Mark Landson replies to this, from me:

>>...any apparent scarcity of good contemp. music [is] a function of ...not
>>looking.
>
>IMO, it's more the lack of contemp.  music that most classical music
>lovers can get excited about that has turned people off to looking.

I must agree that few are looking, but am unsure that it's the quality
of this music which deters.  A NYTimes piece today about a Boulez and
Schoenberg piano recital reports that plenty of youths in attendance
were intrigued.  It speculated that it's out of tiredness at their
manipulatation by pop marketing:  at least this music is "authentic,
gnarly and awesome." I'm not married to those composers, nor to that
theory, but do think that people are curious, and eager for such a., g.,
and a.  musical experiences.  My guess is that it's not what they find
when they look, but rather that, harbouring some misconceptions, they're
not looking to CM for musical rewards.

>Very few composers, even of those that are performed quite frequently
>today, capture the imagination of those who hear their works to the point
>that they would go out and >seek out what else the composer has done.

I'd say that too few are exposed to it, or aware of contemp CM -- not,
as you seem to suggest, that it's somehow unpalatable at heart.  To me,
the problem of low numbers has to do with poor exposure, and that many are
prey to misconceptions about CM ...notably, facile views about what makes
for CM, which is anything but a single kind of music-making.

>As a composer and performer, I have a mantra: It's not the audience's job
>to pay attention.  It's the role of the artist to command attention!

I appreciate your aims with this, and wish you well.  But surely
attentiveness can also be expected of a reasonably intelligent audience.
After all, the six year-old in the audience and I are out to get enriched,
or delighted.  If we don't genuinely hunger, something's terribly wrong:
either we're feeling foolishly sated or we're deadened to a basic human
craving.

>The public will not save classical music and/or classical radio by seeking
>out new voices and/or changing their tastes to fit what those new composers
>are saying.  Only the composers, promoters, and others in charge of
>programming can do that by providing a relevant voice for today that people
>can connect with.  And when someone actually arrives on the scene that can
>provide that direction, then classical music will flourish.

I'm not sure what "flourish" means, or if that's ever happened in some
widespread way, since the time and means to indulge this craving is only
available to a small proportion.  OTOH, many happy thousands around the
planet right now make a decent living from CM, and some are considerably
enriched by their musical talents.

But something like the resolution you speak of surely calls for attention
on both sides.  No one's likely to win if the artist's inflexible or deaf
to an audience, but we also rightly deride crossover forays for pandering
to popular tastes.  Surely the audience can be counted on or coaxed to flex
its tastes as well.  That's part of the delight, isn't it?

>>...there's lots of enjoyable, well-crafted music being produced as we
>>write these notes, and no doubt in time much of it will come to widespread
>>attention.
>
>Quality is one thing.  Relevance is another.  To plagarizes a professor of
>marketing: If you were the best vinyl record producer in the world today,
>would it matter? No. It doesn't matter how good you are in an eroding
>industry.

Maybe thinking of it in industrial terms is one of the pitfalls, and maybe
'cottage industry' might come to be more apt.  It seems that the industry
failed to do its marketing homework, and it may be very late to come to the
task of renewing an audience.

But tell me more about this relevance.  In what way are Olav Thommessen or
Gyorgy Ligeti in or out of the loop about relevance?

Perhaps you're referring to the uninitiated who might yet be won over,
not to older fogeys who are already big on CM.  For instance, I don't
see Bach's solo cello suites as any less 'relevant' to my world than
Thommessen's 'Et cetera!' -- though I'd have to agree that the latter
may appeal more to my rasta-braided nephews.  At least at first.

Bert Bailey