Reading between the lines, Steve Schwartz writes: >First, why play new music at all? Because you may find something you like. >Because it interests you. Second, remember that Beethoven was once new >music, and, no, not everyone liked it. Lurking behind this question are >a number of attitudes, one of which may be that no work of music is worth >an effort or that all music must be "sugar-coated" to get it past the >listener. ... My question was partly facetious but I readily admit that I don't appreciate much of the new music I've heard written for symphony orchestra. Generally, it isn't the newness of a piece itself. I find it hard to listen to music--and not all new music is like this--which doesn't use orchestral instruments idiomatically. But this is not what I was getting at in my post. I lose interest in a performance if I sense that a piece is being played for some reason other than a conviction of its worth. >There are performers who do perform out of a sense of duty. Generally >speaking, under those conditions they don't perform very well. There are >also performers interested in playing what they haven't played before, who >find the act of exploration stimulating. They tend to convey that >excitement. I can't argue with any of this because I agree with it. But I think symphony orchestras face a real problem today. Their makeup has evolved little since the beginning of the 20th century yet they commission compositions from the 21st century. As I pointed out, "authentic" groups encroach on their earlier repertoire and specialist groups exist to perform the new. To me, the symphony orchestra is more and more becoming an "early music" ensemble in its own right, yet it still tries to embrace all periods of orchestral music. >>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. > >It's also interesting that they don't play very well. I'm amazed they have >a career, when there are so many better players around. Interesting opinion. >>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. > >Influential? Whom do they influence? To me, they're the Charlotte Church of >brass quintets - famous, but not particularly interesting or technically >sufficient. The Miller Brass Ensemble of Chicago plays rings around them >and plays much more difficult repertoire besides. Here's how the Canadian Brass is influential. Pretty much every brass player I talk to, from beginner to pro, admires this group. Young players are simply in awe of them. I have played in different quintets for years and I have almost never performed an original work. When I would suggest an original piece, it would be vetoed. Nobody was interested. Rather, nearly everything was in the lollipop genre and much of that was Canadian Brass publications. Moreover, brass chamber music now implies one thing: a group consisting of 2 trumpets, horn, trombone and tuba. Music has been written for many combinations of brass instruments but nobody seems to play it. I'm convinced that if the CB were to include a few original works in their shows, commission compositions rather than arrangements, the genre would be enriched immeasurably. Eric James