I love Richard Strauss's music - leaving aside some of the very early
stuff and of the occasional music - but I must admit that Alec Ross's New
Yorker article puzzled me on several counts.  First, the whole "composer of
the century" bit seemed incredibly bogus, particularly since he dismisses
likely candidates far too quickly on frivolous grounds (Stravinsky never
makes him cry?).  Second, although it's nice to see Eine Alpensinfonie
getting some respect for a change (Blomstedt and the San Francisco on
London/Decca blow Karajan out of the water), it's no more a Mahler parody
than Mendelssohn's Preludes and Fugues parody Bach.  It is, I believe, a
sincere tribute to the memory of Mahler by a great contemporary.  Third,
the "relevance of relevance" thread has been old news for at least thirty
years (at least in criticism other than that of music).

In all, a very strange article.  I suspect Ross wanted to write about
Strauss, but the only hook that occurred to him came in the form of
"composer of the century." Perhaps this is the only way he could sneak
it past the New Yorker editors.

By the way, how is Tina Brown's new magazine, Talk, doing? I never see it
on the stands.

Steve Schwartz