Marly Miller quotes Copland:

>"An unusual and disturbing situation has gradually become all-pervasive
>at public performances of music: the universal preponderance of old
>music on concert programs.
>
>This unhealthy state of affairs, this obsession with old music, tends
>to make all music listening safe and unadventurous since it deals so
>largely in the words of the accepted masters..."
>
>Disturbing? Unhealthy? Obsession? Unadventurous? These words are, to
>me, a bit rough when describing the old music.  I would appreciate some
>input on this.  Thanks.

You'll have some output from me; taking account wen Copland wrote his book
in the beginning of the fifties (AFAIK published in 1952), a time wen there
still was no HIP movement (started 10 years later by Harnoncourt, and not
commercially viable until the eighties), baroque music together with the
high priests of classisism and romantics ruling.  Two years ago wen I wrote
my Masters thesis in musicology I had to check a large amount of concert
programs and radio play lists (operetta and opera not counted) from 1940
to 1959 (all from Sweden, but I do not think that the picture was that
diffrent anywhere else in the western countries, besides I suppose, during
the war).  The statistics I compiled from this material showed that Bach,
Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert and Brahms claimed almost 60 percent
of the total availible performance space.  (I bounced Bruckner and Mahler
together and they had 2.3 %, contemporary (from 1930 to 1959)/premieres of
new works was 5.8 %, music played on historical instruments was 0.001 %.
What surprised the most was that the music of the Strauss family (sans
Richard) was as much as a staggering 12.3 percent - the remaning 18 percent
was about 50 diffrent groups I had put together, far to many to be quoted
here).

Returning to our history, ever since Edison and Berliner set out to
destroy live music (I'm sorry Don, I love records to 8^), the world of
musical performance was completely alterd.  Altho, one might say that this
alteration was allready starting wen Felix Mendelssohn resurected Bach from
the oblivion in the 1820'ties.  The possibility to hear music beyond some
one doing performing live, totaly filpped musical history.  Meaning: that
during the 20'th century in an ever accelerating manor, every music not
ever written has been made availibe on phonographical means.  Some works
like Beethovens fifth in more than 100 choices.  The unfortunate state,
where I give Aaron Copland homage for his grate foresight, is the fact that
contemporary music in any time before, say 1900 is degraded to a place in
the stalls.

That is why one must lament what Gentelemen like Mr Osborne and Mr Deacon
say about a work like Harry Birthwistles opera Gawain (of another thread).
Both show very little understanding of children, especially of children and
music.  I know few that are more daring wen it comes to throwing away age
and concept than those of a preschool age (3 - 6 in Sweden), willing to
accept any kind of music.  Albeit there is no such thing as an "unwritten
page of life" its in the years berfore we start destroying them in school
we have a chance to influence children.  And to have seen a contemporary
during these years must be seen as grate possibility, not least by us
classical buffs.

Returning to the sentiments Copland use, I for one find them utterly
decriptive of far to many recorded performances of music by Brahms and
before, prior to the HIP movement (IMHO).

Your humble lurker
peter lundin, gothenburg.se -  Counting the days: DSCH 100 (1906-2006)