In his response to the polemical reflections of Vsevolod Zaderatsky “The sound background of life and us,” the author of the essay shares the concern about the commercialization of academic musical art. Also, he agrees with Zaderatsky in his criticism of the avant-garde. The concentration of its representatives on the invention of new musical technologies leads to the fact that the achievements of the avant-garde quickly become obsolete, like any technique. In addition, the author criticizes the refusal by a number of composers from musical dialectics in favor of the endless variation of harmonies comfortable for the ear despite the fact that such music finds a positive response from a part of the modern public who wants to receive from a musical work an easy and pleasant experience and a feeling of spiritual involvement. In this situation, the question arises about the future of the classical art, music that evokes strong and deep emotions. The author considers Zaderatsky’s idea about the mission of musicians (proposal to create a “museum of classical music”) as a utopia, since the musical language is subject to aging to a greater extent than the language of visual arts. In our time, this process has accelerated: the academic music is increasingly moving away from the modern musical language, as it is presented in everyday genres. The cure for the disintegrating connection of times could be the regular appearance in the repertoire of concert organizations and opera houses of such modern works, where, following the example of the classics, the authors would maintain a balance between the elements of the sound background at least of three living generations and the basic principles of musical thinking, elaborated by composers of the past.