Reading between the lines, Steve Schwartz writes:

>First, why play new music at all? Because you may find something you like.
>Because it interests you.  Second, remember that Beethoven was once new
>music, and, no, not everyone liked it.  Lurking behind this question are
>a number of attitudes, one of which may be that no work of music is worth
>an effort or that all music must be "sugar-coated" to get it past the
>listener.  ...

My question was partly facetious but I readily admit that I don't
appreciate much of the new music I've heard written for symphony orchestra.
Generally, it isn't the newness of a piece itself.  I find it hard to
listen to music--and not all new music is like this--which doesn't use
orchestral instruments idiomatically.  But this is not what I was getting
at in my post.  I lose interest in a performance if I sense that a piece is
being played for some reason other than a conviction of its worth.

>There are performers who do perform out of a sense of duty.  Generally
>speaking, under those conditions they don't perform very well.  There are
>also performers interested in playing what they haven't played before, who
>find the act of exploration stimulating.  They tend to convey that
>excitement.

I can't argue with any of this because I agree with it.  But I think
symphony orchestras face a real problem today.  Their makeup has evolved
little since the beginning of the 20th century yet they commission
compositions from the 21st century.  As I pointed out, "authentic" groups
encroach on their earlier repertoire and specialist groups exist to perform
the new.  To me, the symphony orchestra is more and more becoming an "early
music" ensemble in its own right, yet it still tries to embrace all periods
of orchestral music.

>>I would hope that money isn't the bottom line here.  It is interesting
>>that a musical group like the Canadian Brass, where funding and Canadian
>>content" are not issues, do nothing to promote new compositions in the
>>genre.
>
>It's also interesting that they don't play very well.  I'm amazed they have
>a career, when there are so many better players around.

Interesting opinion.

>>There are hundreds of original works written for brass quintet but the
>>most famous and influential quintet in the world won't touch them with
>>a fork.
>
>Influential? Whom do they influence? To me, they're the Charlotte Church of
>brass quintets - famous, but not particularly interesting or technically
>sufficient.  The Miller Brass Ensemble of Chicago plays rings around them
>and plays much more difficult repertoire besides.

Here's how the Canadian Brass is influential.  Pretty much every brass
player I talk to, from beginner to pro, admires this group.  Young players
are simply in awe of them.  I have played in different quintets for years
and I have almost never performed an original work.  When I would suggest
an original piece, it would be vetoed.  Nobody was interested.  Rather,
nearly everything was in the lollipop genre and much of that was Canadian
Brass publications.  Moreover, brass chamber music now implies one thing:
a group consisting of 2 trumpets, horn, trombone and tuba.  Music has been
written for many combinations of brass instruments but nobody seems to play
it.  I'm convinced that if the CB were to include a few original works in
their shows, commission compositions rather than arrangements, the genre
would be enriched immeasurably.

Eric James