Vote Anti-Pop!

Say what you will about this site, but its neglected classics page

http://musoc.org/cronc.htm

and its classics of contemporary art music page

http://musoc.org/classcam.htm

are very useful.

As for its definition of "Art Music,"

http://musoc.org/definitions.htm

I'm not sure if a non-intellectual composer like me could live up to their standards. Actually, I'm not sure that any living composer could really meet all their criteria (unless s/he has an extremely high opinion of what s/he does).

Oy, this is all pretty childish for an organization pretending to be so obsessed with seriousness. (Are you sure this isn't Corey Dargel pulling our collective leg again?) Please, let's not feed the trolls. I already wish I hadn't followed those links.

Molly adds: Yeah, I know, I know. But it's a holiday, and well, the post just sorta happened.

I agree with Elaine. Their defition of art music would exclude my work (I often write for electronic instruments,) but I don't know why an editor for the American Music Center would so strongly jeer at a website that clearly champions modern classical music. There is room for people not carrying the PoMo Party Card. And Dan, there is no reason to try to silence them with ostracism or label them as trolls. The dialog could be beneficial.

Daniel, I am not the culprit here. In fact, I can hardly bear to read a website that's laid out so poorly as that one (and with no images at all!).

However, I am tempted to subscribe to their "Anti-Pop" mailing list, but I have a feeling they'd screen me out, and I don't feel like creating an alternate email address just for that purpose. Molly, you *must* subscribe to the email list, and keep us up to date on their goings-on. I want to go to one of their parties!

Molly adds: I wanted to sign up, but if you sign up it seems like that's a "vote" for their position and they will use your name on their materials. Hmmm....

I don't think you'll get much dialog out of this guy except a dismissive wave of his hand. (I'm assuming it's one guy).

A.C. Douglas thinks it's a joke. (Funny, his name had come to mind right away). http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2009/07/is-it-for-real-or-for-good-natured-skewering.html

I sent an email to Musoc.org with some criticisms of their site, especially their definition of "art music." Someone wrote back and said that the "criteria are to a degree 'artificial' and even somewhat vague..."
They also listed some cross-over composers like Bernstein and Gershwin whose music they (he/she?)appreciated. Dialog seems possible, even if not easy. We might remember that the postmodern crowd can often be just as absolutist and close-minded as classical music purists (or whatever you call them) -- as ironically demonstrated by the suggestions here to not talk to them, to not visit their site, to not sign up for their emails, etc. Dialog opens minds.

I don't think it's helpful to engage in dialog with extremists. There's no reason for us to be defensive, and an engagement with them would only serve to encourage their self-important delusions. Ironically, they're clearly not interested in complexity or nuance! The success and prominence of the kinds of music they are opposed to is, in and of itself, a compelling argument against their positions. Besides, we are not 100% certain that this isn't a joke.

There are rare cases when dialog with "extremists" is wrong because it can legitimize their viewpoints or methods, but when we reject dialog our options are severely curtailed. (In the political world the result is often violence, or continued violence.) In this case, it is exactly a lack of dialog and the absolutist standpoints of the aesthetic encampments that has strongly contributed to extremism on BOTH sides. It was interesting to see Gunther Schuller try to address this problem in the latest feature on NewMusicBox.

"There's no reason for us to be defensive, and an engagement with them would only serve to encourage their self-important delusions."

But - what then will I do with my lunch hour???