In reply to Donald:  Playing Messiaen preludes after Bach WTC would be
something of a cold shower.  In the phase of his life where he wrote the
preludes, Messiaen was only very sideways interested in contrapoint, the
stuff on which Bach's WTC thrives.

The Messiaen preludes should perhaps be thought of as his personal response
to Debussy's piano music.

Although having a profound admiration for Bach, it was by far not the one
composer in the past he mostly connected to.  That were without doubt
Mozart, Debussy and a touch of Wagner, Berlioz and Mussorgsky.

On the other hand, this thread has set me thinking for some time about the
logic of concert programming.  Should one strive for a certain "unity" in
programming, or would a certain clashing of totally different viewpoints of
the same subject be more interesting?

I remember once attending a concert which was called (translated into
English) "Revolutionaries and Renewers" which consisted of Haydn's symphony
nr.  104 and Berlioz' Fantastique.  Whilst I can see the renewing and
perhaps revolutionary aspects in both I fail to see the sense/logic of such
a program.  Better to name the thing by the name.  In my experience, most
of the programming of major orchestras/soloists has to do with:

1.  availability in the repertoire of the artist or the need to try
something (e.g.  viz.  a future recording).

2.  a conductor/soloist insisting on playing this or that or else refusing
to sign a contract.

3.  an orchestra playing safe.  Look at all the bloody useless Beethoven
cycles that annoy the hell out of us over here in Holland.

While all three above reasons may be valid and pressing enough, they should
not be disguised under a mediocre philosophy about concert programming.

There are very few examples of really innovating programming out of a well
thought out philosophy (Boulez in London in the sixties, Tilson Thomas
every now and then in San Francisco).

regards, Jos