This has been going on now for a century or more... composers who have the luxury of composing what they want, not what they think the public is going to like. It was not always thus of course, there were times when if you didn't write something the public wanted you wouldn't get paid (or at least paid much) for it. A mighty genius like Beethoven could continually push the boundaries, and move listeners out of their comfort zones, but even his last string quartets took a while to become established. And during the 20th century, when there was a vast amount of experimenting going on, some pieces are so wild they nobody ever wants to listen to them. Or so long and static ditto. I'm in this slightly thoughtful frame of mind because I have been listening to some 21st century pieces, by such luminaries as Unsuk Chin, Thomas Adès, Esa-Pekka Salonen, James MacMillan, Jennifer Higdon, Kalevi Aho. And some music has an immediate appeal; some is much spikier and "difficult" - at least for me. I have a vague notion that a lot of newer music actually comes off better in a live performance than on a recording - it's music you need to be part of, so to speak. And in a performance you have to give it all of your attention - you can't wander off for a cup of coffee, or idly flip through a magazine. You've got to simply listen. What's your take on new music? Do you love it - or admire it but not enjoy it much - or think most of it is rubbish? Do you think composers write for their listeners or for themselves?
Robert Wright
>before 18th century Writing for church or aristocracy. >Post-Wagnerian Writing for academia >inbetween Closest thing to writing for the public.
