Sam Kemp wrote:

>Presumably this is why many programmes prefer to mix 20th Century music
>with popular classics - a recent example being Simon Rattle's combination
>of Beethoven's 5th Symphony (I think) with the suite from Berg's "Lulu". I
>imagine this is good for the box office, as the popular item lures people
>in, but is it good for the music?

I'm curious about this.  If one has to resort to this kind of gentle ruse
to lure people in to hear 20th century music, I wonder why one would want
to perform it at all.  Is there a genuine sense that this music needs to be
heard whether people want to listen to it or not; or is it performed out of
some sense of duty? Is it perhaps performed because musical organizations
are more likely to receive Arts funding if they do so?

I would hope that money isn't the bottom line here.  It is interesting
that a musical group like the Canadian Brass, where funding and Canadian
content" are not issues, do nothing to promote new compositions in the
genre.  There are hundreds of original works written for brass quintet but
the most famous and influential quintet in the world won't touch them with
a fork.  I don't mean to dump on the Canadian Brass so much as point out
that when money isn't an issue, musicians perform what they want.

We have two fine ensembles here in Toronto:  Tafelmusik which specializes
in Baroque/Classical music and Esprit which specializes in the 20th
century/avant-garde repertoire.  Both have been in operation for some 30
years and both seem to be doing well.  Alas, our wonderful Toronto Symphony
must resort to all kinds strategies to help keep afloat.  Some are
self-imposed, like the dumbing-down of their programming and presentation;
some requirements of the Canada and Ontario Arts Councils.  A TSO member
recently remarked to me that the orchestra rarely plays Haydn and Mozart
anymore because Tafelmusik does such a good job with this music.  This is
a tough situation for a modern symphony orchestra:  how to be all things to
all people.

Eric James