It doesn't mean it's better when it is classical.

The point of classics (and especially the point that they are better) is that they provide a firmer foundation for "the new." The Classics provide us with those essentials which make "The New" longer-lasting, deeper. For this debate, consider ART, LANGUAGE, MUSIC, and GOVERNMENT. ART Picasso is a great example of this; where modern artists seem crazed about capturing their individuality, making something "New," I say that they are not yet deep enough to have an individuality, or one that is lasting. That comes only after studying classical art. Picasso was FIRST trained in the classics, the School of Fine Arts. THEN he produced cubism. So, AFTER he mastered the Classics, THEN he produced great individuality. The Classics provided him that foundation. Art without that foundation, flitters away, artists having little or no sources to draw from. Shallow roots may sprout a twig but rooted orchards feeds the pigs. That is one reason why the Classics are better: when mastered, they vitalize an artist"s individual output. But without the Classics, an artist is weakened by their lack of a foundation and shallow roots. LANGUAGE I had to study French last semester (hated it and am terrible at it). It was my third language to study, but my first Romance language. I learned something incredible that had just never occurred to me: the Romance languages are derived from " (drum roll) " a classical language: Latin!! Now, if you study Classics in college, you study the Latin language, the Greek language, etc. These are, again, because they are foundational tools for our modern languages. The Classical enables The New. That"s our debate exactly: why Classics are better than "The New." Classics provide the lasting building-blocks from which our newer languages build themselves. If you know classic word origins, you have a deeper understanding of the words we use today. So, you are more precise with your words, your writing, and your expressions. Do you see the light, my exuberant Colleague, that by studying the Classical languages, one can wield his words with more skill, dexterity, more avaricious aplomb, like a surgeon, precise, yet as gentle as a yellow canary? You know the old saying: the "Classic" pen is mightier than the "New" sword (or something to that effect)"Cardinal Richelieu. MUSIC Classics form the foundation for learning music. If someone has not learned the classics, their training is only a shell of what it should be. Consider the band Muse (a New band named after a Classical concept). Matt Bellamy was FIRST classically trained in piano and THEN he became able to compose his New songs. His music is deep, composed, layered, highly individualized, but enabled BECAUSE OF his Classic foundation. None of us would argue that his music is not original (even the few songs he blatantly copies). But because he has learned the Classics and they provide the foundation for his "New" music, Bellamy has created something that will outlast his contemporaries. (my opinion, I realize, but it is the correct opinion). My wife is a piano teacher. At night, she will sit down at her piano and play Chopin (the same Classical Chopin that Muse copied in their "New" song United States of Eurasia). To her classically trained mind, she understands and can articulate the intricacies of the piece, the layers, the subtle shifts, the high and the low emotions. New songs, such as Badonkadonk, just lacks that depth, that intrigue (listeners beware). What happens with Bellamy happens with her: the compositions she writes are imbued with those same layers, subtle shifts, etc. Her music has elements of "the New" because it is her composition, but the timeless depth of "The Classics" allows her music to become something longer-lasting and deep. (0:47- her "new" flair versus 3:24 with a classical run). GOVERNMENTS Many people the world over regard the American Constitution as something to be modeled after. This is because it works and is unique. But the American Constitution was based off of several other writings and they were all Classical: The Magna Carta, as one example; Rome"s republican form of government, as another. If you look the world over, most countries are not stable. Why? One reason is that their government is founded on a weak constitution, one that lacks classical principles. The American Constitution honors those timeless qualities, those classical traits, such as: a representative form of government (taken from the Romans and Jewish Torah, Exodus 18.17-23), the right confront the witnesses against you before trial (the VI Amendment, from ancient Roman law, depicted in Acts 25.16), the Congress (Article I, a Classical Greek concept), the Judiciary (Article III, Classical Greek and Roman). But how were these Governments formed? John Adams answered that: "" the happiness of man, as well as his dignity consists in virtue"If there is a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?" John Adams, Thoughts on Government. This Classic principle, virtue, was seen by Adams as one foundational ingredient (along with those already mentioned) for a happy people and government. The New governments that omit these qualities will always struggle for stability. CONCLUSION The New is not bad. It just must be imbued with those Classic principles before it has any permanence. Otherwise, the New will flitter away, barely making a blip on anybody"s radar. But if "the New" pays homage to those foundational building blocks, by that I mean the Classics, and if "The New" studies them out, learns what they teach, THEN it will become a 10.0 on the Richter scale and generation after generation will take notice. The New needs the Classics; the Classics does not need the New. -MSP