Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!ai-lab!news
From: news@ai.mit.edu (news)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: composition is dead?
Message-ID: <16722@life.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 29 Jun 91 14:25:23 GMT
References: <11273@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Lines: 33

Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
From: mrsmith@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Mr. P. H. Smith)
Path: rice-chex!mrsmith

In article <11353@idunno.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
(Eliot Handelman) writes: 
>In article <1991Jun27.161828.17195@agate.berkeley.edu>
maverick@mahogany.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes: 
>;In article <11273@idunno.Princeton.EDU>, eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot
>;Handelman) writes:
>
>;|> And last of all "composition" is dead,
>;|> significant music is not made that way anymore.
>
>;How do you know I can't make "significant" music by composing?  
>
>"Composing" is too limited, not general enough. That's why it
>pays so little. 

Although a few chaps manage to do quite well in this respect: Andrew Lloyd
Weber made $240 million in one year by composing. 

>That's why in turn it does not attract "the best minds 
>of my generation" (ginsburg). No critical base.

It never has.  Mozart, Wagner, Sweelinck, Alkan, Haydn, Schoenberg --
are these the "best minds" of their generation?  Perhaps Beethoven,
Bach, and Bartok were?  It's hard to figure out what you mean by "best
minds."  Musically?  Overall intellectual aptitude?  If the
latter, then composers generally don't qualify.

Paul
mrsmith@ai.mit.edu