Robin Newton responds to Aaron Rabushka who replied to Wes Crone:

>>>I think I will become well known because I write good music.........
>>
>>Do you honestly think that the one follows from the other?
>
>Perhaps Wes won't become well know in his life time, but if he truly writes
>music which is valuable, then he will be remembered for it.

He *might* be remembered for it.  To say that "quality will out" is
comforting, but unfortunately not really borne out by history, if we can
judge by the number of "near-misses." For example, Thomas Traherne, John
Donne, and George Herbert didn't really become part of the literary canon
until roughly 250 years after they wrote.  Think of all the "lost" *major*
works by Bach.  We know, for example, from contemporary references, there
were four Bach Passions.

>I don't believe there is much music from the past which is performed
>which really should be.  Should contemporaries of Mozart, like Hummel
>and Stamitz, really have as much recognition for what they gave as
>Mozart himself? Should Zemlinsky be a household name and not Mahler?

Why not?  Mahler was considered garbage for decades after his death by
most of the classical audience.  It took committed performances by, among
others, Mengelberg, Walter, Horenstein, Barbirolli, and Mitropoulos (way
before Bernstein, in other words) just to keep the works around.  Nielsen
didn't make significant inroads outside of Scandinavia until the late
1950s, long after he had died.  Sibelius has gone in and out of fashion
more often than Tiffany lampshades.

>Maybe there are many composers whose talent and perception outstrip those
>who have survived from the past, but I seriously doubt it.  We have a sense
>of what is valuable and, ultimately, we fight for it.  The introduction of
>Mahler by, say, Bernstein was no fad - we heard the quality, the depth, the
>humanity and knew how much the music meant to us.

We *finally* did, yes.  But this is really pride disguised.  That is,
something has worth because *we* know about it and what we don't know
has no worth.  It's a common enough attitude, but it really doesn't bear
scrutiny - logically or historically.

>Even if there is a 'they' who want power and influence and who stop
>performances of certain music, 'they' won't be here for ever.

I doubt really there's an active conspiracy as such, and to that extent I
disagree with those who see dark doings and cabals.  However, there *are*
attitudes that have been around a very long time, at least in the US.  We
like to think that boards and commissioning agents seek out new work.  They
do, but not very widely, by and large.  Most music gets commissioned for
reasons of prestige - thoroughly understandable, but hardly disinterested
or interested only in playing new work, which after all involves taking a
chance.  Consequently, such bodies want to hedge their bets.  They ask a
certain group of people who've shown interest in some, usually very narrow
sliver of new music.  It's narrow because they continually recommend the
same people.  Considering just the number of graduating composition
students in this country alone, I believe this belies a concerted effort
to cast a wide net.  This group usually writes for the general-intellectual
press or teaches in the academy.  It makes some sense to do this, but it
hardly counts as a meaningful search for the good, the true, and the
beautiful.  I agree, quality counts in the long run, but luck counts as
well.  A good many of the "classics" discovered in the 20th century -
Mahler, Nielsen, Varese, Schoenberg, Webern, Copland, and so on - happened
upon the great fortune of a strong champion able to muscle their works onto
programs over the objections of business directors, programmers, and so on.

>Nancarrow worked in his garage for most of his life and was rarely
>performed.

He is still rarely performed.

>Now he is acknowledged as a central influence on the course of
>20th-century music.

I doubt it.  I've heard him acknowledged as a fine composer, but hardly as
a major influence, at least in the sense that Stravinsky was.

>Similarly with Ives, who had to pay for most of the performances of
>his work.  Schoenberg had to struggle for much of his life because of
>disinterest.  What links all of these composers, though, is conviction
>in the essence of what they were doing.

There are lots of things that link these composers.  If you poll the
members of this list - all of whom have heard a lot of music and all
of whom know what they like - I doubt most of them would express the
opinion that Schoenberg, for example, anything other than a hothouse
flower, whose music is kept alive by "intellectuals" (as in "pointy-headed
intellectuals").  I don't share that opinion, but I acknowledge that it is
rather widespread.  The battle for Schoenberg, Ives, and Nancarrow isn't
won yet.  When you start seeing their names on third-rank concert programs,
you can probably begin to breathe.

>I believe Wes' conviction is correct and is something to be cherished.  He
>shows self-belief and takes responsibility for his own success or otherwise.

I admire Wes's attitude and hope he has a thick hide.  However, it seems to
me we're confusing two things:  quality of work and arc of career.  I don't
believe most composers can continue to write solely for the desk drawer.
Eventually, they want to be heard - perfectly reasonable.  However, luck
and hustle have as much to do with being heard as inspiration does.  I know
of nobody who works harder or takes more crap than my composer friends just
trying to scare up performances.  Ninety-seven times out of one hundred,
they wind up subsidizing their serious work, either through commercial
gigs or through day jobs.  All of this takes time from actual composition.
They have all learned this very sad truth:  There is no piece of music so
terrible that somebody won't perform it; there is also no piece of music so
good that somebody *must* perform it.

Steve Schwartz