>>127699663
>If you took your time to actually research them you would realize that they do fit almost all the criteria you listed
Alright, I did more research. The only ones that might fit most of that criteria are Adams, Luther Adams, Gordon and Eastman. Niblock and Braxton are borderline at best. The rest are firmly outside the Western classical lineage and belong in experimental/noise/rock/etc. spheres. So at best 4-5 of them are actually classical composers, the rest are not. My original post was correct: it IS a stretch to call most of that list 'classical'.
>and are well regarded in the fields of the new avant-garde
Not sure what that's supposed to prove, except that it can further confirm my point: much of the avant-garde doesn't fit into classical institutions or forms (or whatever), even if there's occasional overlap.
>...
As for the rest of your gibberish: my argument clearly wasn't normative. I wasn't making a value judgment about their quality, and there's zero reason for you to assume what my taste in music is. Can you tell the difference between 'descriptive' and 'normative'?
The criteria I posted wasn't even narrow, and I didn't say anyone has to fit all of it. For example, Ligeti is obviously a classical composer, even if he didn't always use traditional staff notation or instrumentation. You simply stretched the definition of 'classical composer', and that's a fact.
>You think any deviation outside of the traditional forms of composition is a sin
No, I don't. This is a baseless assumption and a retarded fabrication in your head. Like I said, this is purely a descriptive argument. Don't strawman.
>>127699684
See my point about Ligeti above. This really isn't hard to grasp.
