In Support of Well-Conceived Music--Old and New

It would be irresponsible of me not to answer the ridiculous charges leveled by Burt Goldstein in a Counterpunch, “New Music Merits Respect, Not Attack” (May 16), that mentions me by name four times.

To assume that the subtext of the Claire Rydell Counterpunch, “Composers Milk a Dead-End Aesthetic” (May 2), is a litany of the “evils of contemporary music,” a position wrongly attributed to me, is not just irresponsible but a betrayal of the trust that students who come to UCLA have in professors to teach a fair and honest approach to 20th-Century art.

Whether Rydell is my wife or not, she has her own opinions: Would I really condemn university education in music when I have been teaching it at the university for more than 25 years? It so happens that this spring quarter I am giving a 20th-Century Music Seminar that includes music of Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Cage, Carter and Xenakis, not exactly a reactionary list of contemporary composers.

Goldstein misrepresents my role in the degrees of two of the composers on the concert: I had peripheral contact with the composers alluded to in Goldstein’s article.

In all honesty, I did not see Rydell’s article until it appeared May 2.

The real issue is that, probably, universities around the country award many more degrees than there are talented composers, and many students go to graduate school to learn about the art of music through theory, history and composition. This education does not mean that they are artists: I teach composers with a wide variety of musical styles and never tell them what is appropriate or what is evil. I am only interested in communicating compositional skills to those who arrive at UCLA with a primitive grasp of the art, and leave with some degree of professionalism.

Last, Goldstein assumes that I am in competition with the Independent Composers Assn. This charge is the most laughable of all. The art of music can stand any number of well-written and moving compositions, whatever the style. He almost gives the impression of “not only must I win, but you must lose.” His position is not only poor sportsmanship, but it is anti-art and definitely implies a kind of predatory world in music that simply does not exist, in general.

Anyone who has had contact with me knows that I support good music that is well-conceived and decry incompetently written drivel that ignores the technical limitations of the instruments or the subtleties of a solid musical structure.

In any art, in any century, probably 90% of the works executed are consigned to the dustbin because they do not reflect the Zeitgeist of the culture of the perfection of human nature. Correspondingly, the 10% represents the best of any culture and passes on the necessary cultural identity. In contemporary music, time will sweep away most of what we hear: I would not think of getting in the way of this necessary evolutionary process. To do so would be irresponsible of me as a professor of music.

PAUL REALE

Professor of Music, UCLA

Los Angeles