"Probably most audiences are more open-minded than many musicians". YES, great point.

Great talk about a subject I feel very strongly about! Of course, it’s not just the American neoclassicists who’ve gotten screwed by concert programming - there’s also all the wonderful tonal 20th century symphonists from the UK (Bax, Lloyd, Arnold, Alwyn, Moeran, even RVW to an extent), the Nordic countries (Atterberg, Peterson-Berger, Melartin, Holmboe), and elsewhere who’ve been roundly neglected by most of today’s orchestras and conductors. You hit the nail on the head when you blamed the massive uptick in the popularity of Mahler and Bruckner for the neglect of the 20th century symphonists in question. As much as I admire those two giants, it’s no secret that most of the time I’d rather be treated to a concise, upbeat, tuneful symphony than have to sit through a 1h20min behemoth. And I’m sure there are others who must feel this way, especially those who are relative newcomers to classical music. Yet we must continue to worship at the altar of Austro-German monumentalism! Sigh….

I applaud your ongoing efforts to improve classical music programming. This is a worthy fight. Scott Varland.

Never been a big fan of Bruckner. You’re absolutely right. I love Mahler but surely there’s surely room for a nice compact symphony of Piston, Hanson, Diamond, Harris or Thompson once in awhile.

Bravo. Right on point as always. Ossification is correct. I am 75 years old. I have never heard in live performance one of the greatest American musical compositions of the 20th century, Harold Shapero's Symphony for Classical Orchestra. Why? And by now, I have heard enough Schumann symphonies to last the rest of my days.

Another thought-provoking post. I do think, in our instant digital age, some of that conservatism in programming continues by management feeling they NEED the 'big guns' or big soloists to get rears in seats. Perhaps they are right to a degree. It is sad that the symphony concerts are not quite the special 'events' they were for my grandparents in our entertainment-infused age. Such subscription audiences were/are more willing to hear alternative composers than the occasional ticket buyer many classical concert promoters rely on much more today. As you indicate, not sure it's going to change. As Emperor Joseph is made to say in 'Amadeus", there it is. So, glad we have your 'concerts' to compensate for some of us; you have led me at least to wonderful discoveries!

It's such a pleasure to listen to you speak Dave.

In a recent interview, Neeme Järvi said that if you program too much Bruckner audiences get bored.

Bohuslav MARTINU folks ....his symphonies are described perfectly by what David Hurwitz says here. Plus his 5 fabulous piano concertos 2violin,2 cello and oodles more.

Great chat. There should be room enough in a concert season to program one or two Neo-Classical composers. Unfortunately, such programs are few and far between. I love Mahler above all others, but one of his symphonies per concert season is enough. I know from daily perusal of The Classical Review that Mahler draws consistently sizeable audiences, something that the business side of orchestras must consider. However, given that his works didn't become bankable until he'd been dead for over 50 years, I can only hope that at some point a similar acceptance will come to the Neo composers. Perhaps if all your subscribers request them from their local orchestra management, it might happen a bit sooner. It wouldn't hurt to try.

The music that speaks to me the most is the music of "my time", i.e 20/21st century pieces. I like a great many avant-garde composers -- Stockhausen, Varese, some Babbitt, Wuorinen, Feldman, Xenakis, etc -- but believe me, I've got plenty of the great music of Hanson, Creston, Hindemith, RVW, Rochberg, Honegger, Martinu and so on. Between the Masterpiece Trap and the Avant-Garde Shove -- plus the Overlong Symphony Scourge -- it's amazing how much wonderful, wonderful music is getting lost.

In Britain I think some of the problem is that there was a strong push towards "modern" music such as the Second Viennese School around the 1960s, particularly in the BBC, and more tonal or neo-classical music was written off. Except, ironically, for composers like Stravinsky who had showed they could do ground-breaking pieces and established their credentials as being modern cutting-edge "greats", so his later neo-classical pieces entered the repertoire.

You're right with every word you spoke! In my opinion, the pity is that so many conductors lack the knowledge even in the classical repertoire. They get trained with the highlights, and then repeat them endlessly (think on Thielemann...). F.e., one could program Mozart and something from the 20th century, without diminishing the older work - perhaps Honegger's 2nd or 4th or Britten's "Bridge Variations", the Shapero-Symphony or Argento's "Queen of Tonga" (which I would like to combine with a Haydn-Symphony). But if one has in mind just Mozart, Beethoven, Bruckner, Brahms and Mahler and, perhaps, some of the Strauss-poems and the early Stravinski-ballets, one will make terrible combinations, of course.

Wow, another great video with a lot of insight and truth. I'm very grateful for how deeply and seriously you've picked up this topic which is very dear, ürecious and inspiring to me. Love it!

So true... Malcolm Arnold was ignored as a symphonist here in the UK for many years

I have been repairing a WW2 CBS aircheck recording of Jerome Moross' First Symphony, conducted by Bernard Hermann, a great example of the populist spirit of the time, following Copland. A piece of its time, new in style, but with absolutely no pretense of being "modern'". Moross stated that he hoped his symphony would help to keep people's hopes up following Pearl Harbor.

And that's why recordings are such a beautiful thing. We can have whatever repertoire we want, at our fingertips, to listen to whenever we want. Don't get me wrong. going to a live concert (assuming that it's well played, of course), is a wonderful, uplifting experience. When I was in the seminary I was able to see at the Lyric Opera, "Il Nozze di Figaro" - fantastic. And a friend of mine and I heard at the CSO a fantastic performance of the Bruckner 4 with Haitink. You're not going to replace those experiences, but we have to come to terms that what is being played live is limited, and that's just how things are.

A very thoughtful commentary; now that you detail what's happening it seems so obvious! Monochrome is the main adjective I use to describe Bruckner. 😀

A whole concert of even the best American neo-classical works would be sure box-office death, but it should be possible to program a work once in a while. For those of us who have proudly owned recordings of Diamond, Carter, Piston et al, I'm sure we would dearly love the thrill of hearing this music played live, just once!

Great video. Thanks.

That's been EXACTLY my peeve about Mahler for a long time... that he seemed to cause everyone to *expect* giant symphonies with enormous orchestration. I've noticed that a disproportionate number of the orchestral works I'd love to see played more are in the 15-25 minute range, the exact length range that doesn't fit easily into the typical "overture-concerto-symphony" format.

Excellent. You got me thinking about how many concerts I have attended that actually programmed more than 3 works. Not a helluva lot. The short, medium, intermission, long, format reigns supreme.

Programming is always interesting. One aspect of the timbre/balancing-issue is todays practice of performing early romantics like Schumann, Mendelssohn or even Brahms with full orchestral size, meaning 16 first violins down to 8 bases (which seems to be used to justify their place at the end of the programme). In my ears it sounds crazy. I´m not a period instrument buff, but listening to those mentioned composers with considerably smaller forces makes one thing obvious: performing them that way gives a much clearer sound - you can actually hear the middle voices of the orchestra, and the woodwind is for once recognisable. I lived for some years in a town with an orchestra where the string section only contained 32 players. It was perfect for most music written before the Mahler/R.Strauss-era, if the conductor only handled the brass with some caution.

Fascinating ! I totally agree with you.

It's unfortunate that so much of this wonderful music is out of reach for community and amateur orchestras. So often the technical demands are extreme and then there's the often prohibitive cost of renting the materials even if you can play it. It's so frustrating to look at the upcoming programs for summer music festivals all over the US and even the London Proms and see the same old over-played, worn out works. Are there no conductors left with a sense of adventure?

So many choices. I remember that a typical Concert given by the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra in the '60s was a Haydn Symphony followed by (in the late '60s) the premier of an Australian work and then the major "draw", a Beethoven or Brahms symphony or, if the programmers were really out there, a Holst "Planets" or a Debussy "La Mer". Where were the Bax's, Honneggers, Irving Fines, Coplands? Naah! Modern stuff!

Big podium names drew big audiences. I recall a weekend at Tanglewood where Ormandy appeared with the BSO and at the Saturday morning open rehearsal and the subsequent concert, he gave them the Roy Harris Third. The audience ate it up! But you’re right: most of today’s conductors would consider it too long for a concert opener, and too short for a post intermission wrapup.

Just wondering, has Stravinsky's extensive neo-classical oeuvre ever been popular in the American concert hall?

Another thing that hurt the American neoclassicists was change of taste among the intelligentsia toward the 12 tone/serial, and other newer styles . These composers from the first half of the century became pas·sé, which as you say, is a shame . Now I like some of the music that was considered avant-garde at the time (even Boulez), but I don't see why we can't find room for some of these early 20th Century composers who wrote so much likable music, and still have room, for Brückner . We just need more variety in the concert hall .

Dave, how is it we’ve got this far in the American neoclassical composer-verse and you haven’t mentioned Persichetti??? What about his wind band music?? Symphony No. 6 for band?

David my experience is that people tend to really love or really dislike Bruckner's music. Some actually start out disliking his music but feel drawn to revisit it and end up liking it. But "meh" or "I can take him or leave him" type of indifference I haven't noticed so much. I will admit you most likely have access to a greater sampling of audience response "). Otherwise great video as usual.

Nice video! I agree that 20th century listenable composers have been neglected. Unfortunately, chromatic sludge is still getting programmed quite a bit. How do we account for that?

Speaking of questionable programming, during the latter half of the season of DC`s National Symphony Orchestra it programmed three works by DC native George Walker….all before Beethoven was to be played. Walker`s music is very strident and if they wanted to promote a black classical composer for those concerts, for me the obvious choice would have been William Grant Still (which, to their credit, they did program ONE of his symphonies). His music would have been a much better fit for the later Beethovens. Anyway, “here here” for programming the neos of this country and Europe. One I would love to hear love is Peter Menin.

Back in the day i was listening to a radio broadcast of neilson's 4th. With its subject matter i was expecting an hour plus work. Great piece of music but i was pre conditioned to think hour plus for everything.

Love the intelligent and learned talks. Question as I'm a little deaf and to be sure. No polemic. We come here for the science but also for YOUR opinion. Did you say "Schumann sucks" or "the Schumann sucks", in the context of his works juxtaposed with 20th C works? Thanks

I'm still waiting for the first US performance of Brian's Gothic!

I wish you'd mentioned a couple of specific works--and more of the names of the composers you favor--and played a few excerpts.

Those who program the concerts need to take a fresh look at why they almost invariably do the overture/concerto/intermission/symphony formula in the first place. It certainly wasn't always like that. Playbills from Mahler's own concerts showed they certainly weren't that way, so the phenomenon is relatively recent. If their biggest concern is minimum effort/maximum revenue, they're in the wrong profession. Putting the evening's works in chronological order, then maybe connecting them with some vague over-arching theme would freshen it up rather easily. Then i guess it's just the matter of the orchestra learning new music, heaven forfend.

I would like to start to listen to neoclassical simphonyes ,but i dont know Where to start . Any raccomendetions?

I think this programming and recording of the same stuff over and over encourages the use of HIP formulae and the odd manipulations of music that one hears in so many performances of the Classical and Romantic repertoire: the music needs to be "freshened up", made to sound new, different, and exciting, otherwise the same-old same-old pretty much sounds like the same-old same-old.

Bruckner,Mahler,Strauss,Shostakovich. And when finally a work by someone other is played it is likely to be looked down on by newspaper critics who are brought up with bad taste,vulgarity ,decadence and viennese angst.

I am hopeful that in 2026 the American Neo-Classicists will at least get performances even if only token ones for the 250th Commemorations.

Nice pithy commentary! Well reasoned.

You are quite right, Bruckner and Schumann suck