Klarinet Archive - Posting 001120.txt from 1998/05

From: "Edwin V. Lacy" <el2@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] Grand Canyon - 1st Clarinet Part
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 01:54:25 -0400

On Tue, 19 May 1998, Bill Hausmann wrote:

> At 09:10 AM 5/19/98 -0500, Ed Lacy wrote:
> >
> > My observation is that over a period of 40 years or so, the Grand
> > Canyon Suite is falling into disfavor. It may before long essentially
> > disappear from the orchestral repertoire.
> >
> That figures. Find a piece that the audience likes and stamp it out, since
> it is obviously unworthy!

I know that you are expressing your frustration that a piece you
apparently like is not as popular as it once was, and I also realize that
there is a bit of hyperbole and sarcasm in your message. But, I'm also
quite sure that you don't really believe that there is somewhere a secret
organization dedicated to finding out which pieces of music are liked by
someone or by a large audience, and, just in order to irritate the public,
issuing directives that they should never be played. Orchestras aren't
actually withholding the "plums" of the repertoire just to aggravate their
audiences.

When an orchestra chooses its repertoire, there is a lengthy and sometimes
agonizing process that takes place. Essentially, the primary
responsibility for making these decisions lies with the conductor. In
many cases, there will be various other sources of input, such as from an
"artistic advisory committee," or something similar, which may consist of
board members, players, or both. In many cases, this body will
essentially rubber-stamp the conductor's choices unless there is something
strikingly unusual about them. Then, finances come into play, and the
primary responsibility for this area lies with the general manager. He
may tell the conductor, "I'm sorry, but you can't program Mahler's Eighth
Symphony next season (the 'Symphony of a Thousand' - actually, about 500
musicians might be able to pull it off) because we can't afford it."

There are many other constraints guiding this entire process. Everyone
knows that the program must be economical, and that costs of music rental
or purchase must be taken into consideration, in addition to the fees of
guest soloists, guest conductors, hiring extra players for large works,
etc. Also, as none but the very largest orchestras can program major
portions of the repertoire in a single season, variety is a factor. The
program must also take into consideration the need of the orchestra to
grow musically, and therefore to play certain works when it is most
advantageous. Even the hall in which the orchestra plays can influence
the decisions, as some works may not work will in a facility that is too
dead, and others can't easily be mounted in a hall that is too small.

A fairly recent addition to these factors is the requirements and
constraints of certain governmental granting agencies, such as the
National Endowment for the Arts or the state arts commission. Orchestras
pay a great deal of attention to the wishes of such organizations, even
though the proportion of the annual budget which they may provide is
pitifully small. The NEA looks very carefully at the orchestras'
programming to see that it is varied, appropriate, appealing to the
public, and that recent music and that of American composers is
represented.

But, the cloud hanging over everyone's head as they try to come to grips
with the various facets of the decision is the attitude of the public. It
is recognized that the orchestra must sell tickets in order to survive,
and yet, as musicians, the conductor and the players do not want the
organization to degenerate entirely into a pops orchestra, with economic
considerations dominating every choice. There is a fairly fine line which
must be walked. If you pay a lot of money to hire a certain famous guest
artist, such as one of the famous "three tenors," it is recognized that
more tickets will be sold. The almost unanswerable question is, "Will the
extra income from ticket sales pay for the higher fee of the soloist?" As
can be imagined, this is never easy to evaluate.

As to why the Grand Canyon Suite is programmed less often now than it was
50 or so years ago (if it is), I can only speculate. Personally, when I
was 19 years old, I thought it was a pretty outstanding piece of music.
However, to me it doesn't bear repeating an infinite number of times.
Perhaps the tastes of the public, like mine, have changed over the years.
We can point to numerous examples of pieces in the repertoire, once
popular, which have become almost extinct today.

During Beethoven's lifetime, Muzio Clementi was widely regarded as the
greatest composer of symphonies in the world. His orchestral works were
played more frequently than Beethoven's. I suggest that not too many of
us on this list have ever heard a single symphony by Clementi. And, if
you do, you probably will wonder how this music could have been held in
such high regard at that time.

How many have ever heard "Through the Looking Glass" by Deems Taylor? I
never have. But, I know that it has a difficult bassoon solo in it, and I
once had to learn it because I had a teacher who had played the piece back
in the 1930's and had made a mistake in it. If this work ever comes
around again, I'm prepared! But, I think a lot of people liked this work
in the 1920's and 30's. In my lifetime, I don't ever expect to have to
demonstrate my mastery of the bassoon solo!

Ed Lacy
*****************************************************************
Dr. Edwin Lacy University of Evansville
Professor of Music 1800 Lincoln Avenue
Evansville, IN 47722
el2@-----.edu (812)479-2754
*****************************************************************

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For additional commands, e-mail: klarinet-help@-----.org
For other problems, e-mail: klarinet-owner@-----.org