ers. Those in Congress who wantnillegals counted have used this timenconstraint to their advantage — theynhave refused to consider any move tonexclude illegals until the year of thencount, when they can claim it’s too latento change anything.nWhile it is virtually assured thatnillegal aliens will be counted in thisnyear’s census, one thing is still uncertain.nDuring the head count in 1980,nJimmy Carter’s Justice Departmentnforbade immigration service raidsnagainst illegal aliens so as not to scarenthem away. According to the ordernsent by the Justice Department tonimmigration service offices in 1980,nthe ban on sweeps for illegal aliens wasnintended to foster “an atmospherenconducive to [obtaining] complete participationnand disclosure of information”nfor the census.nGene McNary, new commissionernof the Immigration and NaturalizationnService, said during his Senate confirmationnhearing in October that henwould consider a similar moratoriumnon illegal alien searches in 1990, butnthat he would not stop enforcing thenimmigration laws. That will be somenfeat. When asked by this writer whethernthe attorney general would impose anban on immigration law enforcementnfor the census, one of his spokesmennsuggested asking the ImmigrationnService. A spokesman at the ImmigrationnService, in turn, said to call thenattorney general’s office. Despite thenevasiveness, however, the feeling in thenadministration and Congress seems tonbe that there will be no suspension ofnraids against illegal aliens for this census.nWe have to be thankful for smallnfavors.nMark Krikorian is a freelance writernliving in Washington, DC.nFor Immediate ServicenChroniclesnSUBSCRIBERSnTOLL FREE NUMBERn1-800-435-0715nILLINOIS RESIDENTSn1-800-892-0753nMUSICnBetween Tyrannynand Chaosnby Roger DavidsonnandnNicholas DavidsonnAn Appraisal ofn20th-century MusicnWhy does serious 20th-centurynmusic attract so few listeners?nThis unpopularity is not due to a lack ofninterest in serious music itself, sincenclassical music is a formidable industrynthat regularly draws vast numbers ofnlisteners woridwide. These people flocknto listen to the works of an eariier era,nhowever—music of the 17th, 18th, andn19th centuries. Why should a publicnthat obviously loves music be so consistentlynrepelled by the music of its ownntime?nA popular explanation is that peoplenare lazy or uninformed. If they wouldnonly take the time and trouble to understandncontemporary music better, theynwould soon be able to enjoy it. A closenexamination of contemporary musicndoes not support this excuse. The problemsnbegin with our composers, not ournaudience, as will be clear from thenexamples below, which are taken fromnsome of the most acclaimed composersnof the 20th century.n* * *nOne of the principal characteristics ofn20th-century music is an increasingnmechanicalism in both its creation andnperformance. The first step in this directionnwas the invention of the twelve-nnntone or “serial” technique of compositionnby Arnold Schoenberg in then1920’s. In this system, the composernchooses a row or “series” of the twelvennotes of the scale, and writes his entirenpiece made up of various permutationsnof this series.nThis system has an inherent lack ofnfreedom and promotes mathematicalnthinking on the part of the composer,nsince he must think in terms of permutationsnof a fixed series rather than of thennatural flow of music. Because of thenrestrictions on melody and harmony,nthere is a strong tendency for the composernto be constricted in rhythm asnwell.nA further difference in contemporarynmusic is that today’s composers characteristicallynwrite down every detail of thenperformance, leaving nothing to thendiscretion of the performer. Accents,ntime values, and tempi are specifiednwith a completeness that leaves virtuallynno scope for interpretation. Even traditionalnnotations of time, such as quarternnotes and whole notes, may be replacednwith the precise number of seconds annote is to be held.nThis eagerness on the part of thencomposer to exercise total control overnhis music may seem to be justified onngrounds on interpretative accuracy.nThere is, however, no way to assimilatena score in which every detail is notatednor is indicated in words. If the composer’snattitude is one of absolute control,nthe music itself will always feel heartless.nIt will fail to move the players, andntherefore the listeners, in any real way.nA typical example can be drawn fromn”Bicinium,” a work for two oboes bynCharles Wuorinen. The second oboenpart starts in 5/32 time, with a singlennote sustained throughout the measure.nSuddenly, the next measure switches ton4/16 time — a difficult shift. Then, insteadnof having four actual sixteenthnnotes or multiples thereof in the measure,nthere are five sixteenths in as anquintuplet, divided as follows: twonthirty-seconds, one sixteenth, twonthirty-seconds, a triplet of three thirtysecondsn(which fits into one-sixteenth),nand two thirty-seconds. If this soundsndifficult, that’s because it is. In the thirdnmeasure, the meter switches to 1/32.nThe next measure switches to 2/4 time,na much slower tactus. Coming directlynafter the previous measures, it is veryndifficult to react to accurately, especiallynFEBRUARY 1990/45n