 500 years ao is irrevelant,
>whereas contemporary perofrmances of 500 year old music are relevant? In
>either case, recordings of Furtwangler or Carosu are completely irrelevant,
>aside from giving a view into the society of 50 or 100 years ago.  Did I
>misunderstand you, or did you try to imply this?

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that, although there is music written then,
as there is music written now, which simply fails to catch.  Of course, I
can't speak to what Mike intended, but I suspect you and he are operating
from slightly different views.  You speak from the standpoint of the
listener; Mike, from the standpoint of the composer.  The relevant question
to ask is why composers don't write 18th-century music.  The answer is,
roughly, because John Adams has heard more different kinds of music than
Mozart had.

Steve Schwartz