Stirling Newberry replies to John Dalmas:

>It isn't that no one can write a symphony that is a "great" as Beethoven's,
>its that the role that Beethoven's music fills is one which, quite simply,
>won't get a dime of funding, a minute of reading from any major orchestra
>or a column of critical interest. ...
>
>Eiter you can continue to try and prove that all greatness is dead and gone
>in a futile attempt to hold the line against what you don't like - or you
>can support composers who are doing work that matches the goals you have
>for music.  ...
>
>All of the moaning about the death of good music that I have ever heard
>has not produced one performance of one new work which was of any use.
>Not one.  And in the end the future belongs to the people who are composing
>works and getting them performed.  ...
>
>For a group of people who say they admire greatness in creation, you don't
>seem to listen to creative people very much, and seem, instead to have a
>shrill insistence on your perogative to annoint who is, and who is not
>great.  At a certain point this wears thin.

I second this and would add that we are already seeing a kind of crunch
develop in the classical recording industry.  Rerecording the Certified
Masterpieces just isn't cutting it, and, as I see it at any rate, many
record companies are scrambling.  So we see things like "Out Classics,"
crossover albums by violin virtuosi - essentially marketing tactics which
probably yield nothing but short-term results.  Eventually, someone's going
to have to take a real chance.  There are only so many Eroicas one person
(other than Deryk Barker) is going to buy.  Where to find new music?
Academia has always been good at promoting its own, but academia is just
one sliver of the spectrum of new music.  Some composers are successfully
entrepeneurial - viz.  Glass and Reich - and found their own ensembles to
play their music.  Others beg local organizations for a hearing.  Still
many others pay out of pocket - which makes John's comment about composers
selling out to the dollar confusing to me.  Most composers I know - and,
for some reason, I know a few - actually lose money on every piece they
write, mainly trying get a live performance or - better - a recording.

I see nothing wrong with a composer making money.  Apparently, Wagner and
Beethoven, among others, agreed with me.  Dr.  Johnson once remarked to the
effect that no one but a fool never wrote for money.

I would add to Stirling's remarks about not holding your breath expecting
a Beethoven's 10th any time soon.  Writing music is tedious work, for the
most part.  Just try copying a score already written.  Why should composers
- with little prospect of reward or even a living wage - write music in
somebody else's style, when they can think about and follow their own
train of thought? As long as they're paying, I wouldn't begrudge them
that luxury.  Why should a contemporary playwright put on Elizabethan
idiom just because Shakespeare's a cultural icon? It is mostly a dead end.
Furthermore, as great as Beethoven is, he is not sufficient, and I could
say the same for every composer living or dead.  Any composer worth
listening to twice has something individual to say.  It's like deciding
which of your family you like best.  For some, it may come down to one
person (or even nobody), but this usually indicates an unhealthy situation.
As much as I love Bach, I wouldn't give up Poulenc, which is probably why
I never do well with that "desert island" game.

Steve Schwartz