BGuttman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 25, 2025 9:01 am
Fact is, there are a lot of venues for composers today that were unknown to your late 19th Century list.
And yet still they have trouble making a mark in the public conciousness.
Symphonic music is used in soundtracks of cine, radio, and television. For that matter, even video games.
Used, but only slightly noticed.
Verdi was not known as a symphonic composer -- he is best known for operas. Probably could say the same for Arthur Sullivan.
But Verdi
was an orchestral composer. I don't know what the 1892 festival wanted from Verdi, but an overture from one of his operas would be a common item on concert programs then (and even now).
When you decry the lack of performances of modern composers, you should consider:
1. Orchestral music is not mainstream popular. Performance is more a niche category.
I attribute the lack of performances not to a decrease of venues... there are probably as many orchestral performances in Europe today as there were in 1892 and certainly there are more orchestral performances today in the US than there were in 1892... but to a lack of worthiness to be played at all.
Once and done is the usual result for a new piece today. They got their chance... but don't have the legs to merit additional hearings.
There seems to have been a higher bar to getting played back then... and yet many composers were meeting or exceeding that bar.
2. Copyright laws are designed to better monetize music performance. Performing a modern work costs a pile of money; something in short supply even for mainstream orchestras.
The need to pay modern-style royalties didn't stop works by Ravel, Stravinsky, Copland, Rachmaninoff, Gershwin and many others from quickly gaining a toe in the repertoire. There wasn't a shortage of music already in the PD to crowd them off the stage if they were not worth hearing. "Bolero" just lapsed into PD this year but it made an immediate splash in 1928.