>His main argument for advocating classical music is its focus on instrumentals and "a logic entirely based on the abstract relationships inherent in the pitche

>His main argument for advocating classical music is its focus on instrumentals and "a logic entirely based on the abstract relationships inherent in the pitches and rhythms." >There are many (admittedly postmodern, likely much to the chagrin of the author) tendencies and genres in today's music, such as avant-garde jazz, noise, progressive rock and so on, which also employ eclecticism and complexity on a scale that trumps famous, beaten-to-death classical composers. Of course, these genres aren't popular, but that is to be expected. Your appeal to eclecticism makes me think that you are not focusing on the feature of classical music the author has in mind. He means, I think, the kind of formal "problem-solving" that one can find in (to cite a comparatively recent example) the [Fugue in Hindemith's 3rd Piano Sonata](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpAIEp6DUo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpAIEp6DUo). Such very elaborated formal structures are much less important in rock or avant-garde jazz. They are also very hard to write, and comparatively hard to decode as a listener. But they are very rewarding once you sort of get them. Isn't all of that true?