Steve Schwartz writes in response to Stirling: >>The editor of the New York Times picked Griffiths because he knows >>that Griffiths will, reliably, draw the support of a particualr group of >>individuals. As Deryk so ably points out, people who are not in agreement >>with the avant-garde world view don't count in criticising him. > >How would the Times know, outside of a few names, what the aesthetic >affiliation is? You write a critical letter to the Times. They publish >it or they don't. As soon as you say that power justifies doing what ever it does, it ends the question of discussion and begins the question of fighting. If the question is "who has the power to publish" then the only recorse for those who do not have the power to publish is to take it away from those who do. This precise process - of attempting, by argument and invective, to deny the other side a place at the table is precisely what has been going on for the last 90 years. It is precisely the intent of the Griffiths article. If having the money and power to print justifies printing whatever you like, then it also justifies saying whatever is necessary to humiliate the powers that be. In otherwords it tosses us back in the kettle of saying that serial music "isn't music", that its adherents "aren't sincere", and that "nobody likes the stuff anyway but a fringe group of people who just happen to have the power to push it through". Actually looking at these attacks on the avant-garde, they look pretty tame, I imagine with a bit of work one could come up with much better accusations to hurl, and both Steve and Bernard tell me that that is exactly what I should be spending my time on. Because in the current climate there is *zero* market for articles which talk about the necessity for perspective and a fair market for those which stridently rehash truths that the editors of various publications already agree with. By the standard that Bernard and Steve offer me, I should write an article entitled "Serialism is Stalinism set to music", fill it with every canard of the tonalist cause from 1905 forward. Or, should I point out, that is exactly what people like Donald Vroon have been spending their time on. Several people have laughed at his writing style, his politics, his positions and his insistence on his viewpoint - but people like him are gatekeepers. As long as such people are kept in position, then the only choice is extremism or silence. Each article like Griffiths only strengthens people like Vroon - because, as the people on this list have pointed out *the press is free for those who own them*. - - - The principles offered in defense of Griffiths should make anyone uncomfortable - move them to another context, such as race or political affiliation, and instantly people would become uncomfortable. I imagine that if the New York Times published an article, in a news section and without balancing view point, which read: "Think of the World without Ronald Reagan! Who, by his defense build up single handedly brought the evil empire to its knees, who by his wise insistence on supply side tax cuts pulled America out of its worst recession in the post-war era, whose political influence is pervasive in bringing back moral family values to America. Without Reagan, America would be in very sorry shape, and all real Americans should be thankful for his presidency, and saddened by the immoral antics which have dimminished the presidency since then." Several people here would be howling with outrage. And yet what Griffiths wrote - and the Times published, without rebuttal on an equal footing - is exactly the same thing. People who don't support Boulez are not contemporary, they're accomplishments count for nothing, and anyone who is worth listening to is indebt to him. All real music lovers have to agree on this. Either pure partisanship is acceptable, or it is not. If it is, then it is acceptable anywhere - up to and including statements such as "Jews aren't real Germans". If this makes you feel uncomfortable, then why should "Music exists in the avant-garde or not at all" make you feel less uncomfortable. Both are, after all, declarations that the other side isn't really human and doesn't have real equal access to the public discourse. Most of us have watched in dismay as the situation between the Isrealis and the Palestinians has deteriorated. And there is a lesson that is generally applicable - Isrealis will listen only when other Isrealis tell them to stop, and Palestinians will listen only when Palestinians tell them to stop. The extremists on both sides will not listen to moderates, but only when people they recognise as being of their own criticise them. Where ever passions for party are invoked, this will hold. To end these passions does not happen by one side deciding to just lie back and enjoy it. Only when it is clear that the extremists no longer speak for their group is their the potential of dialog, becuase only then is the question of power removed from the equation. While classical music, as a whole, would be better off if all of this nonsense came to an end, it will not happen until the respective camps state clearly that the kinds of statements that are regularly made in public of the sort that Griffiths, Teachout, Rosen and Vroon publish are not acceptable, and say so with sufficent force that the message is understood clearly. stirling s newberry [log in to unmask] http://www.mp3.com/ssn