Mimi Ezust replies to Stirling Newberry:

>>Actually, "accessibility", with all due respect, may be a buzzword to you,
>>but to me it means the usual.  As a matter of fact, even though I share
>>the same small piece of planet with you, here in the cultural hub of the
>>universe, you are the only person I've ever encountered who rails against
>>this particular "group." Naive me.

In his original statement, Benjamin made it an object of polemicism rather
than a definition.  Given the kind of music Benjamin writes, I really
wonder what he means by "accessible," as applied to music.  I should have
thought he was highly accessible.  In other words, I suspect him of
disingenuousness.

Robin Newton responds:

>This is really fascinating.  Am I being completely naive about this whole
>discussion?  Are musicians of such stature and intelligence really more
>interested in politics than music?  Do they really want to stop certain
>music being written?  Do they really want the big offices and control that
>Stirling wrote of?

Most composers, including Benjamin and Stirling, want to be heard.
Otherwise, what's the point of writing in the first place? However,
resources are scarce.  If a composer takes the trouble to write words
rather than music in the first place, it shouldn't really strike anyone as
odd or even sinister that he should want to smooth the path to performance.
Why not, after all? The problem is that because of scarce resources,
there's an awful lot of good stuff that goes unheard.  The same people tend
to be played.  New people are found in the places where the old people were
found.  I can name (but I won't) three composers on this list who should
have a wider audience and who will have to blow up a dam or something
equally spectacular to get that wider hearing.  Is their music that much
less than, say, Ades or Torke? Not to me.  They simply have the bad fortune
to have studied with the wrong teachers in the wrong part of the country.

>>His belief is in freedom and power of expression.  He wants the very
>>best to be available to everyone.

Very admirable, but it's a bromide.  Why does he feel the need to say this?
After all, is anyone going to say out loud that we should have the worst?
The terms are too loaded, unfortunately.  What is "the best?"

>...  There is room for divergent opinion, for every kind of music, for
>the popular, for the difficult, for the spiritual, for the disposable.
>There is no suggestion of not wishing to put up with anyone.

I agree with Mimi as well.  Unfortunately, when it comes to new music,
scarcity limits what gets heard, and what gets heard reinforces a canon of
"worthy" composers.  I'm *not* saying that people are sheep.  But how many
list members - ie, parties interested in music - would know of composers
other than those recorded by major labels or performed in big-deal venues
or mentioned in the NY Times and the "general-purpose intellectual" press?
That's a problem, particularly when the public at large - or even the
classical-music public at large - isn't buying what's being put forward.

>Can he offer us some concrete examples of why Benjamin's music is that of
>a hack? Can he explain more fully why this statement is true:

No.  He can only point to passages in Benjamin's music and compare them
with other passages by other composers.  In short, he can support his
opinion more or less well.

Stirling has a stake, which he freely admits.  I don't think it
unreasonable.  Whether or not I agree completely with him is another
matter.  However, Benjamin also has a self-interest which he seems to cover
- or, rather, what he is reported to have said makes little sense on its
surface, but it's a pleasing surface.  I suspect advertising of some sort.

Steve Schwartz