Here’s something wonderful. There’s now a spirited and very civilized
debate about Allan Kozinn’s New York Times piece, in the
href="http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/2006/05/new_book_episode_and_allan_koz.html#comments">comments
to my last post — with Allan himself taking part. Allan’s
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/arts/music/28kozi.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2">piece
if you haven’t seen it, was the cover story in the “Arts & Leisure” section
this past Sunday, and says that classical music has never been healthier.
Obviously, that’s not the view I take.
I weigh in a few times (well, maybe more than a few times), in comments to the comments. But the
best thing is Allan’s own participation, which makes me very happy. I’ve said
that I’ve known him for years, and that I like him a lot. Because he’s taking
part in the debate, his views can get the fullest possible consideration. This
is good for all of us. No matter who’s right, we need
to hear every side in the discussion. Thanks, Allan, for being so generous and
thorough your contributions. I’ll eventually write some kind of comment of my
own, as a regular blog post. But now, thanks to Allan, it won’t simply be a
response to his essay. It can be a summary of a really good conversation.










Recent Comments
Greg Sandow on The Monday post
Louis, you're entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Museums of contemporary art routinely exhibit realist work,...Greg Sandow on …for…
No need for an audience to be homogenous. I worked with the Pittsburgh Symphony on a concert series that was...Jeffrey Sultanof on The Monday post
Greg, Not only didn't the audiences like new music, but the critics.....It is fascinating to read their reactions to now-classic works...Louis Torres on The Monday post
The term "new" requires clarification. With regard to music, it had an entirely different meaning in 1860 than it does...bgn on …for…
" But if S4M did draw a NY-based event audience, would there be two not wholly compatible groups at the...