Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison
From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Modern classical music
Message-ID: <903@eosp1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 31-May-84 18:17:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: eosp1.903
Posted: Thu May 31 18:17:14 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Jun-84 11:35:42 EDT
Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ
Lines: 24

References:

Much of what we regard as great music from the past was not all that
popular in its own day.  Although some of the greatest composers were
nearly instant hits (as Stravinsky and Ravel have been in this century),
many were appreciated much later.  Consequently I don't feel that our
disaffection with much of modern music is all that unusual.  There is an
enormous number of modern composers.  It may take 50 years to sift them out
and concentrate on intelligent performances of the best 150.

It's too early to guess how long the music of, say, Steve Reich will be played,
or whether, say, Ligety's witty piano compositions will gradually become very
popular, etc...  Perhaps the easiest thing to see is how twenty or so
composers working early in the 20th century have become established,
easy-to-listen-to alltime greats (like Bartok).

For those who concentrate on past music, the situation is not "dead".  There
will never be another Beethoven, but there will always be another
interpretation of him, and our ability to understand our favorite composers
is always (I hope) growing.
					- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
					allegra!eosp1!robison
					decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
					princeton!eosp1!robison