The Music Pulitzer Board Strikes Again

The Pulitzers were announced and it was awarded posthumously to Thelonius Monk. Okay. It seems that the sole purpose of the Pulitzer Prize for Music is to piss people off. I love Monk, but this seems kind of shallow. The music Pulitzer has been a sore spot for some time and many attempts have been made to change it. (See "Sour Note" by Fred Kaplan for a synopsis of the changes and "controversy.") But whatever the powers-that-be do, somebody is always unhappy.

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.

1. By giving a posthumous Pulitzer, the board is basically saying that there were no worthy new works.
2. Did the Pulitzer board pull Monk's name out of a hat? Why not Coleman, Coltrane, Davis, Parker, etc?
3. 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.