That could be the moment they endeavor to generate a whole new kind of an audience. There are many aspects to this where education and marketing are concerned:wrathy wrote:
Quite right. I guess I was referring to the institution itself. At what point does it/should it grow the audience or introduce its audience to new works?
1. The Met may not be able to sustain a robust audience interest in contemporary works, but perhaps this is one way City Opera or Chicago Lyric or Houston Opera or Santa Fe and the like could distinguish themselves.
2. Those who'd go to hear a modern opera are likely people with more complex personas. They are more likely to be musicians who've had extensive experience listening to modern music. I would even say that they are likely the kinds of people who may not even available to get to the opera house on a night when such an opera is being performed because they might have another gig!
3. I do give the Met credit for choosing Barber's Antony and Cleopatra for the opening of its Lincoln Center house back in the 60's, but I've heard of few revivals of it. The music is absolutely brilliant, however I thought the production was a little gaudy.
http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f? ... 78b7057068
http://www.schirmer.com/images/news/GS-barber-NOV08.jpg
4. Schools still tend to place more emphasis on baroque, classical, and romantic music training with a slightly-above-obligatory requirement with contemporary literature. Pianists, for example, who are most likely to sustain some kind of performing careers will probably find themselves doing more performances of the concertos of Tchaikowsky, Grieg, and Gershwin rather than, say, Prokofiev Second or Previn's masterful Piano Concerto or Barber's Piano Concerto. Or how about the piano concertos of Ligeti, Liebermann, Cage, Ogden, Babbitt or similar?
Yet, each takes the same amount of blood, sweat, and tears to learn. So our "slant" is still generally Romantic or neo-Romantic with a "taint" of 20th-century dissonance. It's those edgy few who tend to get left out of the mix. The exposure to more progressive repertory is just not there-- and a lot of listeners seem to not care for the style, whether or not they are brave enough to admit that openly.
Let me see what I can do. I've snooped youtube without finding what I wanted. That's the one trouble with under-appreciated composers: they tend to be under-exposed as well!!wrathy wrote: Are there any recording of the above works you can direct me to, or should I just start poking around the vaunted "internets" (not one of my favorite activities unless I know specifically what I am after...).
That's a nice thing to be able to say. It could also be said that being appreciated may be something slightly apart from being decorated or famous or even rich. That's not to overlook the fact that achievement itself thrives on some measure or balance of all of these. But to reach the point of appreciation is to some extent, I suppose, subjective. For some, it means having major artists or ensembles recording and performing your works or having a solid publishing deal. For others, it make take little more than being involved in the university/conservatory circles. And yet for others it may go no further than being able to mock up something clever in DP for a few friends. What's that song: "happiness is whatever you want it to be", however--- positive and constructive feeback is always a good thing.wrathy wrote: I would not consider myself under appreciated in the world of concert music.
That's interesting, because I've had the impression that the jazz scene is a lot more active and robust-- more daring and less safe-- hungrier for new works than the classical world is-- just because the evolution of jazz has always been forward-looking. Wouldn't marketing a jazz work be a tad easier than marketing a classical work?wrathy wrote: Jazz might be another story!!!