Stirling Newberry:

>>>"Accessibility" is, as I pointed out, a buzzword.  It is a word that is
>>>used by one group of people - primarily followers of tonal or minimalist
>>>composers - to describe what they feel is lacking in music they don't
>>>like. However rather than coming out and saying it, they wrap it in a word
>>>which they can use in their political in fighting.

Mimi Ezust:

>>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.

Stirling replied:

>Nobody reads - Benjamin does, so does Charles Rosen, so does Martino
>-who hangs out around here.  I've heard Kirchner rail against it too.

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?  He goes on:

>So far the people pumping out attacks from the other side are doing
>nothing than offering excellent proof of the charge against them: that
>their social nastiness is a tremendous disincentive to truth, art and the
>growth of classical music.

This is an astonishing accusation, especially when I explicitly stated my
view of Benjamin was:

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

In this statement, which is a belief I hold passionately, there is every
incentive to truth, art and growth of all kinds.  When Mimi writes:

>There is room for everyone here ...

She is surely right in every way.  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 know that I learn from everybody's view, whether I agree or disagree.
Stirling's clear conviction that Benjamin is interested in power and
politics, but not music, is fascinating.  I don't know Benjamin personally
so I cannot comment definitively, but I would love to know why Stirling
believes this so forcefully.

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:

>Mr. Benjamin is not an idiot or a fool.  He knows that this word
>[accessibility] is aimed at him and at music he likes.

when Sudden Time was originally greeted with cries of incomprehension at
its complexity.  And can he tell us in what way power battles really go on
in music?

But I am interested in these things not because of politics or cat-fights,
but because of desire to get to the heart of the matter and to learn and
understand.

Robin Newton
<[log in to unmask]>