How do we get composers out of obscurity?

[Karl Henning]

Good points, to be sure, although . . .

If the obscure works are to be performed in the U.S., it has to be with semi-professional orchestra packed with committed musicians who have day-jobs, I think.

. . . that's not really great economics, either, I don't think.

[kyjo]

Most of the obscure composers from the Romantic Period are indeed best left in obscurity. Most of them sound the same and while the music is good, it is most of the time derivative and certainly no better, nor have a distinction of some kind that limited time and attention could be served better elsewhere, like in the well known composers or obscure composers of the 20th (or 21st?) century.

A bit over-stated but you get my point...

I'd tend to agree with you regarding obscure composers from the early-to-mid Romantic Era, with exceptions such as Berwald and Raff. But there are many fine lesser-known composers of distinction from the Late Romantic Era IMO. And certainly the 20th century!

[kyjo]

To follow-up Karl's funny, but quite true comment:

Q: How do we get composers out of obscurity?

A: Fire all the members of a major orchestra's committee that want the conductor to perform Beethoven's 9th for the umpteenth time instead of performing something adventurous and that's out-of-the-norm.

Yes!! It's the orchestra committees that are mainly at fault in regards to unadventurous programming, not the conductors...

[Baron Scarpia]

Yes!! It's the orchestra committees that are mainly at fault in regards to unadventurous programming, not the conductors...

It's the audiences that are at fault for not showing up.

[Karl Henning]

May be worth mentioning that there are orchestra-goers who stop going, because they don't feel they need to go hear the same LvB, Brahms or Tchaikovsky year in, year out.

[kyjo]

May be worth mentioning that there are orchestra-goers who stop going, because they don't feel they need to go hear the same LvB, Brahms or Tchaikovsky year in, year out.

Yep...that would include most of us GMGers!

[mc ukrneal]

May be worth mentioning that there are orchestra-goers who stop going, because they don't feel they need to go hear the same LvB, Brahms or Tchaikovsky year in, year out.

May also be worth mentioning that there are always new listeners who go to those 'old warhorse' concerts and get some motivation from that (and become new concert goers). There are also concert-goers who refuse to go to the 'new guy' concerts. The point is that there are all sorts of different listeners and interests...

This board tilts heavily towards the 'new guy' stuff...help. I'm sliding...

[Baron Scarpia]

There is a reality of numbers. The standard repertoire consists of what? The symphonies of Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky (the last 3) Dvorak (the last 3) Schumann, Mendelssohn, Three of Schubert, the last half-dozen of Mozart, Haydn (doesn't matter which, they're all the same for programming purposes) Honorable Mention for Mahler, Bruckner, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and a few popular pieces like Scheherazade, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, Pini di Roma, a few Strauss and Liszt, tone Poems. Plus the warhorse concertos. Some Baroque stuff now and then. Maybe I've missed some, but there are of the order of 100 pieces. If you are going to open it up to all of your obscure composers there will be what, 10,000 pieces in the rotation, 100,000? So you think that this is doable, with Beethoven's 9th coming up in the rotation once every 50 years? It's not going to happen, and it shouldn't happen. In the past a piece gets written, gets performed, if it is really good maybe gets performed a half-dozen times in various musical capitals and that's it, it's gone. Then the gramophone came along. Just because there is room in the musical sphere for recordings of 10,000 pieces of music doesn't mean there is room in the concert halls of the world for 10,000 pieces to be in circulation. We should be happy this music lives in recordings.

[kyjo]

There is a reality of numbers. The standard repertoire consists of what? The symphonies of Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky (the last 3) Dvorak (the last 3) Schumann, Mendelssohn, Three of Schubert, the last half-dozen of Mozart, Haydn (doesn't matter which, they're all the same for programming purposes) Honorable Mention for Mahler, Bruckner, Shostakovich, Sibelius, and a few popular pieces like Scheherazade, Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra, Pini di Roma, a few Strauss and Liszt, tone Poems. Plus the warhorse concertos. Some Baroque stuff now and then. Maybe I've missed some, but there are of the order of 100 pieces. If you are going to open it up to all of your obscure composers there will be what, 10,000 pieces in the rotation, 100,000? So you think that this is doable, with Beethoven's 9th coming up in the rotation once every 50 years? It's not going to happen, and it shouldn't happen. In the past a piece gets written, gets performed, if it is really good maybe gets performed a half-dozen times in various musical capitals and that's it, it's gone. Then the gramophone came along. Just because there is room in the musical sphere for recordings of 10,000 pieces of music doesn't mean there is room in the concert halls of the world for 10,000 pieces to be in circulation. We should be happy this music lives in recordings.

I don't think any of us are implying that all of the thousands of non-standard repertoire pieces should be included in orchestral programs. It would just be nice if orchestras would program such pieces every once in a while. If I were on an orchestra committee, I would suggest programming one (relatively) lesser-known work per concert (or every other concert), in order to ensure ticket sales. I would try to program the lesser-known work on the first half of that concert so people are forced to stick around for the warhorse on the second half

P.S. When I say "lesser-known" or "obscure", I'm not talking about lesser-known or obscure to people like us. I'm talking about pieces that the average concert-goer is unlikely to be very familiar with.

[Baron Scarpia]

If I were on an orchestra committee, I would suggest programming one (relatively) lesser-known work per concert (or every other concert), in order to ensure ticket sales.

That's more or less what the big orchestras do, isn't it? Do you expect orchestras that only play two programs a month play modern music on every program?

And why pair the unknown work with the popular work? To force people to listen to music they don't want to hear? You think that will make people better disposed towards modern music? That will just alienate the traditional orchestra patron ("Not only do I have to pay hundreds of dollars for a decent seat, but half the program is atonal crap!")

If there is really a potential audience for modern music, there should be modern music ensembles that specialize in it. Probably demand would be too weak to support such groups on an ongoing basis, but perhaps it would work with modern music festivals that would allow fans to congregate (like artsy film festivals).

[kyjo]

That's more or less what the big orchestras do, isn't it? Do you expect orchestras that only play two programs a month play modern music on every program?

And why pair the unknown work with the popular work? To force people to listen to music they don't want to hear? You think that will make people better disposed towards modern music? That will just alienate the traditional orchestra patron ("Not only do I have to pay hundreds of dollars for a decent seat, but half the program is atonal crap!")

If there is really a potential audience for modern music, there should be modern music ensembles that specialize in it.

I'm not talking about 'modern' music specifically. I'm talking about any music outside the standard repertoire.

[Baron Scarpia]

I'm not talking about 'modern' music specifically. I'm talking about any music outside the standard repertoire.

Maybe there are people who go to so many concerts that they are tired of mainstream music. But I don't think that applies to many people. Of the 4 Brahms Symphonies, I've only heard one in concert. I'd never want to pass up a chance to hear a work of Brahms, or Schumann, or Bruckner to hear one of their contemporaries that history forgot (presumably for a reason).

[Mahlerian]

If there is really a potential audience for modern music, there should be modern music ensembles that specialize in it.

There are.

Probably demand would be too weak to support such groups on an ongoing basis, but perhaps it would work with modern music festivals that would allow fans to congregate (like artsy film festivals).

These already exist too.

[Brian]

As a symphony subscriber: I go for both rare, obscure, GMG type repertoire when it's played, and for old "boring" warhorses that I happen to love and treasure and which are almost always a good bit more powerful live. A good orchestra balances those things.

[San Antone]

... and for old "boring" warhorses that I happen to love and treasure and which are almost always a good bit more powerful live.

I never listen to recordings of Bolero and was somewhat disappointed to see it programmed with something else I was more looking forward to hearing.  But the night of the concert, Bolero blew me out of my seat and I don't even remember the other piece.

[Karl Henning]

May also be worth mentioning that there are always new listeners who go to those 'old warhorse' concerts and get some motivation from that (and become new concert goers). There are also concert-goers who refuse to go to the 'new guy' concerts. The point is that there are all sorts of different listeners and interests...

Verily.  But do note, I sought to balance the "the unfamiliar is box-office poison" gambit  0:)

[Biffo]

I am also thinking of an orchestra which (more frequently than most major orchestras in the states) has programmed pieces by Saariaho, Carter, Wuorinen, & al.;  so part of what I am saying is, that some degree of extra time for an unfamiliar/new piece is factored into the season.  I am not saying you're wrong;  I am only proposing a refinement 


Also:  for many orchestras, no, I do not think your illustration any exaggeration.

First, an apology to karl - I hope I wasn't too abrupt in my previous posting.

My local orchestra, the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, has a Ukrainian conductor Kirill Karabits and in recent years has featured a lot of the Russian repertoire in its programmes. In the current season it has works by Kalinnikov and Lyatoshinsky, both unknown to me, but they are embedded in lashings of Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov. There is also the usual fare - Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart etc as well as Mahler 4, Messiaen's Turangalila Symphony and Ives The Unanswered Question. For various personal reasons I don't get to live concerts very often any more but I haven't heard any alarming reports of financial crisis or falling attendances recently.

[Karl Henning]

Maybe there are people who go to so many concerts that they are tired of mainstream music. But I don't think that applies to many people.

Who go to so many concerts that they are tired of mainstream music, I know none.  But, who have already heard enough live performances of all the Brahms symphonies, yes, I know a few.  And between their now being on fixed incomes, and the price of top-tier orchestra tickets (per your "bad economics," above), several years ago they let their season subscription languish unrenewed.  You can love Brahms (I do, they do) and yet not feel that another live Brahms symphony is worth the outlay.

Of the 4 Brahms Symphonies, I've only heard one in concert.

Now is my turn:  I cannot think there are many musicians who can say that!  0:)

[Karl Henning]

First, an apology to karl - I hope I wasn't too abrupt in my previous posting.

Not at all! No apology needed, and be always welcome.

[Karl Henning]

As a symphony subscriber: I go for both rare, obscure, GMG type repertoire when it's played, and for old "boring" warhorses that I happen to love and treasure and which are almost always a good bit more powerful live. A good orchestra balances those things.

Absolutely (or, as near absolutely as dammit) right.  And I am indeed alive to the concern raised earlier that there is so very much of the new and/or unknown (even only that which is demonstrably worth hearing )