 |
Vol. XIX No. 7 April 2004 |
 |
 Dear Editor: The Letter to the Editor by Aaron Alexander in the March issue responding to the interview with James Judd ( "James Judd on Music, Politics, and the Future of Orchestras," February 2004 Journal ) deeply disappointed me in two ways: that such a dangerously reactionary and (mis-) slanted letter would be published (it had really very little to do with the Judd interview), and that you would let it go uncommented as Mr. Alexander drags, so to speak, contemporary music (a broad term, if I ever heard one) through the mud to explain why he doesn't attend more concerts. I expected more quality from you, or are these views shared by The Journal ?
David Smeyers (MM '77, clarinet)Köln, Germany
Dear Editor: I am somewhat perplexed by the publication of the letter in the March issue. While entirely in agreement with Mr. Alexander's views, I do not see where his main premise is relevant to the issues raised by Maestro Judd. In fact, Mr. Alexander says that the issues raised by Mr. Judd are "beside the point," and the choice of publishing this letter in response to Maestro Judd clearly indicates a lack of focus on the issues. Could not a more appropriate letter have been published? Mr. Alexander's views represent a far more controversial issue, that of the effect of new music on today's audiences. If you accept the validity of Mr. Alexander's allegations, which you seem to be doing by not even attempting to refute them, you are passively damning new music. I, for one, believe that all of the great classical music has been written, an opinion that will bring down the wrath of every living composer, music critic, and probably a lot of others, too. My contention that Romantic music composed by lesser-known American and European composers be investigated will only brand me and others as reactionary. Into this category, I would also put Liszt's symphonic poems and the like. However, there is more heart and soul in those works than in anything else being written today. Composers and critics turn up their noses at this, as being a museum-based philosophy. So be it!
Eugene D. Kline
Editor's reply: Letters to the Editor provide a forum for readers to express their opinions; they are free to react positively or negatively to anything that appears within our pages. I know of no publication that considers printing a letter that expresses an individual reader's opinion to be an editorial endorsement of it. As Mr. Alexander, Mr. Smeyers, and Mr. Kline all illustrate, more people are motivated to write letters when they are steamed up about something. Mr. Smeyers disagrees with Mr. Alexander, Mr. Kline agrees with him but argues that his letter is "inappropriate." Each is entitled to his opinion—and why should anyone's opinion be considered "dangerous" or "irrelevant"? Mr. Alexander didn't say the issues raised by Mr. Judd were beside the point; he said that Judd's blaming government was beside the point. The focus—addressed by both, albeit from different perspectives—is the struggle of orchestras to survive, and what might be done to increase their chances. Whether Mr. Alexander's views are shared by a large number of concertgoers is open to question. The fact that he misread Mr. Judd's suggestion that the salaries of highly-paid conductors and soloists might be brought more in line with those of the orchestra's members is not. As the statesman Bernard Baruch once said, "Every man has a right to be wrong in his opinions. But no man has a right to be wrong about his facts."
| |||
|
||||