Okay, I originally had a really long post in which I got all musicological-like but I do not want to alienate my non musical readers. For those of you that would like to get into a good debate, read the article, check out the list of music and Pulitzer winners, and consider my (very reduced) thoughts on music Pulitzers.
- By giving a posthumous Pulitzer, the board is basically saying that there were no worthy new works.
- Did the Pulitzer board pull Monk's name out of a hat? Why not Coleman, Coltrane, Davis, Parker, etc?
- As long as there is only one Pulitzer for "Music,"no matter what the criteria states somebody will be unhappy. Why is there only one Pulitzer? There are many different categories for books, so why not music? Yes, this would be dividing music into definable categories, but at least it would not be catering to only elitist audiences or to only popular audiences.