Bernard Chasan wrote:

>Joseph Sowa states that the western art really started with Bach, Telemann,
>and contemporaries.  They were the first generation of the well-tempered
>tuning, and the first of the diatonic music.
>
>This leaves out a host of great seventeenth century composers at the
>very least, and seems to me profoundly arbitrary.  There are Monteverdi,
>Schuetz, the Gabrielis, Palestrina, Byrd, just to name a few great
>composers in the great tradition of western music.

There's a ton of diversity in this "4'33" thread," and it looks like there
is something or other with which everyone can disagree.

I agree with Bernard, (in disagreeing with Joseph), in that I have big
problems with saying that roughly 1650-1685 marks the beginning of "Western
art." Does Joseph mean literally all forms of western art, especially
painting? Starting at 1650 for the beginning of "Western art" for painting
would eliminate many of the top dogs that would universally be regarded as
some of the greatest painters in history.  And good lord, think about what
1650 as a starting date would cut out in architecture!

Sticking to music, I couldn't possibly agree with any "starting date" for
"art" that excluded Monteverdi (1567-1642, I think).  His madrigals, sacred
works, and operas are mature by any reasonable definition, and I think
should clearly be ranked as some of the most significant bodies of works in
music history (especially the madrigals and the operas).

If we're talking about the "starting point" for "Western art," why is
well-tempered tuning so important? I think I understand its significance
on a number of levels, but not as to when "Western art" really started.

Drew M. Capuder
Fairmont, West Virginia USA
[log in to unmask]