Darwinian evolution and contemporary music...

First, pieces born out of the desire to spend 45 minutes in some sort of po-mo ethereal meditative state aren't evil. In fact, I've really liked a lot of the stuff to come out of it. But there are times and places for these things. 8.25 at night as the first half of a concert that contains an admitted hallmark of 20th century music isn't an appropriate place. Granted, this is a place that loves these kind of popular-ish, innovative, creative, and po-mo works. Perhaps I'm just too closeminded?

I like the occasional drink of Budwiser, but I don't think that I'm going to pair it up with a 5 course French meal. You elevate the Budwiser inappropriately, and stymie the power of the meal.

Second, any choral piece that doesn't spring forth from the composers page as a textually based enterprise isn't necessarily bad. There are certainly a number of affects that can be well related in a funky piece like this. But I don't really have the time, energy, desire, or emotional acuity to put any vested interest in such music. Life is short....far too short to spend time on music that probably won't survive the process of natural selection.

That's why I like this notion of evolution in music. One fascinating approach would be to program only pieces that are at least 50 to 100 years old or older. This gives musical mother nature a chance to weed out all the weird things that don't have good mutations. You might miss some good stuff along the way but believe me, there's a lot of good music out there to keep you busy in the meantime.

Ok, so this is a comprehensive rant. Please don't think I'm placing all the responsibility of this rant upon a single piece of contemporary music. In fact this whole thing is largely self-indicting.

I LIKE DARWIN! But I don't think that Darwin's thoughts should be confined to application only in the natural world. What's wrong with a little bit of interdisciplinarity?!?