I do wish that we could move away from judging pieces as a representative of some school, stream, style, -ism, etc., and simply consider pieces on their own merits (or lack thereof). You seem to be quite willing to dismiss anything "Modernist" fairly off-the-cuff. Or am I misreading you? I think there has been a natural pendulum effect through western music history, where we swing form more experimental to less experimental times. It is inescapable that most of the "masterpieces" revered by posterity come during those "less" experimental times. But those composers weren't/aren't in a historical vacuum--the more experimental things that history may not hold onto are crucial steps in the development of more mature and robust styles. For some of the reasons you mentioned (and some others), we have gotten stuck, in an un precedented way, in the experimental mode in the 20th C. But some things do need to be said about this: 1) This experimental mindset has led to some spectacularly good music (which, as in all other times, had to be culled from a great deal of crap), 2) Poor presentation and pedagogy does not necessarily indict the subject matter itself (one can find an awful lot of mindless, banal, or just-plain-wrong pedagogy from Mozart's day if one goes looking.) 3) We won't really be past the legacy of militant modernism until we get past militant anti-modernism as well; etc etc etc. I think (hope) that history will consider minimalism the last movement of the 20th C, and that, stylistically, the 21st has already begun. What I hope *doesn't* carryover form the 20th is that tired "X kind of music is right, Y kind of music is dead" argument which seems to be recycled in some of your claims.