I wrote:

>>What will give the artists and peoples of our age, robbed of our gods and
>>monsters by science and history, and borne of an era that at least tries
>>to distance itself from what I think are the artistically motivating, yet
>>dangerous qualities like ethnocentrism and egocentrism; the will and
>>determination to create like those in the past?

Chris Bonds wrote:

>It's very tempting for me to blame postmodernism, lit-crit,
>multiculturalism, post-structuralism, etc., for the reason why the
>"standard repertoire" is now a museum, and everything including music has
>to be politically savvy and correct.

I'ts funny you should say that, because it's not that I think that a loss
of gods and monsters would lead to cynicism, but rather aimlessness and
impotency.  Gods and monsters used to tell us what to do, and how to
live--as Boorstin has pointed out, philosophers of the past were concerned
with seeking *end* or *purpose*, (and telling people how to get there), as
opposed to our contemporary thinkers who Boorstin suggests are more
concerned with *causes.* (tracing our steps becomes the journey)

Here is what is interesting:  Is it the examination of *causes,*
(oppression, for instance), that has lead, perhaps rightly so, to the
multiculturalism, political correctness, etc.  that Mr.  Bonds is talking
about? Incorporating World Music elements into Western CM has undeniably
enriched the orchestral palette, but if done as a means of "edifying the
oppressed," (without regard to quality) will Western CM go the way of Rome,
whose borders became so spongy that after awhile, and imperceptibly, it
became impossible to recognise the original product.  Will art, in an
attempt to be all things to all people, lose its direction, potency, and
purpose? (Remember the lister who unflatteringly compared Scandinavian Art
with German Art? What is Scandinavian furniture most famous for?
*Functionality*

I have mentioned previously that I wonder if some people's unease with
some modern CM is that its complexity has finally, but imperceptibly,
become improvisation, ala World Music, yet we still treat it as Classical
Music, just as Roman politicians continued to pretend all of its new
citizens shared the same values--didn't Elliot Carter win the Pulitzer in
one of his string quartets for finally giving up standard notation and just
telling the players at which points in the music that they should arrive
together? So what *is* Elliot Carter's music? Classical Music? World Music?
Can either audience appreciate it fully? Has one of our most high-minded
composers actually fallen into the trap of functionality, though thinking
that he is moving music forward? (Yes, composers from Bach to Hindemith
wrote functional music, but functional within their specific culture I
would say.)

What about our "accessible" composers? James Cahill, in "How the Irish
Saved Civilization," sees Ausonius' poetry, (and other arts), towards the
end of the Roman decline, as "no more fresh or interesting that what we
might find in a modern-day sympathy card." Cahill goes on to say that,
"it's not that the vigorous gods of Rome were eclipsed by some new
effeminate eastern fantasy religion, (our New Age Music), or the pacifist
Christ, ('60's Rock and Roll?), it's just that the old religion had drained
away." I wonder if there is a parallel here between Ausonius and our
modern-day pastiche composers--who, for me, don't do more than bring back
the dead.

Some lunch-time thoughts.

John Smyth