Karl Miller replies to Deryk Barker:

>>...  The cost of renting much lesser-known music can be astronomical.
>
>While I don't know the costs involved, I cannot help but wonder, what costs
>more, a rental fee for a modern score, versus the cost of some "name"
>soloist.

Which returns more to the bottom line - the cost of the rental of some
modern score or the cost of the soloist? The orchestras that can make the
case to their audiences for avant-garde music are playing more, while those
that can't are playing it less.  Is it such a terrible thing to go back
to the days when different orchestras were known for different strengths?
Chicago can do fairly well with Second Vienna School works under Boulez and
Barenboim, the "American Mavericks" festival is doing well under MTT in San
Francisco.

At the same time the "Contemporary Music Festival" in Tanglewood is a
yearly dog - a veritable celebration of musical movements that have come
to Boston to live out their few remaining years in decrepitude.

One of the things which must change about doing the most modern of modern
works is a change in reason.  people who feel it is their duty to play
anything tend not to do it well, people who feel it is their calling tend
to be much better at making the case.

If an orchestra or conductor doesn't believe in doing certain music -
they probably shouldn't.  this includes old masters, modern masters,
contemporary works.  how many tiresome run throughs of Beethoven's works
I would happily have dispensed with, in order to have some less subtantial
piece which the musicians know and love more - how many times I have heard
an orchestra soldier through a work simply because it was important.  the
most glaring recent example was Petrassi as massacred by Ozawa.  Petrassi's
music is of limited interest, but if it is to be played, let orchestra at
least not play it with their best foot holding the bow.

stirling s newberry
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mp3.com/ssn