ubertuber

dbass (nice handle - I get it now),

It depends - do you want the long answer or the short one? The short answer is that some of these guys truly were hearing more than you or I ever could, and invented new musical systems to express their thoughts. Shoenberg is one, in my opinion and roachboy's favorite Berg is another. Naturally, more followed. They may have learned Schoenberg's rules, but that doesn't mean that they were making music. The problem lies in the fact that composers were so far ahead of audiences that most people couldn't tell the difference between the real deal and the frauds - so there certainly is a lot of drivel out there. BUT, there is lots of good stuff too - it just takes a long time and a "culturization of the ears" (which can only be earned the hard way - by listening) before you can make honest assesments as to which is which..

The long answer (disclaimer - even this is a horribly abbreviated version that only betrays my own bias) is that sometime in the 1950's a couple of guys (Pierre Boulez and Karl Stockhausen) took the academic musical community by storm. These guys decided that the future of music lay in serialism (the randomization to all possible factors in music), which, I should mention, they did not invent. And they were smart - I mean so smart that no one could debate them. They went around telling everyone that tonality was so old hat that if you were still writing in keys then you weren't making music. And the thing is, they were really persuasive. People bought into this. I think it is partially because Boulez and Stockhausen had a point (to a degree) and partially because they were so smart and so convinced that people were afraid of arguing with them because they didn't want to be recognized as unable to see the Emporer's new clothes. At any rate, composers developed a real contempt for audience - for a time (thankfully over) audience appreciation was regarded as de facto proof of a lack of artistic integrity. This was coupled with a period in which the business structure of the music industry was changing. For the first time composers who were not performers were able to find financial support in large numbers. This was due to several reasons - university jobs, government grants, private commissions, among others. The ability of composers to support themselves independent of audience appreciation coupled with the attitude that "art for art's sake" should forsake an audience that can understand and appreciate the work in question led to composers assuming that audiences had a responsibility to come to them, not the other way around.

So now, you are looking at a time when lots of music is being written - some of it really really academic, and some really really avant guard. Both sides are producing lots of good stuff, and both sides are producing a tremendous amount of garbage. And no one is in a position to say which is which without being accused of being too simple minded to comprehend the art of composition. In the end, whether this was a correct situation or not, audiences sort of lost faith in composers. They didn't come to concerts with a willingness to suspend disbelief and try out new music - and I believe that at least in part this was justified because their trust had been abused by some of the most egregious offenders.

Fast forward to today - at last the iron grip of Boulez and Stockhausen has been broken (actually like 20 years ago), yet the distrust between audiences and composers remains. Composers don't trust audiences to appreciate art over entertainment, and audiences don't trust composers to make music that is of a high quality (however you want to take that). I think this is the biggest threat facing classical music - our audiences have always had grey hair - this is nothing new. It is just a matter of finding ways of cultivating the baby boomers as their hair turns grey. The real challenge is to find a way to reunite musicians, composers and audiences. If there is no credible influx of new material into the classical world, then what are we other than museum art? And if we are museum art, then why should we continue to perform? It is this question of relevance and currency that threatens to kill classical music once and for all.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam