I think that in 300 years from now when the chapter is written about the music of the 20th century, film scores are going to be part of the meat and potatoes, as will jazz, ragtime, rock, rap, country, and world music.  Much of the "important/artistic" music and composers of the century will go down into the footnotes with about two dozen exceptions mostly composers working between 1900 and 1940, and there will be lengthy discussions of men and women whose works were ignored in our century (as well as the 20th) for being too tonal, conservative, and "romantic".

Exactly Joseph, why indeed!  Great music is great music - good music is good music - and somebody likes bad music...so humility.

Melody, really great melodies whether written by the Beatles, Irving Berlin, or Mozart are damned hard - and praise be to whom ever creates one.  What you do with a great melody, well, that's where it gets interesting.

Um Red Feline...I don't know where you base your understanding of church history on, but it is just horribly inaccurate and sounds like a low church anti-catholic Sunday school pamphlet from the early 1900's.  The Kirk acted as the de-facto parliament in Scotland well into the 18th century, (I would argue into the 1830's) it was one of the reasons James VI was so happy to become James I of England.  The idea that there was separation of state and church in early modern Scotland is ridiculous.  Your other assertions about the RC and early Christianity is just inaccurate and you should temper it because you are making strong accusations with little or no factual basis.  Plus you contradict yourself by asserting that by being a Catholic you were a traitor to the Scottish nation, (many highland clans never converted) so wouldn't this be a conflation of church and state.

Signed,

Son of Presbyterian elder, lover and frequent traveler to Scotland, Calvinist Anglican, author of a historical_thesis on the Scots-Irish Presbyterian_culture of_western_Pennsylvania.

Well, yes, we often DO disagree, and passionately  but at least I can sometimes understand why or how we came to disagree.  With those who are less knowledgable not so much (oftentimes) - hence the frustration.
Then there is the frustration because when we want to agree with a critic, conductor, performer or scholar we like or respect it can be infureating.  HOW can you hold that position, you should KNOW better.  

I now understand why many great conductors would get irate at critics who would disparage Johann Strauss Jr., Tchaikovsky  or Copland.   You try writing the Blue Danube Waltz or the Nutcracker or Rodeo and then get back to me...at the same time, I find the music I love - I really love in a way that I never used to love - love increases, hate decreases.  

Yes...and no...  There are details and insights I'm totally lacking in, but to hear people who are not musicians or who are not thorough-going musicians discuss music is a source of both joy and utter frustration.  I'm very glad to hear their enthusiasm, shocked by their opinions and their reasoning, and assertions.  Mrs. Salieri and I sometimes discuss after a concert how we sometimes miss the freshness of music - the newness, the exploration of something unknown, perhaps that is why I love Salieri, he and his work is still unknown, I'll hear it - if at all - for the first time in my life, sometimes in anyone's in over 200 years.  At the same time I wouldn't trade my knowledge and ability to appreciate and enjoy music at this level for anything.  

Well, it is part of her dear set of vocal mannerisms - Cecilia is one of those singers you love, love to hate, or hote to lave...personally, I think she allowed herself too much of it in this performance, and she was singing a little out of her range; but, her connection and complete accord with the underlying emotional sense of the text and the way Salieri approached it makes for a dramatically convincing rendition, one that is in my opinion beautiful, if flawed.

Oh, and I can recommend an unjustly neglected composer to explore, especially if you love opera...

[walks away whistling slowly while looking up at the sky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzYitR4TFAI

As a professional musician (classical), I find this discussion fascinating.  So often as I've read the comments I've wanted to respond with a: "but..., wrong,...no,...,because,...it's not,...perhaps".  Then I've stopped myself.  I could demonstrate some erudition or pedantic snottiness, but to what end.  I agree with Duke Ellington - "If it sounds good, it is good" - to the individual listener. 

If we start to talk about deep artistic merits, technical mastery, or historic and/or cultural influence and so forth on a more technical level, then there is someplace to go, but we need to leave our personal predilections and taste a side to go there.

I think the problem (if it IS a problem) is that music is music.  We love it, we hate it, we go meh.

Even the professionals disagree, that is its joy and its frustration.

In fact, one wonders if this is how she rejuvenates her political career to some degree, by throwing the President under the bus...hmm...what would Bill do?

I would also agree with this - with a caveat - it should be our job as adults to find ways to make others feel special and not except the same in return.

Frankly, get over getting old.  I hate how our culture denigrates aging.  The age we live to is either arbitrary or in some sense fulfills God's purposes, either way it is something to celebrate.

I think we should celebrate birthdays, all birthdays, they are a reminder that we are each a unique creation of the creator, fashioned in his image, and we are of great worth.  So to celebrate a birthday is to recognize that the individual being has worth, and that worth points to the source, even if you don't believe that, then at least consider that each life is special and unique, the life itself is worth celebrating as a gift, we have the chance to tell those we know and love - even those at the office that we don't really "love" that they are special people, and having something to celebrate is important.  

That our culture wants to make it a materialistic mess should not deter us, but spurr us to make them occasions to show love and gratitude.

Plus there's the whole cake thing, not to mention ice cream, best if home-made in a hand-cranked freezer - did_I_mention_mine is coming up!

I couldn't but help think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFjttC_AGsU

The best engraving of moi (Antonio Salieri)  in retirement....circa 1821.

The name comes from the closing lines of the film version of Amadeus.

"I am the patron saint of mediocracy"...

I sentiment I can relate to, and I am a great admirer of the real and far more interesting non-murderous Salieri, though the dramatic version has kept the other alive in the public eye.  Plus the drama/film is a generally interesting exploration of what hate will do to a person's soul.

Exactly!  Which is why I find comparisons to the Revolution so odious, both those made in 1861 and now - by all rights, the slaves should have been leading the revolution, which is why the south was incensed at former slaves and free blacks serving in uniform, and why on multipal occasions surrendering black troops were slaughtered, as well as their white officers.  When the south finally decided to arm and free slaves who would fight for them they couldn't even muster a company and the war was all but lost.

Post 152 continued, responding to 148:

4. continued, The ability of all commanders, or willingness to fulfill these orders is certainly up for debate and investigation, but it was often fulfilled as could be hoped under the pressures and reality of war.

However, it was the problem of fugitive slaves, the so-called contrabands, and the rabid resistance of some southerners that lead to a change in federal policy.  Sometimes it was local commanders acting in defiance of orders, and sometimes pro-Union southerns suffered unjustly, as did some pro-southern civilians.  War is hell and should be avoided at all costs because of the "slippage" that occurs when passions and violence are systamatically unleashed.

Something the men in the south who precipitated a war because they fairly lost an election should have thought of before they did what they did.

Your final point - slavery wasn't dying off and if you read what southerners actual wrote at the time 1850-1865, those that favored slavery were not going to go gentle into that good night.  The war had little to do with states rights, it was simply the argument to protect slavery.  Southerners would happily violate both state_laws, federal_laws_and_states_rights_when_it_interfered_with_their_proslavery_stance.

From 148 Continued:

2. Not likely as long as the labor and demand were cost effective, it would be the war that pushed the cotton production into global high-gear.  Also there would have been a likely expansion of slavery into other industries and production sectors as cotton became less profitable, additional defacto slavery continued into the 1920's with cotton still the primary source of indebtedness of black share-croppers.

3. The fugitive slave act was enforced because of pressure from southern congressmen, and because of the high percentage of southerners in federal posts able to exert leverage, additional there was a large segment of pro-South northerners so this is a moot point, it was enforced except when local people, often no friends to abolition or free blacks were appalled by the tactics of those in the process of carrying out the operations, and finally the other side of the state rights coin.  Many northern states enacted state laws to try to protect run-away or ex-slaves.

4. This is also not true, in the opening months and years of the war, federal orders were very particular to attempt to protect southern property, including slaves. Continued