Bert Bailey <[log in to unmask]> said:

>Do hang on to the comfortable and familiar: no law says you must explore
>further.  But know that any apparent scarcity of good contemp.  music will
>be a function of this not looking.  I wonder how else one might understand
>it: the gene pool weakened?  ...the muses vanished?  ...talent for CM at
>a certain point petered out?

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.
When one expects to find something, one looks for it.  When one believes
there is little chance of finding, what's the point? As for yourself, you
obviously have no trouble whatsoever in finding contemp music that speaks
to you.  This is very rare, however.  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.

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!

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.

>In short, I'd say it's down to our hunger, and not to any dearth of
>quality out there:  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.

Mark Landson