@William said:

Music is now in a state of fragmentation.  

Anything, including pure noise, is considered as meaningful as anything else.  

So all the "schools" and "traditions" and "movements" are interchangeable and represent merely whatever one's own taste may be.  In the past there was always a singular great movement. In Western music: Beethoven advancing orchestration and form, Mahler and Bruckner expanding the symphony, Schoenberg creating a new kind of harmony with serialism.  But all of that is past.  Now, any sound is potentially music.  So total freedom has been achieved. 

But the problem with total freedom is chaos.  If everything is meaningful, the state of "nothing means anything" can also exist.  I am not sure it does, so I don't mean to sound extremely negative.  But I remember the great filmmaker Jean Renoir stating: "If I had total freedom I wouldn't know where to begin."  

btw  unlike Errikos I always try to find time to mouth off here on the VSL Forum - as long as the libations hold out.    😮👍🍺

That's all you do William, is "mouth-off", exactly like you said.   You write in such incredible generalities and make such sweeping assumptions ("Music is now in a state of fragmentation") that I have to laugh at your posturing.   More's the pity.  

William writes " In the past there was always a singular great movement..." 

Of course this is wrong, as there have been aesthetic clashes and debates going back to the 14th century with Ars Nova.  The critics were pounding composers in the 19th century as romanticism and modernism clashed, and today, as always, the best composers write music that is authentic to the culture and reflective of the many traditions we've inherited from our ancestors.  Even in the 16th century, there were different approaches and styles all throughout Europe.  There never has been a "singular great movement", you're sentimentalizing the past, which is what people tend to do when they cannot cope with the challenges, complexities, diversity, influences and dynamism of the 21st century.

@Paul McGraw said:

Now imagine you are compelled to sit through 4'33" ostensibly "by" John Cage. He must have been laughing all the way to the bank at how gullible and self-righteous our musical academics have become. If you, like me, KNOW FOR A FACT that John Cage was a con man, with no further evidence needed (although there is lots more) then we might have some common ground.

A con-man?  Wow, that's pretty extreme, if Cage were a con-man what the hell is Donald Trump?  Cage actually wrote some excellent little piano pieces before his desire to integrate eastern philosophy into his music captured his attention.   His 4"33 piece was a statement about silence, about not only the value of silence but that music itself emerges from silence; he was also playing with people's inability to be comfortable with silence, particularly when in a group such as a concert-hall audience..  At least he had an original mind and was capable of originality, I don't hear much of that around here on this forum.  

Paul, you're sounding just like another embittered composer whose ego needs to denounce other creative people who don't fit into your personal tastes.  I sometimes wonder about the role that envy plays among artistic people who haven't really completely accepted their lot in life and their obsessive need to put down others who have achieved more recognition and success than they have.  I wish every composer would turn their "bullshit-detector" inward and shine it on themselves, as it would greatly uplift the level of discussion on this forum.   Between William and Paul, I don't even want to post or participate here any more.   You guys are fundamentalists and really should become a bit more aware of where your angst is really coming from.  It's not about music, it's about ego.  Can't you see that?  It seems pretty clear to me...

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

What is the purpose of this post of yours? What do you hope to gain? Are you trying to silence me? All of these insults, posturing, and amateur psychoanalysis prove nothing. I will not answer you in kind. I have no time to waste on such nonsense. And one thing that you did not talk about was musical aesthetics, or answer my call for greater discrimination and discernment within the realm of concert music. You talked about what Cage hoped to gain by silence. How about a statue of nothing that makes a statement about an empty podium? It is so obsurd it would be funny if it were not so pathetic.

The reason that I use John Cage as an example is that 4'33" is a PERFECT example. What could be less worthy of being called "music" than silence. It isn't even noise. What writer of trash could be less worthy of the noble title of composer than John Cage?

Did you know that John Cage made a very big deal about his claim to have studied with Schoenberg? This claim was especially helpful to him in his early career. Yet Cage does not appear on any class lists or student records of USC, where he claimed to have studied with Schoenberg. When pressed on the matter Schoenberg refused to say anything about Cage. After repeated questions as to whether Cage did or did not study with him, Schoenberg said something about Cage being "very creative." This from a man who took great pride in his legitimate students, writing letters of recommendation and helping them with their careers.

Other students of Schoenberg during the period in which Cage claimed his studies took place have no recollection of John Cage ever being in class, or at the frequent gatherings Schoenberg held at his home. for his pupils. There have been academic papers written to try and reconcile these facts, but no actual evidence of any studies has ever been found, just attempts to obfuscate the simple truth. John Cage falsified his credentials and obviously was a con man.

Until we can once again begin to show some discernment about the quality of musical creations, the audience will continue to become further and further alienated. And they should. It is an intelligent reaction to people like John Cage.

Irrespective of whether JCcage was a con man or not, or his musical credentials, and despite my love for the grandest and loudest and most organized sound (thats why I love Mahler and Stravinsky and now Salonen), I gotta admit this about Cage: it took some guts to write a 'piece of music; where the pianist walks on the stage, sits in front of the piano for 4'33'' (btw this is 273 seconds, representing absolute zero in the Kelvin scale), then gets up and walks out. He was making a bold philosophical statement that makes us question who we are and how we relate to music from a broader perspective. So this is not really music but about us humans. It has its place in history and we cannot erase it.

@agitato said:

Irrespective of whether JCcage was a con man or not, or his musical credentials, and despite my love for the grandest and loudest and most organized sound (thats why I love Mahler and Stravinsky and now Salonen), I gotta admit this about Cage: it took some guts to write a 'piece of music; where the pianist walks on the stage, sits in front of the piano for 4'33'' (btw this is 273 seconds, representing absolute zero in the Kelvin scale), then gets up and walks out. He was making a bold philosophical statement that makes us question who we are and how we relate to music from a broader perspective. So this is not really music but about us humans. It has its place in history and we cannot erase it.

No, we cannot ever erase the damage done by Cage and his ilk. Was it a bold philosophical statement or extreme laziness coupled with arrogance and a calculating understanding of just how gullible his audience really was?

I am reminded of the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta "Patience" which according to Wikipedia is "a satire on the aesthetic movement of the 1870s and 80s in England and, more broadly, on fads, superficiality, vanity, hypocrisy, and pretentiousness." I love Gilbert and Sullivan, and whenever I see "Patience" the leading character reminds me of John Cage. I highly recommend the experience.

During the late romantic era, the leading composers were Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Brahms, and Verdi. Eventually, the value of the music composed by Bruckner, Mahler, Grieg, and a few others was recognized. But if you have ever listened to "Unsung Masterworks" on YouTube, you know that there are many, many more composers who were active in that era, composed diligently, and wrote often attractive music. They did not gain fame or lasting recognition. Why not? Is it just luck? Was it like Hollywood and they refused to go to bed with the most influential critics? Right now I am listening to Victor Bendix Symphony No. 3 (1895). A very enjoyable piece of music. Why is Brahms lauded and not Bendix?

The answer is that with enough hours, months, and years of study we can begin to glimpse the why. Music of value consists of melody (motives), harmony, counterpoint (voice leading), orchestration, form, structure, and artistic (aesthetic) content. Apparently, some admire the artistic or aesthetic content of John Cage's 4'33" but what about melody, harmony, counterpoint, etc. It is devoid of all other elements. A good melody, all by itself, would not be worthy of being called great music. But I think it would have a better claim to greatness than silence.

And despite Jerry's post above, I would say that Jerry's music has an infinitely better claim to greatness than anything ever put on paper by John Cage.

I want to apologize to Jerry Gerber - I obviously got him pissed off at me, and I know I do mouth off here, off the cuff.  Maybe it's that original criticism I had of the Gumby series - I don't actually think I would have done better and I certainly would have taken the job if offered a lot of money.  Anyway I don't want to be in a vicious argument with anybody - that doesn't make me happy.  It is the music here I really like!

Best,

William Kersten

[/quote]

Hi Jerry,

What is the purpose of this post of yours? What do you hope to gain? Are you trying to silence me? All of these insults, posturing, and amateur psychoanalysis prove nothing. I will not answer you in kind. I have no time to waste on such nonsense. And one thing that you did not talk about was musical aesthetics, or answer my call for greater discrimination and discernment within the realm of concert music. You talked about what Cage hoped to gain by silence. How about a statue of nothing that makes a statement about an empty podium? It is so obsurd it would be funny if it were not so pathetic.

The reason that I use John Cage as an example is that 4'33" is a PERFECT example. What could be less worthy of being called "music" than silence. It isn't even noise. What writer of trash could be less worthy of the noble title of composer than John Cage?

Did you know that John Cage made a very big deal about his claim to have studied with Schoenberg? This claim was especially helpful to him in his early career. Yet Cage does not appear on any class lists or student records of USC, where he claimed to have studied with Schoenberg. When pressed on the matter Schoenberg refused to say anything about Cage. After repeated questions as to whether Cage did or did not study with him, Schoenberg said something about Cage being "very creative." This from a man who took great pride in his legitimate students, writing letters of recommendation and helping them with their careers.

Other students of Schoenberg during the period in which Cage claimed his studies took place have no recollection of John Cage ever being in class, or at the frequent gatherings Schoenberg held at his home. for his pupils. There have been academic papers written to try and reconcile these facts, but no actual evidence of any studies has ever been found, just attempts to obfuscate the simple truth. John Cage falsified his credentials and obviously was a con man.

Until we can once again begin to show some discernment about the quality of musical creations, the audience will continue to become further and further alienated. And they should. It is an intelligent reaction to people like John Cage.

[/quote]

My purpose is that I hope you gain the self-awareness to recognize that the intensity and vehemence of your opinion about Cage are not about John Cage or modernism in general, or music. It's about your anxiety about who you are.  And by the way, though you wrote above you will "not answer me in kind", you did exactly that, you answered me. 

You wrote "we cannot ever erase the damage done by Cage and his ilk".  And exactly what damage did he do?  He offended your sense of beauty?  You call that damage?  Men and women who do damage are people who rob, steal, rape and harass women, start wars, drive drunk, and who charge obscene prices for basic human needs.   THOSE are the people who cause damage.  My God, get some perspective!

What this is about for me is witnessing a reactionary intolerance to traditions and creativity outside of one person's (yours) definition of culture.  Everyone has the right to reject any artist they want to, I have no argument that Cage isn't your cup of tea, I've never been inspired by his work either.  But it's not your opinion that caught my attention, it's the vehemence.

A cultural fundamentalist cannot, or will not, recognize that change is the very nature of all things on earth.   With fundamentalism, whether it be religious, economic or artistic fundamentalism, every value, ideal and sense of what is "pure" is rigidly adhered to and intolerance to ideas outside of the fundamentalist belief system is reacted to with a fierce animosity, as you demonstrate so clearly in your diatribe against Cage.  With such vitriol against a man who merely expressed himself artistically the way he saw fit, how can I help but suspect your ego is threatened by creativity and ideas outside of your own traditions?  THAT is what you ought to be confronting. The fragility of ego is on display here, and believe me, everyone has trouble with ego, including me.  The bible calls it pride, in modern day terminology we usually call it ego. 

Posturing, insults?   You got to be kidding!  I am just telling you how I perceive your comments, it's none of my business whether you take them constructively or whether you just keep getting more defensive and angry.  It's your choice.

Jerry

@William said:

I want to apologize to Jerry Gerber - I obviously got him pissed off at me, and I know I do mouth off here, off the cuff.  Maybe it's that original criticism I had of the Gumby series - I don't actually think I would have done better and I certainly would have taken the job if offered a lot of money.  Anyway I don't want to be in a vicious argument with anybody - that doesn't make me happy.  It is the music here I really like!

Best,

William Kersten

Apology accepted, but really, you don't need to apologize William.  I'd prefer if you just try to write more carefully and craft a post on an online forum with as much care and attention to detail as when you write a piece of music.  The advantage of doing that, besides the satisfaction of knowing you said exactly what you mean, is that there is less chance of being misunderstood.  Since none of us have facial recognition, body language, gesture or eye contact (all of which help humans to understand and sympathize with one another) the best we can do on online forums is to make our language as precise as possible.  Wise people become humble through the love of truth, fools become humble through humiliation.   Since we are all a little of both, let's try to be wiser.  ;>😉

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

If I was going to answer you in kind, I would insult you, denigrate your knowledge and abilities, create an insulting pseudo psychiatric analysis of your motives and try to silence you from stating your views. That is what you have been doing to me. But I have not responded in kind. Although it would not be difficult to do so. You obviously know nothing at all about me personally, yet you continue to malign and accuse me of motives which you just made up in your head.

Jerry, in all seriousness, your behavior towards me has been shameful. I seem to remember you have a history of losing control like this. Isn't that right Jerry? But usually, your tantrums are reserved for anyone who criticizes your music. Isn't that correct Jerry? You seem to have a habit of losing control. But I think this is the first time you have gone off the reservation because you didn't like someone else's ideas. Or perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. I recommend you do a little soul searching and consider your own motives in making these attacks on me.

I hate to do this to you Jerry, but further personal attacks on me will force me to report you to the forum moderators. 

@Paul McGraw said:

Hi Jerry,

If I was going to answer you in kind, I would insult you, denigrate your knowledge and abilities, create an insulting pseudo psychiatric analysis of your motives and try to silence you from stating your views. That is what you have been doing to me. But I have not responded in kind. Although it would not be difficult to do so. You obviously know nothing at all about me personally, yet you continue to malign and accuse me of motives which you just made up in your head.

Jerry, in all seriousness, your behavior towards me has been shameful. I seem to remember you have a history of losing control like this. Isn't that right Jerry? But usually, your tantrums are reserved for anyone who criticizes your music. Isn't that correct Jerry? You seem to have a habit of losing control. But I think this is the first time you have gone off the reservation because you didn't like someone else's ideas. Or perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. I recommend you do a little soul searching and consider your own motives in making these attacks on me.

I hate to do this to you Jerry, but further personal attacks on me will force me to report you to the forum moderators. 

Maybe you should report me to the Taliban, they hate music and would probably cut my head off.  Or report me to Homeland Security, or the police.  ;>😉

Please take some deep breaths and go for a nice walk Paul.   I sincerely hope you don't have a heart attack over my comments.   I didn't realize how fragile you are.  BTW, I've had no tantrum over this, nor have I lost self-control, I've been calm and relaxed all day and have been enjoying my evening.   Sorry you couldn't learn something and benefit from my observations.

Unfortunately, this forum doesn't allow blocking, otherwise I'd encourage you to block my comments.

Hi Jerry,

For once we agree, I don't think it is possible for someone to set up blocks on posts. But I think in future I will simply ignore anything you post.

I find it amusing that in your mind you think I need to learn something from you. Good night Jerry, I am going to bed now. 

@Paul McGraw said:

Hi Jerry,
For once we agree, I don't think it is possible for someone to set up blocks on posts. But I think in future I will simply ignore anything you post.
I find it amusing that in your mind you think I need to learn something from you. Good night Jerry, I am going to bed now.

Paul, Jerry and William,

reading your comments I see nothing but people passionate about 'classical' music in their own way. Afterall this is all about music and not religion or other kind of ideology where people are out to kill each other. So we really all can get along. Just that one set of people here prefer to music until ~1910 and the other group likes music all the way till 2017. Big deal!  

I am feeling sad that my thread has resulted in so much bitterness between fine composers.

My intention was to understand how others here felt about high quality and genuine 20th century music. I felt that such a discussion is important besides making music, since it provides us a larger perspective.

Anyways I didnt realize this topic can be inflaming and can become a distraction from other threads with good music posted in this forum. So I am sorry about that.

Cheers

Anand

Hi Anand,

There is nothing wrong with your thread. (Ok I do neither belong to any side of People who "prefer"  any music I just like it in the certain way it is. But I am sure this is only my personal attitude and other might and will have different views)

Neither you nor you thread is in any way responsible for the way other react on it. I like the fact, that this comunity discusses more than just which sample is positioned to much in the center , background, foreground, chosen to soft, to accented or what ever. Technical details can be great to talk about, but music is more and the vvivid response your thread received is just the proof that is obviously true for all who discussed here so intensivly.

I personally prefer discussions with honest dispute over those with more or less meaningless consens and flatterey. A good friend is the one who is able to criticise and give you a different view not the one who do not dare to do so.  In this respect the participants of this thread seem to be very verys good friends... arent they ? 😃

My intention was to understand how others here felt about high quality and genuine 20th century music. I felt that such a discussion is important besides making music, since it provides us a larger perspective.

It is a worthy discussion Anand, especially amongst those of us who actually know about it, practise it, or at the very least like music in our time - music written by great, discerning composers, often with a compelling voice that has complete mastery of the language and technique of music allied to invention, imagination and expressive power all of which is equal to any period in music. Art for our time.

I agree with Fahl - no need to be sad whatsoever and keep your erudite observations coming.

Hi Anand,

There is no reason for you to feel sad. As far as I am concerned, you have simply started a discussion. I do not agree that all music is of equal value and that it is all just a matter of personal prefernce, like vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream. I believe the comparison is more like, eat a healthy meal or eat a box of arsenic. One supports a healthy life, one brings death.

The problem with "modern music" is the complete abandonment of the language of music that was slowly and carefully built up by western civilization over a period of a thousand years. That is a lot to throw away just for novelty. This stems IMHO from a perverse fetish for "breaking new ground" and believing that the bizarre equates with value. 

Schoenberg was among the first and most agressive proponents of atonality. He wrote a few highly chromatic works such as Transfigured Night (1899) that maintined a tenuous grip on tonality and which were fairly well received. But he quickly veered more and more away from the established system of tonality, finally establishing serialism in the 1920's. From the very beginning audiences rejected this complete break with musical language. Thus he and his group began the process of alienating audiences that has led to the current situation. The clash between Stravinsky and Schoenberg is well documented and extremely interesting to study. Basically nothing has changed in the 100 years since. All the arguments are the same now as they were then. People were passionate about the history of music then perhaps far more than now. I firmly side with Stravinsky, despite the fact that in his later years he also experimented with serialism. I can not fault him, since I also, many years ago,  have written in the atonal and serial manner.

Schoenberg despised Stravinsky, Ravel and all of the succesful composers who were continuing to write tonal music. Academics gradually accepted Schoenberg's views. After all, it was now possible for a PHD in composition to write music almost everyone hated and still claim everyone else was simply incapable of appreciating their music. Talent, hard work, and quality craftsmanship were no longer required in order to claim to be a composer. I am ashamed to say that it was primarily American universities most guilty of this corruption.

So if we pick say, 1921 as the beginning of complete atonality, it has now been around for 96 years. That is a long time in the history of music. For comparison Beethoven wrote his revolutionary Eroica in 1805 and Dvorak wrote his 9th Symphony in 1893, which is a span of 88 years. Atonality is no longer "new" or the way forward for young composers. Any composer writing atonal music has as much claim on "modernism" as a composer in 1900 writing in the style of Beethoven. Atonality is old.

Paul,

So who do you rate out of todays' concert composers? bearing in mind that  music today does not have to be atonal. Who moves you in the correct way? 

Your point about atonality being old is specious because you are comparing differing paradigms - why can't a young composer write atonally as a way forward exactly? and hasn't tonality been around since well before Beethoven, thus defying the McGraw durational limit for aesthetic movements? If atonality is indeed "old" what do you propose for our said young composer as a way forward? How does a young composer find a voice perhaps even a distinctive one, that speaks to our time, tonally or not? (atonal writing does not necessarily have to exclude tonal principles).

 I agree that institutions are responsible for forcing young composers into potential cul de sacs so far as their creativity goes and some are doubtless guilty of eschewing the basics for the sake of novelty. But it is equally important that young composers try to make themselves relevant and like it or not, 12 tone equivalence is still being used because it has a great expressive potential that can embrace tonality too.

Hi Paul,

I think I can imagine what you think is in music "healthy". And yes I personally always found Bach extremly healthy if not of vital necessity for keep once musical reason clean. And the serene modest musical passion and clear architecture of great classical composers are for me always like coming home in the fielld of pure musical nature.

But.... I do absolutly not feel the same with music from composers of the 20th and 21th century who are simply imitate that certain language of one or another earlier musical epoque (like barowue or classical). I always felt there was kind of untruthfulness, as far they just imitate one single step in musical history and avoid to develop their own kind of musical expression out of their own (musical) reality.

Thanks god we have no more Pricipalities of Bach or Mozarts time where the question if music have a chance depends on the question how musical sensible one single sovereign is. And yes not everything which iis part of our musical reality must necessarily be part of what we ourselve do really want to express.

I understand and accept, that that the sens of overthrow you feel in for instance the music of Schoenberg and his pupils is not what you feel any necessity for in your musical intentions. And yes it is absolutly wrong to make Schoenbergs composition concepts to kind of an academic standard of how 20th century music has to be written.

But on the other side their ntention was imho just part of the 20th century as a whole: keeping the musical thinking on an equal intellectual abstract level which made by far the most innovations in science and technology of the 20th century possible. It is a thinking which has to be ready to build up completly new concepts, which does not fearfully stick on a few familiar conventions, but is ready to try everything based on completly new assumptions, Exploring the realm of what hitherto has always been the "dark side" since that is the area, where new light might allow new discoveries.

If music is a language, than the language does "not only" rely on unchangable physical laws, but also on the Ideas which want to be communicated in that language. Given that no one can pretend to know any absolute truth or "better" Truth, than others we must admit, that even musical experiments and explorations for instance of the early 20 th century do have their own truth to tell. Which is as you underlined rightly today nothing else than one step in the ongoing path of our musical history. With not more but also not less impotants as Bach and Beethoven may have had for Wagner, Schumann fo Alban Berg or Liszt for Debussy and Debussy for Cage or Ligeti.

If music is a language to exprress what human minds and human creativity is able to, it is imho very "healthy" to listen to and try to undestand, what others have already told in their own time with their own means. If you just deny to understand what has happend in music the last 150 years I fear you might end up like an musical Kaspar Hauser.

And guess what It was exactly Schoenberg and his Pupils which took that commitment to understand und study the musical tradition as deep and severe as possible (Just take a look on the incredible amount of most ambitous conventional compositions and Counterpoint-Studies of the young Alan Berg - of which I have recorded many for the very first time) for instance and you will see, that their main Intention was definitly not to destroy any tradition, but moreover to carry it on to build up upon it. You can also see this aspect in the strong commitment of most early dodecaphonic compositions of the 2. Viennese School to classical form-Concepts like Suite, Sonata, Variation etc. (Which I admit makes it still very attractive for scholars and academics to analyse and teach)

But: To know and understand what our musical tradition is does not answer at all the question, what our answer might be.

And here it depends on our decision what we would like to realise, what we are fascinatedd from, what we feel the need to express. A reasonable composer today would not feel compelled to write music in dodekaphonic style, because any of his academic teachers told him this makes the top of his curriculum.

He would just listen to what ever meaningful music he can find and would sooner or later feel exactly what he wants to answer. And it is my humble opinion, that the more he is able to understand what the great musicians of the last centuries have done, the deeper his answer might be. That is whay I would be very careful to exclude half of our musical history even if this as you rightly pointed out is all already not more and not less than our musical history which when you understand it well may at least lay the foundations for what we can do in the presence we are living in.

mh-7635,

Why not post under your real name? I believe using ones real name on the internet fosters a more congenial environment for all.

Who do I rate? By that I think you mean who do I admire and spend time listening to their music? The fields of choral music, especially religious choral music, and symphonic band music, have many composers of note. The way this usually works is I name a few, then the proponent of atonality trashes them, thinking they have thus won some kind of point. However, I will play along and we will see what happens.

Among choral composers Eric Whitacre has had enormous success. Among symphonic band composers Phillip Sparke is well worth a listen. Most of the best orchestral writers have gravitated towards film music. There are many of these in the past, Korngold, Herman and Miklos Rozsa immediately come to mind. Living today we have a clear connection with concert music in the Lord of the Rings Symphony by Howard Shore. 

But no need to look further than right here at the VSL forum. Guy Bacos and William Kersten create marvelous, well crafted orchestral music. 

My statement that atonality is old is not a misleading, false, or deceptive argument. It is simply a fact, and was stated as a fact backed up by factual evidence. Calling a fact an opinion, even calling it specious, does not advance the discussion. I do not have a time limit for aesthetic movements. What made you think that? Tonality dates back to the dawn of human history. The greek philosophers of antiquity wrote about the various modes. 

What do I propose for young composers? I would tell them to write what is in their heart. I would tell them that if they want a large audience they need to utilize the tonal language of music. I would tell them not to worry about being "original" or "finding their own voice" or "speaking to our time." If they master their craft, then if they have something original to say it will come out of them naturally.

Yes, institutions have probably ruined many potentially fine composers. Thankfully that seems to be changing. I do not agree that anyone needs to "make themselves relevant." How do we judge what is or is not relevant to our current society? Isn't Eric Witacre relevant? If not, why not? 

Hi fahl5,

I'm sorry that I do not know your real name so I cannot address you by name. 

Tradition is not at the core of my thinking in this matter, although traditions are generally important. I think that much of modern art and music (and even politics) in the 20th century was all about rebelling against the accumulated wisdom of humanity to that point. I do not think of traditions as necessarily wise, so tradition to me is not an issue in this case.

Why do you feel a young composer should write in the atonal style of 100 years ago, but not in the classical style of 225 years ago? Why is one acceptable to you and not the other?

Peteris Vasks, Sergei Lyapunov, Nikolai Kapustin, Takashi Yoshimatsu and a few more. Or should I also mention Messiaen, Glass, Gorecki? They mastered the material and formed their ideas into really beatiful music, maybe with the exception of Glass - not my favorite.
Leopold advised his son, Wolfgang, not to forget the audience and he assured his father that he always kept that in mind. All that so called modern music, maybe with 31-tones scales (Christian Huygens - 1629-1695), all the programmed chaos, it is not my cup of tea. Acceptable to me is music, that caresses my ears and uplift my soul and doesn't spoil my appetite.

Raymond

Sergei Lyapunov

Sergei Lyapuno