Roger Hecht wrote:

>What with the rediscovery of Schreker, Zemlinksy, et al.  it seems that
>many people are desperately looking back for "new" music, having rejected
>the music of their own age.  But the greatest irony of all is their
>looking back and reaching into the grave of a composer long considered
>superannuated for what may be the best "new" piece in decades.

As far as Elgar and Mahler are concerned, I don't know that music consumers
are necessarily turning to them as alternatives to whom they are fleeing in
disgust with the notorious "evil modern composers." Personally, I and many
other CM aficionados go for both types.  But the Elgar/Mahler/Zemlinsky
type is probably more readily approachable by more people, so it stands to
reason that it would sell better--always has, always will.  None of this,
of course, means that one type of music is "better" than another.  Of
course, country, "soft jazz," etc., sell far better than either Mahler or
Schoenberg.  This is a question of interest to the bookkeepers of the
recording companies, but not to music lovers.

>This will probably offend some.  It is not meant to, nor to start an
>argument.  It is just a statement of observation and feeling over which
>I have no control.

No reason for argument; I think your observations about customers at stores
like Tower are quite correct.  Needless to say, the more people who buy
Elgar and Mahler recordings and enjoy them, the better.

Jon Johanning // [log in to unmask]