Monday, April 11, 2005
More Pulitzer Chitchat
The thing about the Pulitzer is that, as we all know and as many people have explained in various fora, it has the highest profile both inside and outside of the new music world and is thus a marvelous PR vehicle. Not having researched the issue enough to feel qualified, I'm not going to make any claims on the artistic merits of the prize (that composers whose work I love -- Reich and Rakowski for instance -- have been finalists multiple times is for me both heartening and discouraging; I have no opinion on Stucky, not knowing his work) but I have a few followups.
First -- Who out there thinks that by-and-large Pulitzer does a good job? Make your case.
Second -- Kyle, I take your point in the comments section of my last post. Stipulating for the sake of the argument that I would agree with your assessment of the prize, yes, running a kick-ass PR campaign in support of an artistically bankrupt program is self-defeating. Our efforts would be better invested in any of several other options like giving robust support to a different prize that is more useful, running festivals, or campaigning to get different judges on the Pulitzer panel.
Third -- To everybody out there, who do you think should have won? Lawrence Dillon has been running a greatest-pieces-by-decade discussion; what is in your opinion the greatest piece of the year.
posted by Galen H. Brown
12:27 PM
|
