Klarinet Archive - Posting 000345.txt from 1994/11

From: Lorne G Buick - Music TA <lgbuick@-----.CA>
Subj: Bands, orchestras, etc.
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 14:22:07 -0500

In response to many ideas put forth:

I think one reason orchestras are more accepted than bands is a self-
perpetuating one, namely that the repertoire has more depth (ie two or
three centuries worth). This means not only that there is more and/or
better music, but that generations of audiences, critics, etc. have been
able to listen to the vast mass of music (sorry, not a very nice turn of
phrase there ;-) ) and decide which works are worth listening to, which
are the truly great ones etc. So an orchestra concert is a different sort
of musical experience from a band concert, which usually involves
listening to new, untried works and (gasp) making up one's own mind about
them.

On the other hand this doesn't explain why so many orchestras are having
trouble attracting audiences, and the most successful ones seem to be the
ones that have adventurous programs. Incidentally, here in Canada one of
the most successful musical events of any kind in recent years was the
Winnipeg New Music Festival, which from what I gather amazed everyone- if
I had to pick the most likely place for a New Music event, Winnipeg would
not have been it!

On the other.other hand, I don't buy Dan's suggestion that audiences don't
go for bands because of their lack of tone colour. A modern band with
saxes, clarinets from Eflat to contra, low brass, eight zillion percussion
instruments has far more diversity of tone colours than Mozart's or
Beethoven's orchestra (let alone a Baroque orch). If composers fail to
exploit this that's another matter. What about string quartets, piano
trios, etc.? It seems obvious to me that these groups do well because they
have superior musicians playing superior repertoire. Why don't bands have
superior musicians? (I'm not saying they don't have any of course, but the
best players seeem to gravitate to orchestras or chamber groups) Another
self- perpetuating reason- because the greatest music is written for
orchestras. The 20th c. literature for band may be equal or superior to
the orchestral, but we don't know that yet, and in any case it's too late
to write 17th/ 18th/ 19th c. masterpieces!

A thought about why audiences often don't like modern music, and
orchestras often refuse to program it. I agree to a large extent with
Dan's economic analysis of the situation, and I would like to add (at risk
of redundancy) that it's doubly unfortunate that modern pieces don't get
performed more because the premiere is rarely if ever the best
performance. I think this applies at the individual performance level- my
first crack at the Poulenc Sonata certainly wasn't my best- and at the
global level. The more a style or idiom becomes known and taught among
performers, the more likely we are to get good performances. Another
difficulty for modern composers, no two of whom seem to write in the same
style.

enough already...... lgb

PS Could we have a round of moral support for our resident "Wrinkled,
Wizened Old Poo"... All together now,

There there, Dan, you're not _that_ old... :-)