Donald Satz wrote:

>Chris Bonds wrote:
>
>>How many grade school kids do you know who compose atonal music?
>
>I don't know any grade school kids who compose any music.  Besides, it's
>not a fair question - without exposure to atonal music, kids have never
>heard of it, so they certainly wouldn't be composing it.

Oh, sure.  I agree, and I was just being obstreperous to see if anyone
would respond.  And the report of the kid who LIKED Gawain was instructive
(he may have been paid, however!).  However I still stand by my opinion
about the danger of politically motivated cultural dissemination.  Some
special interest group thinks it's a good thing to expose kids to
something, and people start to complain.  The fact is that ALL the arts
have to fight a constant battle against cultural pap, the intellectual and
spiritual line of least resistance.  That's obvious.  I feel the tug day in
and day out, and so do you (all).  There's a hint of paradox here--if high
art were appreciated by everyone without effort, it would become popular
art.  Perhaps the collective aesthetic standard would be raised, but with
nothing to compare it to no one would be able to say that they were more
cultured than anyone else.  (Not taking into account those who will always
say they are the only ones who REALLY understand great art and music.) It's
clear to me that it DOES take effort to understand complex art and music,
and rather than say many people are not capable of it I would rather say
they are not motivated.  It's not especially relevant to them.

Now Don raises the question in my mind, what is the role of exposure in
determining whether people will become interested in any art form or style?
I think it's paramount.  If kids arent' exposed it's because the parents
don't see the value of it.  This is after all how culture is transmitted.
Parents think it's OK for the kids to watch brainless TV shows (as long
as they're not violent--sometimes--or morally offensive) and don't
understand the harm that pap can do to the developing brain.  But a
healthy musical culture perpetuates itself on many levels.  Composers,
performers, audiences must have a common bond, and that bond has to be
wide and deep.  Perhaps we've let too many weeds grow in our cultural
garden.  Alternatively, perhaps we are blind to the creation of new
cultural and aesthetic norms.  I don't happen to think so, but I may have
a blind spot.  Random thought: Length and complexity of musical works
flourished ca.  1750-19?? because these were positive values in the Western
culture of that time, as was the idea of progressively developing and
unfolding structures within the framework of tonality.  Is it possible to
determine what those values represented, or were related to? I need facts,
figures!  What percent of the general population read Darwin's Origin when
it came out in 1859? What percent would read a similarly important book
today? Who would write such a book? What percent regularly attended Wagner
operas (same period)? What percent does today? Who is going to have the
impact of Wagner in the 21st century? Is it possible for anyone to do that?
Or has the way we receive and process information and culture changed so
much that such a person would be an impossibility?

Chris Bonds