Bernard Gregoire wrote:

>Drew Capuder seems to forget that Mozart created CONTEMPORARY music in
>the 18th century.  The music of today will not be old stuff in the year
>2200.  Categories of music can be onerous and inappropriate descriptions.

Good grief!  Where in the world in any of my posts on this subject (4'33")
did I say anything about whether prior composers wrote "contemporary music"
and which "music of today" (if any) will be remembered in 2200?

If we do want to talk about those topics, I agree with you
that Mozart wrote, especially later in his tragically short life,
"contemporary-sounding" music for that day.  I also agree with you that
a lot of "music of today" won't be remembered in 2200, but the same could
have been said in any prior period: let's say, in 1791 when Mozart died,
in 1827 when Beethoven died, in . . .  well, you get the idea.  There are
bushel-loads of composers from those eras that have deservedly been dropped
into that great trash can of history.  I suspect a lower percentage of the
"difficult" or "avant garde" music of this century wll be remembered (after
all, how many people can hum a tune by Xenakis?), but I think we are seeing
a resurgence of more likeable and less rigid music today that is likely to
be remembered fondly.  Even much of the "only a mother could love it" music
of this century will likely be "remembered" in the sense that it will be
talked about, written about in music history books, and occassionally
performed.  By the way, who the hell gave you the crystal ball so that
you can state these things with such certainty?

On your comments about "categories," I for one am not trying to impose any
great significance on the term "contemporary" (did I even use that term in
my posts on this subject?).  Its not that complicated: "contemporary" can
refer to a historicall era of music, in which it only makes sense to use
that term to describe the era in which we are currently visiting; and
"contemporary" can be used as an incredibly subjective and virtually
worthless adjective to describe a quality of music that sounds, well,
contemporary.  Even if I used "contemporary" in any of my posts, I meant it
only to apply to music of our era, and didn't even remotely try to suggest
anything else by the term.

Who was the better composer? Mozart or Cage? No contest!  Mozart all the
way.  Not even close.  Not even in the same galaxy.  Who was the better
philsopher about music? Cage.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I think Cage had
some good-ball ideas that would appear to come only after smoking a bong
the size of a petrochemical facility; but he also had some innovative and
interesting ideas that heavily influenced musicians and visual artists.
Cage was a brilliant guy (Schoenberg called him an "inventor of genius"),
was very well versed in literature, philosophy, dance, and visual arts,
and, I think, would have been a hell of interesting guy to talk to,
preferably while listening to Mozart.

Your message proves that the new-music geeks aren't the only ones that
are taking all of this stuff too seriously.

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