Tough questions S! My gut instinct would be to consider nothing but what I wanted to hear and write that. Modification for practical situations is feasible after that perhaps? Always with the ideal performance in mind I would hope for ANY composer. Given the premise of (b) above, I take my approach. I don't write for the medium. They (orchestra, possibly others) wouldn't like it, I wouldn't like their dislike, anecdotal evidence from other *senior* composers are disheartening (if not downright frightening)...it all seems like a waste of time when I could be working with a soloist or small ensemble who actually give a $h%& frankly...

I entirely agree with the thrust of your argument Ron.    I'm not sure that 5/4 would have been so difficult for a Russian orchestra of Tchaikovsky's time, though...  although it was an unusual metre at the time in classical music,  there are quite a few Russian folksongs and dances written in 5.  "Popular" songs in Russia used "non-standard" metres up to the 1920s,  when politicians first started trying to call the shots on these issues...   for example the WW1 song from the trenches "Na pole tanki groxotalis'" ("The tanks were clanking on the battlefield..") has a verse in seven, although it goes into four for the chorus.  Entirely agreed about "Le Sacre", though

Just 1.5 months ago I got an invitation to the premiere of a new opera, based on William Golding's LORD OF THE FLIES.  The composer is someone for whose music I have absolutely the highest regard, and who is spoken of as being in the "top five" of "serious" contemporary composers in Moscow. I went along with the highest expectations.  Unfortunately it seems that he had been prevailed upon - or felt that somehow he ought? - to write the piece not in his own style,  but in some kind of pseudo-rock-musical style.  The result was a wretched aping of a 1980s style that is itself already badly outdated,  and I'm afraid no-one emerged from the performance very happy.  (There was also a colossal crib from PORGY & BESS).  It's this kind of thing which probably represents the low-water-mark of what you were referring to - attempts to "please the public", rather than write fine, well-considered modern music.  The sad irony here is that the composer concerned does have a loyal, even avid public for what he more normally writes 

My two cents' worth is: deliberately "writing down" for the available rehearsal time not only compromises one's musical ideas but also contributes to the process whereby rehearsal time is reduced, allowing penny-pinchers to say "we managed that piece surprisingly well on three calls, let's give the next one two", and so on.

Just curious: given that both composers and orchestral players are presumably in the same boat as being underpaid, how does the cost of commissioning, copying etc a substantial orchestral work compare with the cost of an extra hour's rehearsal? Even looking at it purely from the pure bean counting point of view, for the commissioning body not to rehearse properly something that they have paid for just seems bonkers economically, let alone artistically.

Alas, at least according to an ABO report a few years back, having a first performance of a new work at all has financial ramifications. Apparently, most orchestras find that the presence of a contemporary work (of whatever type) instantly guarantees a loss of ticket sales (there were comprehensive figures for this, but I don't have them to hand). The Arts Council had a policy whereby for a commission from the central institution, the orchestra or other musical organisation must guarantee at least three performances, and the second half of the commission money was not paid until firm evidence was given of the second and third. Apparently the orchestras found it was much more financially viable to pay the second half of that commission money themselves to the composer, as the amount they would lose through ticket revenues on further concerts would work out more expensive.

To both George and Ollie's comments: this is the inevitable situation with an underfunded and under-subsidised musical culture. The 'fault' lies not so much with the orchestras, their managements, even the commissioning bodies, who are simply doing what they have to according to the economic constraints placed upon them. This won't change, as I said somewhere else, without a change in the whole funding arrangements. Unfortunately, in a lot of the music world these things lead to recriminations between musicians to do with how much time, how many performances, etc., they allocate new work - but in reality all are subservient (and necessarily so) to a system bigger than themselves.

Then you'd have something more akin to the situation in the US, which I don't believe many of those resident there who post here would wish from preference. There's a palpable difference in money being allocated by organisations which are ultimately democratically accountable (as branches of democratic organisations) and it being merely at the behest of the owners of private capital. The latter is a far worse option.

If you re-read my post a little more carefully, Ian, you will (hopefully) see that I am not suggesting private and corporate funding for new music commissioning as a replacement for the more usual institutional sources but as an addition thereto - and (although I didn't actually say so), that might even make those institutional sources sit up and do more.

The "democratic accountability" of commissioning institutions evidently does not provide the ideal climate for a thriving new music scene; you have yourself admitted to the kinds of shortcomings that these display all too often, so we appear to be on the same wavelength there. I am, furthermore, far from convinced that "owners of private capital" would, in principle, seek to cramp the style of, or otherwise restrict, the composers that they commission (were they to do so) any more than those "democratically accountable" institutions would (although if enough examples of private and corporate intereference in such commissions did happened and I was proved wrong, I'd openly admit to my error of judgement here).

I am also unclear as to what can realistically be meant in the present context by "owners of private capital" in the first place. I understand that term when applied to the private wealth of individuals and non-public companies, but what about those plcs whose shareholders include people from a wide variety of economic positions? Again, whilst private individuals are not accountable in the ways that those institutions are, limited companies - especially public ones- are at least accountable to their shareholders and those of them that employ unionised labour are, from time to time, made to be accountable also to trades unions (albeit not as much so or as often as some might like). Then again, what is taxpayers' money but private capital extracted by the government of the day for its own misuse (and occasionally good use)? - the government has no money of its own, so the funds it spends are only "public" to the extent that, in collecting its myriad of taxes, it has succeeded in converting it from private to "public" money.

When I pay my local taxes, I do as as a shareholder of my local authority and when I pay my national taxes I likewise do so as a shareholder of a government, irrespective of whether it got my vote; I realise that some people would not empathise with this view (and I know well that you wouldn't!), but the value of the "democratic accountability" of those two organisations will nevertheless be constrained in any case in accordance with the differing individual taxpayers' attitudes to taxpaying and whether or not they voted for them.

Anyway, to return to the subject, I feel that, in the interets of new music, composers - and their performers and listeners - need as many possible legal sources of commission funding as possible; you surely would not disagree in principle with that, would you, Ian? (you'll tell us, I'm sure!)...

Best,

Alistair

Similar arguments were used to justify schools in the US being privately sponsored, leading to such situations as where computers are provided with the condition that the schoolkids are required to watch a few minutes of advertising for every hour they spend on them, or kids all having to wear Coca-Cola t-shirts to school, and one being sent home for wearing a Pepsi one (I'm not making this up). Do we really want to see the Gap Orchestra, or the Nokia Ensemble, for which composers are invited to write variations on the mobile phone jingle?