Donald Satz wrote:

>I agree with Satoshi, Andrys, and Bill Hong that pre-Bach music gets short
>shrift.  It probably has to do with the perceived levels of austerity and
>starkness; most folks don't gravitate toward music of that character.

Partially, but I feel it has more to do with the fact that the mainstream
broadcasters don't even know about it.  It's all the same old school-
classroom thing-- what they were taught was good so that the rest is
not "classical" or "worthy." They're wrong.  Some of the most inventive
writing was done in the 17th century and is not austere or stark, as you
know.  Froberger is emotional, ironic, devilish in his harmonies and just
isn't stark, nor is Frescobaldi!  Nor Louis Couperin though he's less
adventurous.  As others have said, the same for Locke, Lawes (H and W),
Marini, Castello, Uccelini, Turini, early Purcell, whom, actually, young
listeners today would find of interest at least as an adjunct to the great
forms that came later.

Mainly it's not-knowing, and not hearing.  It's the mainstream with
management decisions not to risk, not to be adventurous (and I don't
mean they should play doleful music (even if I like that), but the more
energetically inventive stuff people haven't even heard.

>Bach's organ works also tend to not get full exposure due to their
>perceived austerity.

Well, relative to the ones I mentioned his organ music IS *relatively*
austere.

>I keep writing "perceived", because the austerity of these works lessens
>in magnitude the more familiar the listener becomes with them.

Exactly.  And the heart of the problem is that there's no interest by
broadcast mgmt exposing themselves to it much less to other people.  The
money everywhere keeps flowing into the safe bets of the 18th and 19th
Century (usually choosing the most "soothing" and "calming" or "relaxing"
stuff from the 18th C so that even the most wonderful stuff will never be
heard by most listeners, many of whom do tune in for more than
'relaxation'...

Andrys
http://andrys.com