Bob Kasenchak [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:

>Communal and/or spontaneous music is great.  But isn't there a difference
>between a drum circle (or compsing via the I Ching) and the serious
>lifelong study of, say, theory and counterpoint?

Of course there's a difference in the way the music is made.  But
you're probably kidding yourself that the lifelong study of theory and
counterpoint in any way guarantees a piece of music's quality.  Some of
the greatest composers had very little knowledge of these things.  Some
of those who had very great knowledge indeed - Arnold Schenker comes to
mind - was not so wonderful a composer.

>I've wondered before how Palestrina & Cage are both considered CM.
>I guess no other genre will have them?

Well, first no one really has defined classical music in a way that
includes all the stuff that would reasonably be included.  Is a Branca
"symphony," for example, CM? Is Mingus's Revelations? Is Russell's All
Around Rosie? Is Bernstein's Prelude, Fugue, and Riffs or Gould's
Derivations?

Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that people value a genre as a
genre, whereas, to me, a genre is neither good nor bad.  It's like saying
that novel is a better genre than play or tragedy is better than comedy.
Categories are either apt or not or serve one purpose or another.  One
makes an aesthetic judgement about individual pieces.  Arlen's "My Shining
Hour" is worth more to me than the entire output of Hugo Wolf, although
many disagree with me.  What I don't believe can legitimately be said,
however, is that a classical Lied per se is better than an American pop
song.

Steve Schwartz