Unsung Composers

I just want to pose the question to everybody.

Will there come a time when the music industry will start to perform on stage these unsung composers. I know it is not a specific question related to a composer in particular. But Moszkowsky, Reicha, Henselt, Pfitzner, Krenek, Stanford,... all have somehow written pianoconcerto's to begin with, and symphonies, and chamber music. Why is Nielsen respected and Molck or Molick, anyway a compatriot not ?
Popmusic renews itself every day, classical contemporary music is or difficult, or neglected too, too obscure, anyway poses general auditive problems, so logically to renew its old skin, the classical music industry cannot but to look at all those unsung composers (I prefer neglected).
It is not because a Tyberg symphony has not genius of Bruckner that you cannot perform it.
I agree some selections will have to be made.
But for pianists lies a wealth of pieces, yet undiscovered, unpaid. I own the piano music encyclopedia in french, 3000 pages, in 2 volumes.
To my surprise a young 24 old pianist having recorded the piano music of Lyapunov, drags the same 2 volumes he got for his 12th birthday everywhere around. 3000 pages, of which perhaps a few hundred are part of the concert repertoire.

There are foundations for everything you can think off, but nothing is there to be found to promote the unknown masters.
I adore(d) the Brahms symphonies, but after 30 years it's too much. The Beethoven pianoconcerti, can't listen to them anymore, at least not by the xth next performer, not Lang Lang please. 

I mean, I feel i reached a (can't find the word) culmination point, a feeling of "I had it". Same goes for chamber music. Beethoven always in the front row.
I'm not going to vomit, no, but the sheer number of broadcastings, recitals and recordings gave me an overdosis (that's it) to the point I would almost start to hate classical music. Reason why I posed the problem in my 1st topic, My dilemma.
The freshness is not there anymore, there is something missing.

I fear the worst, as audiences almost come to see the performer and then the music, instead of the other way around. As long as this "stardom" of young solo wizards exist, it won't change. Orchestras are afraid for their budgets...

Luckily there are state symphonies like the Ukranian, who do perform their homeland composers. But there it stays, and does not cross borders.

Really a sad, sad story this forum. But useful of course.

You ask why Nielsen is respected- the reason he is known outside of Denmark (aside from the quality of his music), in my opinion, is sustained, zealot-level sustained, advocacy.  If there is a chance for Draeseke, or Rufinatscha, or Stenhammar, or Janis Ivanovs, or Nikolai Myaskovsky, or one of a small number of quite good-or-better unsungs to inch into the almost-repertoire, it will take, among other things, that or better- that same sort of thing that was necessary, though emphatically not sufficient, to get the repertoire/almost-repertoire to nudge itself open each of the last few times it has done so. (And I include, I take as given, as said, a fair, more than fair, number of stunningly good - not just average or sub-average, but stunningly good and deeply-felt - performances, live _and_ recorded - for where would the "evolved" public attitude toward Mahler be without Scherchen, without Bernstein, Klemperer, ...?)

Of course it will never change. In fact, it's going to get worse. In the US we've had a large number of smaller orchestras close their doors for good in the past few years. The ones that remain are scared of suffering the same fate and do anything they can to sell tickets. That means three things: lots of "pops" concerts (The Rolling Stones in concert!), more warhorses than ever, and more emphasis on star performers to bring in the patrons. Even the major orchestras are having to do things unthinkable a generation ago to stay in business. For many reasons, the public in general just isn't interested in classical music anymore. Competition from sports, TV, dumbing down the culture - whatever the reason is, orchestras just haven't been able to sell themselves. Audiences are not storming the doors to hear Beethoven's 9th for the umpteenth time.  Me neither. The recording industry here is basically dead. 50 years ago the orchestras of New York, Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Chicago and a few others were grinding out hundreds of recordings every year. No more. There's just no market, the union rules make it too expensive, and the record company bean counters aren't musicians.

In many communities, there are semi-pro and amateur orchestras that are of lower quality. But guess what the people in these groups want to play? Not Raff or Reinecke. Nope, they want to play Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Brahms -- all comfortably familiar, even though many of these groups stand a better chance of dealing with Fibich rather than the formidable complexities of Tchaikovsky or Brahms.

So against the economic realities, the lack of musical curiosity among musicians, what chance do the minor masters have? Not much, I fear.

There are outings though for some obscure composers, if a musician is persistent and patient. I play bassoon with two different wind quintets, and I held them for ransom: you want me to play with you, then you're going to play some music I want to play. So this year I have had the pleasure of performing two quintets by Johann Sobeck (wonderful wind music), the Klughardt quintet (hard and worth every minute), a quintet by Reicha and (getting others together) the Raff Octet. Audiences have been completely supportive, appreciative and enthusiastic about the music. I recall the first outing of the Sobeck #1 and a docent at the venue coming up just thrilled to have heard it. She thought the 2nd movement was the most beautiful thing she'd ever heard - she liked it more than any Mozart, Beethoven, or other wind music she knew. The other quintet members I play with have also been quite surprised at the quality of some these unknown composers and are waiting for more discoveries next season. It may not be like the Chicago S.O. playing Raff, but it's a start.

This can be super frustrating, I have experienced first hand that many musicians simply aren't very curious about things they haven't already heard. As a clarinetist I consider myself a strong advocate of Reicha and his woodwind quintets, but most wind players that I know dismiss him out of hand, usually without having heard any of his twenty-four quintets. I obtained a complete recording last summer and was surprised at how interesting they were, especially the middle and later ones. I mean if someone who grew up with Beethoven and studied with the same teachers wrote twenty-four of anything you'd expect at least some of them to be good.

But I agree, much of this is an issue of advocacy. Sadly plenty of great composers neglected to be their own champions during their lives, and if no one else was willing then they would usually disappear. This goes hand in hand with publishing as well. Arcangelo Corelli's music had a profound impact across Europe not only because it was good (which it certainly was) but because he wrote it at a time when better more widespread music publishing was coming about. Most wind players today have in my experience heard or played, if any, only one Reicha's quintets, Op. 88 No. 2 in Eb Major. That's #2 out of 24. It's not because it's the best one, but I think it is because this quintet has historically been the most widely published, often in a truncated version that totally ruins the form. (Op. 99 No. 4 is my favorite right now, check it out!) I'll admit that he's no Beethoven, but to me the idea that a woodwind quintet, an ensemble that has basically no other repertoire from this very important musical period, would ignore the wealth of music Reicha gave us is basically insane.

The only real solution to the problem is to be an advocate for something you think is worthwhile. I think most people will recognize something good when they hear it, they just need to be given that opportunity.

Thank you for all your enthousiastic responses.
There is one medium I that could help us. And that is the good old radio.
I am from Belgium, and even here and the nearby countries, it's the same old story. I wrote them, and 1 very good semi philosophical presentator answered they did play Tyberg, as an example, and Fibich. But really all too irregular.
At a certain moment I switched channels and heard the Beethoven 3, 2 times. I switched off.
Luckily there in the Us , Radioio classical only plays the forgotten masgers. Their classical favourites also being good.

So Radioio does a very fine job. But yes, who listens radio. It needs more than a paradigm shift to get the message over.
One pianist did play all Dussek sonatas in a famous Uk concert hall, with a lot of risk, and it paid off. It was a huge success. It is almost like Beethoven wonders what the reaction from the public will be, hearing its newest symphony.
But damn it it got at least performed.
My all time genius Schubert didn't have that chance in his short life.

I got it, Wangs in short skirts, Lang Langs that is what the mainstream wants.

Of course, the current generation, if we want them to get thrilled by classical music, well the all time favourites ars thee only means. For us, melomanes, at least we got Radioio, and some find labels like CPO. I do wonder how CPO can keep on bringing unsung masters on the market. Because they believe in it and are not so much blinded by dollarsigns like DG and DECCA.

Thank you.

This is a topic very close to my heart. For quite a number of years I programmed for orchestras in London. These were mostly chamber orchestras, but I also assisted in planning for a couple of symphony orchestras. I have always been passionate about promoting the best of unsung composers and their music (as well as unsung music by very famous composers). I hardly ever go to concerts in London, the reason being that most of the programmes are so predictable and boring; the same warhorses churned out time and time again, while many composers and works go unperformed for years on end.

While one might blame unimaginative concert programmers for this sorry state of affairs, it is 'lazy listeners' (as I call them) who are the root of the problem. Hearing exasperating sentences like "I know what I like and I like what I know" have me reaching for my imaginary and metaphorical shotgun. Every single piece a lazy listener 'likes' or 'knows' was heard by that person for the first time at some stage. I can only assume that something triggers in their brain once they have heard a certain number of pieces that prompts them to never listen to anything new again. "That's enough music for me. I don't want to hear anything I don't know anymore; I'll just listen to those works I DO know over and over again." If this isn't what happens, then I'd be interested to know what it is that stops people wanting to hear music they don't already know. This doesn't just apply to that nasty, dissonant 'modern' music, this applies to music from ALL musical periods and also to composers like Mozart (Symphony No 33; Thamos of Egypt, anyone?) if it's not a 'block buster'.

I introduced less familiar repertoire into my concert programmes - a mixture of the sung and the unsung - executing my artistic policies by stealth. Other orchestras copied my example (engendering a mixture of annoyance and smugness within me). However, it is always a struggle persuading people to come and hear a piece they don't by Enescu, Grieg or Gade and many orchestras seem to have stopped bothering to try.

While I constantly argue against those who would try to tell us that classical music 'is dead' or 'is dying', I do fear for the future of imaginative and interesting programming - particularly in London where there are many concerts to choose from, but all too often nothing very much of any real interest to tempt me onto the train. Frustrating!

There is a simple reply to this problematic:
Only "outsider pianists" are willing to learn a piece which is not in the repertoire. God thanks that there are enough around, to make us happy. They belong to the unoffical guild of stars, not the one of the big stars who play repertoire. I understand their primary existential need: to learn a piece by studying it for about 6 months and then get the occasion to play it but once or twice in their career is not always encouraging. Apart from this, most soloists are a bit lazy and want to make their money in a less complicated way. The same goes for singers. What pays today in concert-halls is what paying audiences request and the soloist's managers impose: the usual reperoire stuff. The "unsung composer's music lovers" are but a minority and have nothing to say in front of powerful music managers who want to fill concert halls and make big money. Of course it happens sometimes that in-between some Mozart and Beethoven pieces a neglected Romantic piece is being performed, a thing which is only appreciated by the happy few who can enjoy this. The other habitués are hooked on Mozart and Beethoven because they like hearing their favorite piece over and over again and compare them with the recordings they have at home. Even a composer like Brahms is sometimes a problem to managers! Luckily enough, there are some CD labels who promote unsung composers, but also to do this it needs a lot of private sponsoring. Since there is no "big star" performing, the CD will have to be sold with greater difficulty.
Just an example: before deciding myself for a pianist who would play Fritz Brun's works for piano and orchestra, I had contacted soloists of high calibre, who all, after having looked at the parts, meant that they would have needed a year to prepare them, with no guarantee, in the case they would have got some unexpected recital engagements, so I decided to chose a befriended pianist of mine, an excellent and higly inspired soloist  with whom I have made some previous "unsung" CDs - who has the technique to perform these extremely difficult pieces - and has no greedy concert-hall ambitions. He needed a bit more than a half a year to study - and the recording was done without any problems, with best possible results. With a big star, I would have even risked that he would leave the studio in case of problems, since it happens often that such unknown pieces are not studied seriously and the pianist thinks he would manage to do it once in the studio. A younger pianist (son of a famous older pianist) who years ago had been chosen to play concert pieces by Respighi for an international label, realised only once in the studio that he could not cope with those pieces and the recording had to be cancelled. He even dared to say, that he did not like those pieces! Classical music has as many perverse aspects as pop music, it's really no fun for the sincere music-lover and the sincere performer!

'Hadrianaus',

Sorry for the longish post that follows (most interested in your enlightenment of the problems involved in unsungs/unknowns)

I'm not involved in the music business, nor am I a musicologist - just an outsider with but very little musical knowledge who has enjoyed classical music for some 50+ years, latterly almost exclusively unknowns (works or composers).

I'm not quite sure where to start – Alan and Mark will know much better than I how many times this sort of topic has arisen.  My observations seem to indicate that, with the honourable exception of labels such as Naxos, Hyperion, Chandos, Sterling, CPO (and some others) who are prepared to invest in 'unknown' repertoire (& composers), trying to change the current state of mainstream CDs or live concerts is maybe too daunting.

However, to increase the amount of romantic unknowns at least recorded, the 'Kickstarter' approach (recently used for Reinecke's Cello concerto) seems a good place to start.  Whenever there is a UC topic of 'wants', it seems to add up to maybe 100-200 (main orchestral) pieces (a bit of a guess, since these lists are never fully collated or finalised – the nature of the beast!)

Apart from a few notable exceptions I'm aware of (such as Howard Shelley et al who seem to specialise in learning and recording several unknowns each year), we may well have to rely on 'unknown or little known performers in the main to get unknown repertoire recorded.  Wherever a 'known' is willing to learn such repertoire (such as yourself, Leon Botstein, Ms Falletta, Nigel Kennedy or whoever) – and obviously taking up your point, prepared to make the financial sacrifice of time spent on this – then that provides a wonderful example to others to hopefully follow this path and give a little of their time.

The Kickstarter approach also means that we do not have to rely too much on a benefactor with deep pockets.  However, this whole 'kickstarter' approach also lacks any co-ordination or central point around which efficiency and avoiding duplication of planned repertoire could be managed. 

Maybe a combination of (i) using UC (with Alan & Mark's agreement) just to maintain a co-ordinated list of 'wants', together an extension to the list so UC members can express a provisional level of interest in each piece to see how much support for it there might be, (ii) word of mouth from people like yourself to other artists to see if they are interested in any of this listed repertoire and finally (iii) 'Kickstarter' to raise the finance where serious expressions of interest buy UC members and artists exists.  (This is not meant to restrict anything to UC only, just that seems a good 'voice' to lead the shout for unkown romantic works.)

If something like the above created even a small, sustainable ripple of unknowns being recorded, it is better than nothing!

Food for thought maybe by other UC members and artists such as yourself??

Best wishes

Richard Moss

There's some VERY interesting comments by Julia Fischer on her most recent release, which is a recital CD of all Sarasate. She is all apologetic and justifying about playing his music despite it being "not a master" and in fact mentioning she never plays his music in recitals, even as encores.
I don't remember all the details of what she said but it was almost condescending toward music that wasn't "standard rep" as well as "not serious".

I once asked my piano teacher if he would include some Unsung Romantics at a concert he was giving at the Wigmore. His answer was along the lines of "it don't put bums on seats".

This situation will never change as long as the money men are able to fill concert halls and sell thousands of CD's by promoting average talent to play oft performed works.

This however does not work on us more enlightened chaps of this forum who's wallets would not be so easily emptied to see girls in short skirts playing Rachmaninov and Chopin being destroyed by someone who acts if there is a wasp in the concert hall and he is keeping a close eye on it.

Thal

Hadrianus is spot on right. When I was just starting out in conducting, I went to see a well known manager at a well known management. He asked me what I liked to do, and among other things I said I was determined to do Karl Weigl. He said in the most matter of fact way " You can't do Weigl". I knew then that I would have to absolutely insist that certain things be played, and that you simply can't take no for an answer. While I have been told no plenty of times, I have also been told yes lots of times as well. Sometimes you have to contextualize it properly, or make it seem like it was a great idea that THEY came up with. I got to do Henry Hadley's Lucifer because the concert featured an organ soloist. From there it was fairly easy to persuade them to hire four more trumpet players for the antiphonal effects in the hall. Sometimes it's all about the timing. Sometimes I turn things down because it's just not worth doing the same old s**t again.

For me, the rule is if an orchestra is not interested in being interesting, I'm not interested.

Will it ever change?

No. Most orchestras program the warhorses to draw in the crowds. As fillers, they typically insert a piece from the classical period (Bach or Haydn) or a piece by a modern composer.

That said, the orchestras of many countries do endeavor to play music by native son composers. But also, there are sometimes some interesting pieces played at the PROMS or by American Symphony Orchestra.

But will unsung from the 1800s and early 1900s ever go mainstream in concert? Unlikely. It takes a non-musical quirk to accomplish that. Shostakovich is probably the most overrated and overplayed of any composer in the concert halls today. It is the backstory of Soviet repression that is responsible for his presence in the concert halls. (That's just my opinion, of course.)

It's really hard to get romantic unsungs into the concert hall. And I don't foresee that changing at all.

... hrm. If that accounted for Shostakovich, I'm thinking composers actually affected by the regimes, as Shostakovich (who gained from them, remember, and led the composers' union) was not - like Roslavets, Mossolov, Scherbakhov perhaps, or Muradeli (was it?) (one considers some of the composers besides Roslavets described in Sitsky's interesting book, besides) - would at least have had an even better time of it recently...  (then again, it's true, books like "Testimony" and its descendants have a lot to answer for, too.)

You are perfectly right, Amphissa, and especially as far as Shostakovich is concerned. The fuss about DSCH started with the "Western" premiere of his "Leningrad" Symphony - which many Russian musicians today consider a second-rate piece or call it "film music". Personally, I can cope much more with his String Quartets... An example: I am still mad about the fact that even in Russia today, nobody knows Gavrill Popov, whose Symphonies are much more valuable that those of his former fellow student DSCH. In Moscow's Conservatory Libraries they don't even have Popov's scores; not to speak about music shops. One day I asked the players of the Moscow Symphony if they knew who Gavrill Popov was, they replied that it was a former Moscow Mayor. A Petersburg musician, who knows about Popov, told me that in his city, there may be more scores around (his 4th Symphony still seems to be a mystery), and that his music was soon withdrawn because it was much more difficult to play that Shostakovich's and because his private life was not as interesting as Shostakovich's. A similar case is the one of Swiss composer Fritz Brun: after his death, he was practically put aside not only because he was too difficult to be unserstood by audiences (he still is), but also too difficult to play: the strings mostly need extra rehearsals, a thing which orchestra managers don't like.

@Richard Moss - thanks Richard for your interesting posting. Unfortunately I am not a "scene" conductor with autority and connections... No concert agent wants me on the podium, just because of my uncommercial program proposals - and I stay firm on my points. I have no intention to mount a podium for a Mozart or Beethoven Symphony (with all my love for these composers) knowing that my audience will be going to listen to my performance by comparing it with those of famous conductors and not listen to it without prejudice. In concert intermissions, I often oveheard comments like "oh, you know, Karajan has a much better a tempo there"; or "only Harnoncourt is able to do a real Mozart today", or "this conductor has not understood the composer at all (!!)". That in my life I will never be going to perform (and to record) Brahms' Symphonies is, of course, one of my tragedies, since Brahms is my favorite composer (and not the one by too many others)... Here in Zurich, it can happen that, should a modern or unknown piece be played in the concert's first half, some of the audience join only after the intermission. But quite a few of these old subscription ghosts fall asleep during the Beerthoven or Mozart piece which is played - or read the program notes - or have coughing fits as they never have at home - or their faces reveal that they are totally elsewhere with their thoughts.

Hadrianus,

Sorry to hear about your 'concert' plight, especially the 'catty' comments you  seem to have endured. Unfortunately, somne people seem to enjoy being critical, almost  form the sake of it.  Many years ago, I attended a concert by Sir Simon Rattle in which he conducted Schubert's 10th symphony.  The performance wasn't a patch on the Hyperion CD of the same work but that didn't stop me enjoying a live performance with its own unique atmosphere   

My post was really about  at least trying to get worthy unknowns recorded onto Cd, rather than into concert halls.  As many others have said more eloquently than myself, getting therm into the concert halls is almost a fight with only one outcome (unless anyone knows someone like a Richard Branson, Paul Getty or whoever who has deep pockets AND a love of romantic repertoire AND is willing to break the mould!!)

Anyway, I salute your stand for your principles and will endeavour to support (whenever I can), via a purchase, any romantic orchestral unknowns I find you've recorded.

Best wishes

Richard

I don't really understand much of the despondency I read here, to be honest. There probably has never been a time in which such a wide gamut of the romantic repertoire has been available to listeners. Perhaps not in the concert halls, but certainly on recordings. From the producer's point of view, it has never been so easy to release a CD, and that has benefited the 'unsung' repertory enormously. The technical costs of producing CDs are very low, let alone purely digital formats. Getting scores is -usually- easier than it ever was: if they're not already online, checking out the libraries where they are has become a relatively easy task. But the big leap forward has been in distribution. What used to be a laborious task involving reps visiting untold amounts of stores, each with their own demands and attached costs, has been replaced by a system where the market is global, making it a much less risky undertaking to release an 'unknown' because costs are likely to be recouped much quicker. There are numerous labels nowadays which devote themselves to varying degrees to the unsung repertoire and who turn out a steady stream of releases: the 'bigs' such as Hyperion, Chandos and cpo, but also lord nows how many smaller ones. I have local releases from villages in Spain, small towns in Switzerland and enthusiasts in Ohio. And even though quality varies, in general I'm a satisfied customer.

To sum up, I feel privileged to live in a time where so much of the romantic repertory is there for me to listen to. Sure, there is lots more that needs to be heard and recorded, but there probably will be. These are exciting times.

Ilja - "technical costs" may be low, but not musician's fees, studio rentals, producing staff fees, travel expenses etc.! You seem to have quite "Romantic" ideas about CD producing  :)

Yes, Hadrianus, but those costs were always there (as were, for instance, copyright fees and score rentals). I didn't say that it's cheap, but important parts of it have become cheaper and more accessible, and others developments have helped greatly in creating a larger market that is easier to reach for labels.

Certainly I wish there was more - much more - "unsung" music in today's concert programming. But I also think that there has never been a better time to enjoy music. What has been issued on CD until today is wonderful. Of course there will be always more to feed ever hungry curiosity. And that is a good thing, keeps it going. New discoveries are always waiting for those who seek.

What can we do as mere audience?
- Support the artists by buying their CDs and get the best sound system we can afford for transcendent living room concerts.
- Educate and spread enthusiasm to be curious and adventurous.
- Another idea would be to extend this forum into a Facebook page/group. I think this place is wonderful and is filled with valuable information. It is so worth to gain more potential readers. Posting there and have it appear in our newsfeed would be nice. I certainly would enjoy it.

As a performer (pianist) of the rare and forgotten, I know all too well the frustration.  I discover music of extraordinary beauty by composers whose music once filled our auditoriums.  Now, their voices are as mute as they are dead!  It is a crime and humanity should be ashamed of itself...this is a wondrous part of our world culture.  :'( 

Currently listed on imslp are the works of 11,001 composers. It would be nice to do them all justice, but who has the time?

That's assuming they're all worth resurrecting...

But who's to judge which composers are worth resurrecting and which aren't? If the great music-listening public has decided it wants to listen to some rubbish like .... (fill according to personal prejudice), what chance and what RIGHT do we have to persuade them they're wrong? But to return to the original question, "it" changes every week and although I'm just as dissatisfied as anyone that most concert programmes are full of music that I consider hackneyed, I'm also extremely grateful to be amongst the first generation privileged to be able to enjoy the music of 1000 years or more.

Well, performers of unsung music have to make judgments about music they might perform - and do so all the time. Such judgments are an inevitable part of the process of choosing what to play in the first place. I can assure you - having been in on such discussions - that clear opinions about the varying merits of particular pieces are de rigueur. After all, who wants to play something whose merits one is not convinced of? So, who's to judge? Answer: the performers - who usually know what they're talking about and upon whom we depend to access the music. And label proprietors are an important part of the decision-making process too.

Unfortunately performers and label proprietors have to make a living in a highly competitive marketplace, so can seldom afford to risk alienating their customer base by deviating too far from popular taste. I  think a better target for moral blackmail might be those who hold themselves responsible for shaping that taste - the critics and commentators. But in the end I believe we simply have to accept the politician's mantra, that however well or badly informed they may be, the electorate is always right

Fortunately there are some label proprietors who do understand the joy of discovering unsung music. And, as has been pointed out before on this forum, the 'majors' are actually increasingly irrelevant anyway - it's the independents who now lead the way. We have never been so lucky as we are these days; we may lament the neglect of certain composers, but the situation today is better than it has ever been - at least as far as recordings are concerned.

That's right: the poor, unrecognized record producer is our hero. And it's been that way for a long time. Think of labels from the past: Westminster, Nonesuch, Vox & Candide, Everest familiar to the US listeners freely filled their libraries with lesser-knowns. The many smaller outfits today will hopefully continue to rummage through the libraries and bring more interesting, unknown music. But I believe technology will once again come to the rescue in the form of computer software that will be able to "read" a score and make a reasonably lifelike realization of it. Far fetched? Not at all. Already, Smartmusic has software that will scan a score and transcribe it into Finale notation format. Then playback with highly realistic sample sounds is simple. Of course, the ability to take a manuscript score of someone's symphony and do this isn't possible - yet. But in time? The wonders of technology!

Notation scanning software may be good for old printed scores, but they must be in good condition. To scan handwritten music ist still very problematic.

I cannot disagree with mbhaub in the state of classical music and the changing economic, demographic, cultural, societal realities that affect it. The audience is getting older and leaner, and orchestras are being forced to be creative in bringing the fans back. I do not see anything getting better, at least in the short-term. And forget orchestras doing a Glazunov, Atterberg symphony (or any obscured works). This is more of survival than of expanding the repertoire. Endowments are down, and have been for a long time (even the American Symphony Orchestra is feeling the pinch).

Here's a glimpse of what the Cleveland Orchestra is facing.
http://www.nytimes.com/video/arts/music/100000002900637/finding-tomorrow8217s-classical-fans.html (http://www.nytimes.com/video/arts/music/100000002900637/finding-tomorrow8217s-classical-fans.html)

I think I may have scored one for the unknowns: a local group I play with (and it's fairly decent) has given the green light to program Gottschalk's Symphony no. 1 (Night in the Tropics) next season. Yippee! All it took was directing the manager, conductor, and board president to YouTube to hear it and then a plea for something from the Americas that we ignore too much. Now there's the matter of which edition to use... but what a nice change it will be from the regular grind of Beethoven, Rossini, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky and company we've been doing. Have to keep my hopes up that they will do it and it doesn't get shoved aside for something else.

Fine work on your part! That's how a difference is made. I do the same thing whenever and wherever possible.  A year or so ago I suggested Henry Hadley's music to a local community orchestra's conductor. I provided him with samples and resources; he loved it and decided to perform the 4th Symphony "North, East, South and West", which they did. Even small victories like that make a difference, so keep up the good work!

Bravo, mbhaub, Who knows where the ripples will end up?