Mr. Dalmas wrote:

>Stirling S. Newberry wrote:
>
>>I'm afraid I can't take this description seriously, it does not match the
>>evidence of how either Brahms composed his four symphonies or Beethoven
>>composed his symphonies.
>
>It is interesting that Mr. Newberry brings up Brahms first, as Brahms is ...
>many, many" periods in history when nothing great was produced.

Every age has it in it to produce greatness, but not greatness in every
form, in every field and for every taste.  This is in the nature of things,
whether there is the ability of this age to produce great works of a
particular kind of symphonic music is to be determined by history, and not
by whatever chatter we might decide to indulge in.

Instead I would like to stick to the facts:

1.  Mr. Dalmas made a specific description of how to write a great
symphony.  The description is in contravention to the examples of Brahms
and Beethoven.  He provides a fallacious and specious argument against
Brahms and does not address the point of Beethoven.  The specific fallacy
is "appeal to authority".  In short he has failed to refute the
counter-example.

2.  Mr. Dalmas has not, to my knowledge, produced a great work.  But on
the other hand he has offered no proof of the validity of his method, and
the corresponding invalidity he claims for all other methods.

He has failed to meet his burdens.

3.  Mr. Dalmas' reading of history and art is so inadequeate to the facts
that it is not even a starting point for discussion.  Clearly one of the
most suffering people's in the history of Europe were the Irish, and yet,
I am hard pressed to cite the long line of distinguished symphonists that
Ireland has produced.  Conversely, if he means that art in general is the
product of suffering, then the Americas have produced enough great art to
be proof of great suffering.  In either case his theory explains nothing,
not even what it was invoked to explain in the first place.

He has failed to give any adequeate justification for his biases,

Thus again failed to meet his burdens of explaining why his thesis is an
overwhelmingly better framework for understanding than other competing
explanations.  Explanations such as "Mr. Dalmas is not perfect.", "The
kind of greatness he wants happens to be out of fashion and thus not much
in evidence" and, horrors, "The truth about the substance of a work of
music is that which is to be discovered and not derrivable from a priori
assertions." Since he has not addressed any of these points adequeately,
and each is, to a reasonable observer, a likely explanation - there is a
tremndous gap in his argument.

When Mr. Dalmas has facts, evidence, logic or a great work to show me,
rather than assertions, fallacies and empty verbiage, I will give somewhat
more credence to his position. Until then there is nothing to discuss.

Stirling S Newberry
[log in to unmask]