Orchestra: Where to now?

Today I conducted the first movement of Pines of Rome with the New York Youth Symphony. It was an exhilarating experience to direct such a fine group of players. There was something incredibly emotional and spiritual, and, of course, fun, about how we were making Respighi's dots on the page come to life. Even as a student conductor who only had a moment on the podium, to hear the massive sound come together so perfectly, even for just an instant, it was music in all its glory, the way it should be, the way it ought to be.

Afterward, the orchestra rehearsed a new commissioned work that was in stark contrast to the Respighi, though only in aesthetics, not sound mass. It was a big loud "in your face" piece while still having the subtleties of color and moderation, much like Pines of Rome. It got me thinking "Where is the orchestra going now?" We all know its history: from Bach's Suites, to Haydn's and Mozart's Symphonies, to Beethoven's Symphonies, to Schubert, Brahms, Tcahikovsky, Wagner, Strauss, Mahler, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Respighi, Shostakovich, Barber, Adams, us. What do us, as composers, have to contribute to the rich history of the orchestra in the present day?

Unlike some people (*cough* SSC *cough*) who think the orchestra is long and dead, i.e. a "fossil", I believe the orchestra is very much alive and well. Many new and exciting technologies are being created, such as electronics and synthesizers, where orchestras can be expanded. New pieces are being written every day and sometimes there's a shortage of orchestras to play them! Indeed, it's a shame that the NYYS can only play three new works a year because of time constraints. But for a youth orchestra of its caliber, easily on par with many American professional orchestras, they should be a leader in the path towards new works for the ensemble.

What do you as composers think? Is the orchestra still alive or should be not bother? If you believe the orchestra is dead, what's your justification for this? If you believe the orchestra is alive and well, what could you contribute to the repertoire as a composer?

Today I conducted the first movement of Pines of Rome with the New York Youth Symphony. It was an exhilarating experience to direct such a fine group of players. There was something incredibly emotional and spiritual, and, of course, fun, about how we were making Respighi's dots on the page come to life. Even as a student conductor who only had a moment on the podium, to hear the massive sound come together so perfectly, even for just an instant, it was music in all its glory, the way it should be, the way it ought to be.

Afterward, the orchestra rehearsed a new commissioned work that was in stark contrast to the Respighi, though only in aesthetics, not sound mass. It was a big loud "in your face" piece while still having the subtleties of color and moderation, much like Pines of Rome. It got me thinking "Where is the orchestra going now?" We all know its history: from Bach's Suites, to Haydn's and Mozart's Symphonies, to Beethoven's Symphonies, to Schubert, Brahms, Tcahikovsky, Wagner, Strauss, Mahler, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Respighi, Shostakovich, Barber, Adams, us. What do us, as composers, have to contribute to the rich history of the orchestra in the present day?

Unlike some people (*cough* SSC *cough*) who think the orchestra is long and dead, i.e. a "fossil", I believe the orchestra is very much alive and well. Many new and exciting technologies are being created, such as electronics and synthesizers, where orchestras can be expanded. New pieces are being written every day and sometimes there's a shortage of orchestras to play them! Indeed, it's a shame that the NYYS can only play three new works a year because of time constraints. But for a youth orchestra of its caliber, easily on par with many American professional orchestras, they should be a leader in the path towards new works for the ensemble.

What do you as composers think? Is the orchestra still alive or should be not bother? If you believe the orchestra is dead, what's your justification for this? If you believe the orchestra is alive and well, what could you contribute to the repertoire as a composer?

Well, I'm not exactly sure the orchestra is dead or alive... stagnant? Maybe.

The biggest issue now isn't whether the repertoire can be contributed to but instead whether an audience will continue to come to orchestra concerts. The problem is, in today's world, orchestras have to compete with the music of pop culture, rapid information exchange, and a savvy audience that has an ability to retrieve media instantly. 20 years ago... that didn't exist. So what can orchestras do to fix this? That's a question that is extremely hard to answer - largely for financial reasons. Orchestras should be able to broadcast performances online via live feed - many don't. This would increase dramatically the number of the audience for the events - but how does one gain profit from online performances enough to maintain operating costs, etc? It's a difficult thing for many cash-strapped orchestras to consider BUT is one, that I feel, would greatly aide in the survival of the orchestra. The other issue is the competition with pop music. Many people refuse to listen to classical music in general - largely because of being addicted to the formulae used in creating pop music. The overly simplistic sounds of Lady Gaga coupled with her penchant for outrageous theatrical shows is a huge competition for classical music (even though one can find simplicity and drama in nearly every period of classical music - some to an even more outrageous outcome then Gaga.) The formulaic construct of the pop song really has a lot to do with that. Can composers of classical music learn from pop music? Certainly. Is the knowledge gained a good thing for classical music? Probably not. With classical music's cerebral emphasis.. it's very hard to maneuver back and forth from work to work without losing insight. Anyways, I ramble...

Do I feel I can contribute to the orchestral repertoire in a meaningful way? Yes, I do. What is that contribution? At this time I don't know.

I agree the orchestra is alive. I don't know about well.

But the economy ain't what it should be at this point, so you have to keep that in mind.

But the audience for classical music IS in decline. It's all over the news that many of the nation's great minor orchestras are having trouble. The major ones I'm pretty sure will pull through. Don't know about the small ones.

It's an excellent question, Justin. I believe orchestras are completely unique in the collective effort it takes to successfully pull off their objective. Not just do you have the decades of training by each musician, conductor, etc., but the composer as well, plus the instrument making over centuries of gradual evolution in their craft. I believe orchestras are evolving and so are the audiences. They will still be around in centuries to come but I don’t believe their role will be the same. To me the important question isn't really what's next for the orchestra, but rather what is next for writing serious music. This is a quote I really like: "A few twentieth century composers achieved extraordinary fame: Sibelius’s fiftieth birthday in 1915 was front page news in Finnish papers. It is inconceivable that anything like this would ever happen to a composer of classical music today. At best, he or she can only hope to create a mild ripple in the mass media pond. The last work whose premiere was a major public event was probably Britten’s War Requiem in 1962. The great communicators today are in the world of rock music." - Composer David Matthews. It seems around the 1950's and 60's, rock became the music that connects with the feelings of the audiences when classical music boldly alienated its audience. I think that hurts us today because ultimately music has to be a communicative medium - it has to say something of relevance to someone in my belief. Beethoven was a composer functioning at the peak of his creative powers where only classical music could be the canvas for his art and the orchestra being the greatest range of that canvas. I'm not sure if he was alive today, classical music would even be the pinnacle. It might be too restrictive.

I believe popular music (music for the masses) and serious music have lived side by side for hundreds of years. But around the 1920's, and 1930's, with the advent of radio, film, then TV, and eventually internet, serious music is struggling to find relevance with an audience that is becoming increasingly interested in instant gratification. It is hard to justify sitting through an hour long concert piece if the best climax might be available on youtube or itunes in chunks. Ultimately, the ease of getting something reduces its value.

I find this section from Igor Stravinsky’s autobiography relevant. In his very perceptive autobiography, he discusses the pros and cons of musicians reaching wider audiences and how the advent of new technology (he was referring to radio though it could just as easily have been the ipod, internet, or whatever) would ultimately weaken the reach of music because now it requires less effort from its audience. In this passage, Stravinsky convincingly makes the case that the ease that it takes listeners to hear music ultimately deadens their interest in music.

"The propagation of music by mechanical means and the broadcasting of music - that represent formidable scientific conquests, which are very likely to spread even more - merit close examination as for their importance and their effects in the domain of music. Of course, the possibility for both authors and performers to reach the masses, and the fact that these masses are able to make themselves acquainted with musical works, represent an unquestionable advantage. However, it cannot be concealed that this advantage is dangerous at the same time. In the past, someone like Johann-Sebastian Bach had to walk ten leagues in order to hear Buxtehude perform his works. Today, any inhabitant of any country simply has to either turn a knob or play a record in order to listen to the piece of his choice. Well! It is in this very incredible easiness, in this very lack of effort that lies the vice of that so-called progress. In music, more than in any other branch of art, comprehension is only given to those who actively contribute to it. In itself, the massive reception is not enough. The listening of certain combinations of sounds, and the automatic growing accustomed to them does not necessarily involve the fact of hearing and grasping them, for one can listen without hearing, the same way one can watch without seeing. What renders people lazy is their lack of active effort and their developing of a liking for this easiness. People no longer need to move about as Bach had to; the radio spares them the traveling. Neither do they absolutely need to make music themselves and to waste time studying an instrument in order to know the musical literature. The radio and the disc take over. As a result, the active faculties, without which music cannot be assimilated, gradually atrophy among the listeners who no longer train them. This gradual paralysis leads to extremely serious consequences. Overwhelmed with sounds, the most varied combinations of which leave them indifferent, people fall into a sort of mindless state, that deprives them of all ability to judge, and renders them indifferent to the very quality of what they are served. In the near future, such disorganized overfeeding is more than likely to make listeners lose their hunger and their liking for music. Indeed, there will always be some exceptions - some people within the hoard will be able to select what they like. However, concerning the masses, one has all the reasons to fear that instead of generating love for and understanding of music, the modern means involved in spreading music will lead absolutely to opposite results; it is to say, they will lead to indifference, to the inability to recognize them, to be guided by them, and to have any reaction of some value." Igor Stravinsky - "Chronicles of My Life" – 1935

I believe serious music is in our blood. I read about an experiment where rats were tested by psychologists to see how they would react to Bach's music and rock music. The rats were placed into two different boxes. Rock music was played in one of the boxes while Bach's music was played in the other box. The rats could choose to switch boxes through a tunnel that connected both boxes. Almost all of the rats chose to go into the box with the Bach music even after the type of music was switched from one box to the other. According to an article that appeared in the LA Times recently, “Dr. Antonio Damasio, director of USC's Brain and Creativity Institute, is an expert on emotion and a committed musicophile. Even if music did little more than lift our spirits, he says, it would be a powerful force in maintaining physical and mental health. The pleasure that results from listening to music we love stimulates the release of neural growth factors that promote the vigor, growth and replacement of brain cells.”

Responses to music are easy to be detected in the human body. Classical music from the baroque period causes the heart beat and pulse rate to relax to the beat of the music. As the body becomes relaxed and alert, the mind is able to concentrate more easily. Furthermore, baroque music decreases blood pressure and enhances the ability to learn. Music affects the amplitude and frequency of brain waves, which can be measured by an electro-encephalogram. Music also affects breathing rate and electrical resistance of the skin. It has been observed to cause the pupils to dilate, increase blood pressure, and increase the heart rate. You could see this as evidence that well written and well performed music won't go away. It's in our blood.

My point here is ultimately that orchestras are competing with instant gratification cultures. There are some who respond better to the real deal, but that is increasingly rare with our current cultural mindset. Orchestras need to evolve to remain relevant. They need to be properly marketed and “sold” to new audiences otherwise their relevance will reduce. Orchestral composers need to create masterpieces that show the orchestra as the only device cable of expressing their musical vision. Note some orchestras are doing extremely well.

Great question. Sorry for the extremely verbose response, I have a few opinions on this topic. ;)

obviously we need to make a theramin section the standard

obviously we need to make a theramin section the standard

No. Just...no.

YES

Unlike some people (*cough* SSC *cough*) who think the orchestra is long and dead, i.e. a "fossil", I believe the orchestra is very much alive and well. Many new and exciting technologies are being created, such as electronics and synthesizers, where orchestras can be expanded. New pieces are being written every day and sometimes there's a shortage of orchestras to play them! Indeed, it's a shame that the NYYS can only play three new works a year because of time constraints. But for a youth orchestra of its caliber, easily on par with many American professional orchestras, they should be a leader in the path towards new works for the ensemble.

Thanks for the strawman, I expect no less from you obviously.

But here, I'll throw you a bone:

I think that orchestras are a fossil for the same reason that when money commands, art takes a second place. It's very obvious that even if there are "new pieces" being played, it's really practically nothing in contrast to the HUGE repertoire of orchestra pieces that never get played. I mean a chamber orchestra piece is relatively hard to put together but it's possible, but a full orchestra? Forget it. Some orchestras have contests for new music, but that's exactly the point, they can't play all the music written or being written so they have to narrow it down. It's understandable.

But it also means that it's very unrealistic that you'll get played. Much less so if you go against what is fashionable to write at the moment or overall.

So yeah, you can write for orchestra all you want, but prepare for MIDI since chances are you'll never hear your music live. That's why to me it's kind of pointless since the idea is actually hearing your music live, not just playing "big composer."

Thanks for the strawman, I expect no less from you obviously.

But here, I'll throw you a bone:

I think that orchestras are a fossil for the same reason that when money commands, art takes a second place. It's very obvious that even if there are "new pieces" being played, it's really practically nothing in contrast to the HUGE repertoire of orchestra pieces that never get played. I mean a chamber orchestra piece is relatively hard to put together but it's possible, but a full orchestra? Forget it. Some orchestras have contests for new music, but that's exactly the point, they can't play all the music written or being written so they have to narrow it down. It's understandable.

But it also means that it's very unrealistic that you'll get played. Much less so if you go against what is fashionable to write at the moment or overall.

So yeah, you can write for orchestra all you want, but prepare for MIDI since chances are you'll never hear your music live. That's why to me it's kind of pointless since the idea is actually hearing your music live, not just playing "big composer."

So essentially you're taking the pessimistic viewpoint of "It's never going to happen, so why bother?"

See, I just don't see what good that does, especially from an artistic stance. While, of course, orchestras are very expensive to fund and have limited concerts/rehearsal time, it is maddening to think that you shouldn't strive to write for the ensemble if your artistic outlook demands it. Indeed, did Schoenberg actually think his massive 200-person orchestra in Gurrelieder would get played right away, if at all? The reason Schoenberg used such an outragous orchestra size was because his artistic viewpoint required that amount of instruments to make his point. Of course, one shouldn't use the orchestra for a statement that could just as easily be made with a string quartet, but if I, as the artist, demand an orchestral sound, why shouldn't I be allowed to write it? The end should be to write beautiful music, not just with the prospect of performance. There are many cases of composers simply writing for the sake of the art (Beethoven, Schubert, Bach, Mahler, Tchaikovsky etc.) and today those works are some of the greatest masterworks of the repertoire. It is not about instant gratification through money or fame (as modern culture would like you to believe) but to bring beauty, goodness, and truth (Telos) into the word through music. To restrict that for money goes against the whole point of music in my opinion.

Like I said, if you want to write for orchestra you might as well get used to Midi or whatever, since chances you'll never get played. It's just how it is. You can write a piece for space shuttle and the sound of braking 2000 year old Chinese relics, too! But it doesn't mean that'll happen.

You can say it's pessimistic, but it's just simple 1+1. There's no way you can compete with the standard repertoire, you'll lose every time and unless orchestras start dedicating much more time to new music, they lag behind everything else. It's -extremely- rare for any orchestra to play new music from anyone who isn't already rather famous.

The only chances are when where you study has an orchestra, but you can't count on this either since not all programs work that way.

So no, I'm not saying people shouldn't write for it, but I'm saying they have to be realistic. I don't write for orchestra because I think it's a waste of time, even if I can imagine things to do with it, it's all extremely far fetched and it's ultimately too frustrating to bother giving it more thought.

Oh and I'll address this bit of crap real quick:

It seems around the 1950's and 60's, rock became the music that connects with the feelings of the audiences when classical music boldly alienated its audience. I think that hurts us today because ultimately music has to be a communicative medium - it has to say something of relevance to someone in my belief.

"Classical" music, eh? People still play Bach and Beethoven nonstop, I dunno if you noticed.

People who actually play and listen to 20th century non-pop music are a minority, if only out of ignorance, fear, and laziness. Who knows if it communicates anything to anyone, if nobody knows it since nobody plays it? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy overall.

I don't care about music "communicating" anything, but the disconnect is obvious even within "classical" music, as again, almost nobody performs music that isn't from the 19th century and back.

You can say it's pessimistic, but it's just simple 1+1. There's no way you can compete with the standard repertoire, you'll lose every time and unless orchestras start dedicating much more time to new music, they lag behind everything else. It's -extremely- rare for any orchestra to play new music from anyone who isn't already rather famous.

Er, it's the same problem as always.

People want "easy listening" and "entertainment," artists may as well want actual art.

Music that is "challenging" or whatever doesn't have a place due to the above, since it's not easy and it's not "entertainment." You can't sell it as good as Beethoven.

So things will never change, really. I'm certainly not going to revise my music to "fit" with boring orchestra repertoire everyone's heard a billion times before. It's impossible to reconcile modern art with "entertainment," both go in totally different directions and have different purposes.

Er, it's the same problem as always.

People want "easy listening" and "entertainment," artists may as well want actual art.

Music that is "challenging" or whatever doesn't have a place due to the above, since it's not easy and it's not "entertainment." You can't sell it as good as Beethoven.

Correct me if this is utterly wrong, but I don't think it's the same problem as always. 

The problem we seem to have escaped was the formalism of a music language in the 18th and 19th centuries, when artists began turning away from that Western Classicist mentality that there was a "right" and "wrong" way to compose music, that there were boundaries, and that "good" composers could effectively transcend those boundaries while creating "new" ones. This was the mentality that 20th Century artists were at odds with...

But today we have generations of academic composers who scoff at anything that remotely sounds like music from the 18th or 19th centuries. We do have audiences that choose popular, secular music over new music. I'd say the problem is entirely different. A lot of it seems to me like a perfect storm of conditions that are devastating to the growth of the pedagogy. Here are some of the elements:

Consumerism: The general public seeks instant gratification, for the most part. Most new music will not meet that demand.

Religunomics: Modern monetary systems are founded on little more than faith-based currency... to keep this short, things depreciate in value far too easily, even things which are popular among the general public. So, what an orchestra ticket was once able to fund is now funded for pennies on the dollar. Inflation's a scallop.

Technological Access: Probably one of the most important advancements in the 20th Century was the creation of the internet, which has altered distribution of information, products, and services. Consumerism - instant gratification - leads the general public to the computer for their media and entertainment, rarely the concert hall.

Dichotomies: More prevalent than in the days of the Roman Empire (I would speculate, at least) are the combative, confrontational attitudes among artists about what art is, what art is "good", and what those justifications should be. Divided, we are conquered.

The worst part of it all is that few of us know what to do about it, most of us never saw this coming. But I just thought I'd point out that the problem is not hardly the same as it once was. No, it's a far different problem than before, and it's tearing the whole pedagogical aspect of music limb from limb. We're not growing or developing, we're not advancing or progressing, we're simply stuck fighting in the sand box at recess - learning nothing! 

Do we all realize that our "art" music was actually "commercial" music back when it was written? Beethoven, Mozart, etc.

Do we all realize that our "art" music was actually "commercial" music back when it was written?  Beethoven, Mozart, etc.

Hardly. Yes, our "art" music yielded profit back when it was written, but a movie today can yield a profit and still merit the term art. "Art" music rarely earns a profit. There are plenty of film critics today akin to yesterday's music critics. But like all things in this time period, everything depreciates in monetary value. 

Just because it makes money doesn't mean it has less artistic merit. There are plenty examples of music today that have artistic merit and value, yet yield a profit. The distinction to make is the impact of incentivization on art, which inherently excludes certain forms of expression while adopting others, all of which is subject to the whims of the general public as opposed to the former concert-goers of the past. 

The issue involves the conditions which exist today that squander our potential for growth and advancement. I've outlined some of those conditions already. These conditions are what influence the general public, exclude some forms of expression, and generally ostracize those who seek to pursue forms of expression that are not popular. 

Hardly. Yes, our "art" music yielded profit back when it was written, but a movie today can yield a profit and still merit the term art. "Art" music rarely earns a profit. There are plenty of film critics today akin to yesterday's music critics. But like all things in this time period, everything depreciates in monetary value. 

Just because it makes money doesn't mean it has less artistic merit. There are plenty examples of music today that have artistic merit and value, yet yield a profit. The distinction to make is the impact of incentivization on art, which inherently excludes certain forms of expression while adopting others, all of which is subject to the whims of the general public as opposed to the former concert-goers of the past. 

The issue involves the conditions which exist today that squander our potential for growth and advancement. I've outlined some of those conditions already. These conditions are what influence the general public, exclude some forms of expression, and generally ostracize those who seek to pursue forms of expression that are not popular. 

Some very good points. I agree just because something is popular and/or profitable doesn't mean it has less artistic merit. Our current challenge is audiences don't find the relevance of concert or orchestral music for the reasons already outlined above. I also believe historically, there has been an attitude of if it is popular, it is not art. “If its art, it is not for all. And if it is for all, it is not art.” – Schoenberg. I happen to love Schoenberg, but ultimately, the attitude was influential and did much more harm than good as some forthcoming composers believe music must not be liked for it to be good otherwise you are a sellout. I don't believe we as composers should strive to please the audience as the goal, but rather should not go out of our way to ignore audiences either. There is certainly a middle ground of challenging yet satisfying audiences, performers, and staying true to our artistry.

I find this quote from Schoenberg very telling - “But there is nothing I long for more intensely (if for anything) than to be taken for a better sort of Tchaikovsky, for heaven’s sake: a bit better, but really that’s all. Or if anything more, then that people should know my tunes and whistle them.” - Schoenberg, 1947. I find this extremely revealing because during the Gurreleider premiere, Schoenberg didn't even acknowledge the audience. He only bowed to the orchestra and had his back towards the audience though there was a huge standing ovation. Apparently he cared about making a connection as well.

Oh and I'll address this bit of crap real quick:

"Classical" music, eh? People still play Bach and Beethoven nonstop, I dunno if you noticed.

People who actually play and listen to 20th century non-pop music are a minority, if only out of ignorance, fear, and laziness. Who knows if it communicates anything to anyone, if nobody knows it since nobody plays it? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy overall.

I don't care about music "communicating" anything, but the disconnect is obvious even within "classical" music, as again, almost nobody performs music that isn't from the 19th century and back.

SSC, since you don't care about "communicating" with music, do you have any interest in having your music performed? If so, why? If not, then I assume you write music and when finished just put it in the closet since you have no need to say something? Actually, in re-reading your statement above, I might be reading too much into what you are saying so if you can clarify.

SSC, since you don't care about "communicating" with music, do you have any interest in having your music performed? If so, why? If not, then I assume you write music and when finished just put it in the closet since you have no need to say something? Actually, in re-reading your statement above, I might be reading too much into what you are saying so if you can clarify.

... eh?

I don't know, when I get performances I just want to see what happens. How people react, how good was the performance, etc. The whole atmosphere for me is very exiting and I like it. Everyone has their reasons I'm sure, but mine don't have anything at all to do with "communicating" anything, since for that I'd rather put up a sign or something. I don't see why this means I must not want my music performed.

To me music isn't about "saying" things. It's about digging what you hear, writing what you want to hear, and seeing if other people dig it too (or not.)

... eh?

I don't know, when I get performances I just want to see what happens. How people react, how good was the performance, etc. The whole atmosphere for me is very exiting and I like it. Everyone has their reasons I'm sure, but mine don't have anything at all to do with "communicating" anything, since for that I'd rather put up a sign or something. I don't see why this means I must not want my music performed.

To me music isn't about "saying" things. It's about digging what you hear, writing what you want to hear, and seeing if other people dig it too (or not.)

Ok, that makes perfect sense. To me, if a composer has no interest in the audience it is bad for the medium. If the composer has 100% interest in the audience, it is bad for the composer’s artistry since they seek to be the "flavor of the month" and follow a fad. So all composers need to find a balance where they are able to maintain artistic integrity, but also speak to someone. The message can be complex, it can be challenging, but it should at least strive to be understood in some way. Otherwise, it can exist in a vacuum which I don’t think any artist wants. As my quote from Schoenberg above shows, even those who on the surface couldn’t care less about the masses, deep down, they have a longing to be understood and appreciated - to move someone and connect. I am a composer in residence with an orchestra and based on hearing from the orchestra performers, I’ve found most performers to prefer to play something that makes sense to them that speaks in some way, and has something of value to say. They love a challenge as long as it makes sense. So ultimately, who do we as composers serve? Is it ourselves? The performers? The audience? At its best, it will be a combination and not alienate any of the above. The ratio is less important to me because that even changes for the same composer, but at least all of these should be factored and never ignored. I totally understand this because I also play in an orchestra. I have played pieces where I don’t understand what the composer meant. I don’t understand why they did something and this tends to frustrate me whereas a single note played at pianissimo is far more substantial when it makes sense in context to the whole. Performers are ok with challenge, just not nonsense. This is why I believe orchestras are relevant, but must continually strive to be relevant in this environment that increasingly has less and less interest and patience for the effort needed to appreciate it (please re-read the Stravinsky quote in my first post on this tread). This has always been a problem. I highly recommend reading Alex Rose’s book, The Rest is Noise. http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/05/what_is_this.html

Well, the orchestra isn't DEAD but it ain't what it used to be.

People don't travel far and wide as much to hear pieces. Sure, some people do, but imagine, some people used to travel horseback for 100 miles to see a 1 hour concert. HOWEVER:

I think that the orchestra will not ever go away, though. I think what will happen is people will add new instruments to the mix. We may not have the traditional 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, maybe a piccolo, english horn, bass clarinet and/or contrabassoon, but perhaps 2 piccolos, 1 flute, alto flute, bass flute, muzzete, oboe, oboe d'amore, english horn, heckelphone, ect. Maybe new instruments will be made, like a floboe or a 6 string viola tuned E, A, D, G, C, F.(just examples) Perhaps electronics. Perhaps chorus. Anything could happen, but I think nothing, absolutely nothing can completely kill the symphony orchestra.

Heklaphone

They love a challenge as long as it makes sense.

...

Performers are ok with challenge, just not nonsense.

Anything can be "nonsense." That's almost a taste thing, so really what you're saying is that performers will play something they like. Yeah, big news there. But the thing is, a composer can't take into account the tastes of everyone or they wouldn't write anything THEY wanted to write, since taken to the logical conclusion you can't please everyone no matter what.

And if you write with nobody in mind and don't care about audience/whatever's tastes, it may just so happen that they'll like stuff anyway. I was talking specifically about concerts and performances, but when I write music the only opinion that matters is mine and that's about it.

I happen to believe education and exposure to advancing ideas about music yields greater willingness of performers to venture beyond the traditional repertoire. I therefore don't believe it necessarily comes down to whether the performer enjoys playing the work as much as it comes down to the consumer paying for the performance.

But therein lies the rub, because it's the consumer who has the "expectation" for what they should hear, and no two consumers are going to expect the same thing. Ergo, we have an endless challenge of pleasing most of the audience with our work. An orchestra is simply the middle-man (albeit the EXPENSIVE middle-man) between the consumer and the composer.

In this time period, the composer necessarily must know what the orchestra is capable of performing, what they are willing to perform and perform well, but most of all what the consumer expects for the price of their admission. And this is why the orchestra is such a difficult performance medium to acquire, because this is above-all what the music director is responsible for considering.

If you're attempting to secure a performance of your work, it's best to come prepared to discuss the option, as best you can, by speaking in terms of how your music will put butts in seats. If you're a composer that can speak for what the audience expects for their price of admission and can deliver on that expectation, then you'll have less difficulty securing performances.

In other words, the performers are not your concern. They don't pay for your music. The music director doesn't pay for your music either (technically, though in the short term they are the ones who pay you royalties [if any at all] with the expectation that your music will put butts in seats that will then create a return on the investment). This gets far more convoluted in practice however, but this is the gist of the exchange.

The mentality seems to be that if the audience doesn't get what they expect, they don't put their butts in seats. When butts aren't in seats, you as the composer (and your music) is the first thing to be blamed for it. Your music may not even be the ultimate reason (could be poor planning/marketing of the concert, scheduling of the concert, financial reasons on the part of the audience due to a bad economy, etc.), but it doesn't matter because the presumption is that the audience didn't get its money's worth from your music. The end.

And that's the problem, because "getting your money's worth" from art is a contradiction in and of itself, as it presupposes that the audience drives the creativity of the composer rather than relying on the composer's creativity on its merits alone. This is why the orchestra is stagnating, because the system of producing music is in and of itself a contradiction. We learn to approach composition with OUR creativity, yet the reality is more that to secure a performance with an orchestra we should create what the audience expects of our creativity (which may not be at all creative and ultimately just regurgitating what already exists over and over again - churning butter instead of a 5-star meal, more or less).

IE, you have to sell yourself and convince people what you're writing will get them their time investment back in money.

Which means it's really just a game of "let's copy this that's popular/fashionable/whatever, that'll do!" Pretty horrible really.