Wes replies to my rant:

>>Most composers, including Benjamin and Stirling, want to be heard.
>>Otherwise, what's the point of writing in the first place?
>
>Look......I'm a composer.......I am not a published composer.....YET...this
>is my choice mind you.  I write music for me.......not to be performed....I
>would LOVE to have my stuff performed at the NY Philharmonic.  If it never
>gets performed then it isn't a loss to me because I am really writing for
>me.

More power to you.  For a few people, this is enough.

>My music is no lesser than Torke or Stirling's or Brahms' or anyone
>else's.  I don't feel that there is such a thing as better than in an
>artistic scenario.  It's all a matter of taste.

I agree.

>I guess accessible music is music that appeals to a higher percentage of
>the general populous than not.

But who in particular is accessible? Keep in mind that most of the populus
would prefer to stand in line for three hours at the Department of Motor
Vehicles rather than listen to Mozart or Beethoven.

>I'm not studying with the wrong teachers........in fact...I'm studying on
>my own right now.

I meant "wrong" in the sense that they have little influence with which to
push their students' careers.

It's nice to believe that the world runs on merit.  Occasionally, someone
good does break through from obscurity to wider recognition.  But, let's
face it, playing new music involves somebody taking a chance on the
unknown.  It's not unreasonable to take the recommendation of someone
considered expert, like an established composer or academic or critic,
in order to minimize failure.  Unfortunately, art involves risk, not only
for the artist, but for the performers and the audience as well.  I see
problems for the health of music in an unwillingness to take risks by the
latter two.  I'm painting with a broad brush, of course.  There are always
exceptions, and probably a lot of exceptions.  However, if you read this
list for any length of time, you will get the most extraordinary view from
many on what contemporary music is.  It's a very narrow view - people think
it's boops and squeaks or the scrape of fingernails on a blackboard or
serial/atonal (the terms are often lumped together).  Some contemporary
music is like that.  A lot of it isn't.  The question becomes (as William
F. Buckley might say) why people hold such a view.  Not surprisingly, it's
the contemporary music they've heard.  What gets presented, talked about,
and promoted is a very narrow sliver of what actually gets written.  That's
my main point.

For example, I've never attended a concert of the Culver City Chamber Music
series, mostly because I live several states away and would have to drive
over mountain and through desert for at least two days.  But I'm impressed
with their line-up.  I haven't heard of *any* of the people they present.
Consequently, I think the series performs a valuable service.  The people
who run it appear open and receptive and fixed on the music itself, rather
than on the pedigree of the composer.  This is a rare thing, I assure you.

Steve Schwartz