What is the best country to visit in Europe?

Paolo Pizzi wrote:

David Horne wrote:

Well, then you really don't know much about the world of contemporary
composers...

So you keep hinting. I don't agree with you. I think I'm better placed
to view it than you are.

And what exactly gives you that impression?

Because I am a composer, and make most of my living from it, in addition
to teaching etc. I've got more than a slight interest, and through
working with my publishers at promotion, a very good idea of what
performance opportunities are available where.

[]

Does the name Philip Glass tell you anything? That's just a very obvious
example. But hey, his music is "easy" and therefore palatable for the
American public...

If you want this to be a question of discussing tastes, then fine, but
Glass is played a lot in Europe, so by default the same evil sponsors
must be there too.

If you compare the programmes, and number of works commissioned, it's
similar. Have a look at the programmes. They're available online most
of the time.

You are providing an OPINION.

It's all _you_ have provided. You haven't produced any proof either you
know.

Waiting for you to back your claim with something more substantial
than your own word.

I'm not doing your research for you.

So, you are admitting you haven't done ANY research on the matter
then. I knew it...

I know a bit about US orchestral programming, yes. Some of it is very
good for new music- some of it not. Pretty much the same as in Europe,
you know.

In the current season, the LA Phil will have premiered 5 works, played
13 works by living composers, of which 3 are US premieres. I'm not
duplicating any works or composers, and I'm not including the LA
Philharmonic New Music Group, which plays what the name suggests. This
is actually a very good record of new music performance, compared with
any major orchestra in the world. There are very few orchestras which
would do more than that. Do I think it's enough? No, I'm a composer- and
we're never happy.

You seem to forget the German radio orchestras, which play more
living composers than any other outfit in the world...

No, I didn't forget about the- I thought first of the BBC orchestras
though, which is natural enough, I live here-

I wonder why, you're an American, aren't you?

No.

In terms of ensembles devoted purely to new music, well the US
has at least its fair share of these.

Really? You mean STUDENTS?

No, but I'd count a good ensemble made up of students, sure.

Now count the number of *professional* new music ensembles
in Europe and keep telling me that there are just as many in the
US, especially in places like Southern California...

I don't know, and as I've said before, it's not necessarily the only
guage of performance opportunities. LA is not NYC, for sure, but it's
not terrible either. California EAR Unit for example, the LA Phil's New
Music Group. It's not as dead a situation as you think.

As for _professional_ new music ensembles, there are unfortunately not
as many as you think. In addition, none of the ones I can think of are
full time- their players all play in other orchestras, groups etc.
That's the same situation in the US. In Boston alone, which is
particularly well-endowed, there are 4 professional ensembles, but as
with their European counterparts, they aren't full-time in the groups.
They couldn't make a living if they were- like in Europe.

Come on, I live in LA, it's a major US city, isn't it? Please show
me all the contemporary music concerts I'm missing...

What was the last one you went to?

It's not Kosher to answer a question with a question...

The point is- you're asking what you're missing. I have pretty good
information as to what has been played in LA in the last year. I'm
interested to know if you even knew about it, or if you went.

California is the most populous state in the US and
its major cities are among the most diverse in the world (that's why
I like it.) Yet we only have TWO major symphony orchestras. Now,
let's take
HALF of Germany (roughly the same population as CA) and start
counting
how many PERMANENT symphony orchestras they have. Are you getting
my point? A city like Osaka, Japan (9 milion people vs. about 15 of
the greater LA area) has no less than TWELVE symphony orchestras. We
only have ONE.

I'm aware of the difference, and I'm not arguing that orchestras are
equally distributed around the world

So, by simply using logic you have to admit that classical music isn't
equally distributed around the world and that there is a lot less classical
music going on in the US than in Europe or Japan. Come on, say it
and we can all go to bed...

Oh, I thought we were talking _contemporary_ music. Assuming that's not
a slip, I wouldn't agree with that statement either.

In cities that have multiple orchestras, it's not unusual for many
extra players to be used in several orchestras.

How many US cities have multiple orchestras as opposed to
European or Japanese cities?

Very few- but you're forgetting a) how often the orchestras perform and
b) how many will share players. Another thing which you forget is this-
the London orchestras, for example, of which there are indeed many
excellent ones, will typically only play a London concert _once_. The
main orchestras in the US will play 4 or 5 performances of the same
programme in the same venue. It's an example of difference, and
distribution. Both situations have problems, and benefits, in my
opinion, but you have to remember that fact. Many of the european
orchestras play less than one concert a week during the season. Some of
the radio orchestras, even less. But, you knew that, right?

[]

I was really hoping you'd ask that question. For a non-EU student
attending the RAM, the fees at current exchange rates, are pretty much
the same just over the $20,000 mark. Living expenses are similar for
each city.

The current exchange rate is an aberration created by the Bush
administration to make US businesses more competitive, but let's
not digress.
Actually I'm pleased that Britain has finally adopted
such policy. As a foreign student in the US, nobody gave me any
break, while hundreds of Americans were happy to pay the minimal
fees charged by places like Academia Chigiana (of which I am an
alumnus,) courtesy of Italian taxpayers. It's time Europeans start to
treat American students like foreign students are treated in America:
basically cash cows...

It's mostly asian students that they hope to attract actually. First of
all, you complain about what you perceive as the US policy, now you're
happy to perceive a reciprocity. I'm increasingly not getting where you
come from.

If I were a fascist like zb I'd ask you what the hell are you doing
in Europe, since you seem to love the US so much...

That's incredibly childish, you know.

Really? Is it childish to ask you WHY you have elected Europe
to pursue a career as a new music composer when, as you claim,
the US offers the very same possibilities?

You assume, incorrectly, that I moved to the UK just to pursue a career.
In any case, I'm not saying that the possibilities are the very same-
I'm saying that they often have different outlets and that the grass is
not always greener on the other side.

That's a false presumption. No, I'm just someone who has enough
experience of both societies that I get irritated beyond belief by the
'grass greener on the other side' approach. Yes, I do prefer living
here- I'm British, and I feel at home here, for a variety of reasons.
Now, on the issue of arts, I think there are lots of differences
between the US and Europe- that's obvious. That's not to say that
there is a black and white divide, and in terms of performances of
new music, well art has a habit of finding its own way. I'm not going
to be diverted by your personalisation of the issue though.

Translation: you're not going to answer my question.

I answered it. It's re-quoted above for you to see. If you don't like
the answer, that's not my problem. I've tired of this now. I'm happy to
have a reasonable discussion about this. You're not the first person who
has argued that the US is a bleak landscape for composers. A lot of US
composers have a similar view. Until the move to Europe. A few make it,
and love it- others don't, and return to the US. The same thing happens
the other way around. However, I seriously think you don't know what
you're talking about. You've given no first hand experience whatsoever,
and I'm talking from a perspective of being _greatly_ self-interested in
pursuing performance opportunities in the US for over a decade. You keep
on repeating the same mantra over and over again. You mention Opera.
Yes, it _is_ lamentable that there's no Opera House in LA. I'm sure
Evelyn regrets this too, otherwise she wouldn't be going to Europe all
the time!

But, even on that front, I'd inject a proviso- though I admit it's a
meagre one. The SF Opera, admittedly a long way from you, has had a
pretty good record of doing new works recently, better than a lot of
European houses, and certainly more than Italy, where new music opera is
practically dead. The Houston Grand commissioned arguably the most
successful opera in the last two decades, which has received multiple
re-stagings all over the world. Of course, you're so knowledgable on the
subject, I don't need to tell you the name of the opera.

Closer to the bone, did you actually _go_ to, or know about the
contemporary classical opera that was recently performed in LA? I'd love
to have been there for that- but again, you've got your finger on the
pulse, so you must know.

I sense an extraordinary amount of bitterness from your posts, and a
quick google search indicated this is enirely in character. I'm sorry I
wasted my time on you now- you've got an axe to grind, but a loose grip
on the handle I'm afraid. Still, I always enjoy talking about the arts,
I suppose...

plonk

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Hatunen wrote:

Nor is there in the USA, at least for orchestras. Outside major
cities opera companies generally do not have their own house, but
many opera companies exist, using local public halls.

There is a rather quaint building which straddles the US/Canadian border
in Vermont/Quebec, called an Opera House. It's too small for grand opera
though. I played in a programme of new music there once. It must be a
figment of my imagination though, because apparently there is no new
music in rural America. (And yes, the performance was US sponsored.)

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

devil wrote:

I confess I really like the San Francisco Bay area, in particular
Berkeley. But eh, Calgary is where I ended up getting a job.

You'd have to earn twice as much to enjoy the same standard
of living in the Bay Area...That's one *big* drawback. I used to
live over there. I love Canada, great place, great people, no
paranoia, very few people killing each other...

Hatunen wrote:

California has a large number of orchestras of varying quality.

Stress on that "varying quality."

California has only TWO professional orchestras that can compete
with those from major European or Japanese orchestras.

There is a lot less difference between the culture of a large
European city and a small European town and that of a large
metropolitan center in the US and a rural town. Not to mention that
places like LA have an abysmal record when it comes to classical
music in general. There is no place in Europe where 15,000,000 share
a SINGLE symphony orchestra and ZERO opera houses.

Nor is there in the USA, at least for orchestras.

That is if you include "fly-by-nite" outfits, student orchestras,
college orchestras etc... If you did that for a city like Tokyo,
you'd end up with no less than 60 orchestras...

Outside major cities opera companies generally do not have
their own house, but many opera companies exist, using local
public halls.

Not exactly La Scala...

David Horne wrote:

And what exactly gives you that impression?

Because I am a composer, and make most of my living from
it, in addition to teaching etc.

And how do you know I don't have a similar background?

Does the name Philip Glass tell you anything? That's just a very
obvious example. But hey, his music is "easy" and therefore
palatable for the American public...

If you want this to be a question of discussing tastes, then fine, but
Glass is played a lot in Europe, so by default the same evil sponsors
must be there too.

No, it's called "cultural colonization", people are naturally curious
to go to a concert of such a "celebrity"... The "easy" music naturally
helps...

If you compare the programmes, and number of works commissioned,
it's similar. Have a look at the programmes. They're available
online most of the time.

You are providing an OPINION.

It's all _you_ have provided. You haven't produced any proof either
you know.

Even if it were true, what makes YOUR opinion more "right" than
mine, sheer arrogance?

So, you are admitting you haven't done ANY research on the matter
then. I knew it...

I know a bit about US orchestral programming, yes. Some of it is very
good for new music- some of it not. Pretty much the same as in Europe,
you know.

Nope, not the same as in Europe. And the fact that you have
elected Europe as your platform to make millions of people
aware of the greatness of your genius instead of the US maybe,
just maybe somehow proves my point... At least I'd like to believe
so...

In the current season, the LA Phil will have premiered 5 works, played
13 works by living composers, of which 3 are US premieres. I'm not
duplicating any works or composers, and I'm not including the LA
Philharmonic New Music Group, which plays what the name suggests. This
is actually a very good record of new music performance, compared with
any major orchestra in the world. There are very few orchestras which
would do more than that. Do I think it's enough? No, I'm a composer-
and we're never happy.

Once again, you're quoting the same 5-6 orchestras in a country
of 250 million people, which is pretty much the entire Europe.
Now, how many European orchestras play works by living composers?
Do the math...

I wonder why, you're an American, aren't you?

No.

OK, but you seem to believe the US offers equal if not better
opportunities to a composer of new music, right?

Now count the number of *professional* new music ensembles
in Europe and keep telling me that there are just as many in the
US, especially in places like Southern California...

I don't know, and as I've said before, it's not necessarily the only
guage of performance opportunities. LA is not NYC, for sure, but it's
not terrible either. California EAR Unit for example, the LA Phil's
New Music Group. It's not as dead a situation as you think.

I think it's pretty arrogant of you to claim I know less of the music
scene in my city than someone from the UK, isn't it? I see all you
were able to quote were TWO ensembles, both part of larger
institutions. Now, how many professional new music ensembles
can you count in a city like London? BTW London happens to be
a smaller city than the greater LA...

The point is- you're asking what you're missing. I have pretty good
information as to what has been played in LA in the last year. I'm
interested to know if you even knew about it, or if you went.

I live here and I think I have proven to you that I'm not ignorant
on this matter. So, why are you still assuming that I don't know
anything about it? Just because you can't admit that you can
possibly be wrong? I believe it's called arrogance...

So, by simply using logic you have to admit that classical music
isn't equally distributed around the world and that there is a lot
less classical music going on in the US than in Europe or Japan.
Come on, say it
and we can all go to bed...

Oh, I thought we were talking _contemporary_ music.

Contemporary music is a subset of classical music.

Assuming that's not a slip, I wouldn't agree with that statement
either.

Not that you'd want to provide any evidence of that, of course
your infinite arrogance makes you believe you can't possibly be
wrong...

How many US cities have multiple orchestras as opposed to
European or Japanese cities?

Very few-

Thank you.

but you're forgetting a) how often the orchestras perform
and b) how many will share players.

Sorry but your attempt at diversion did not work.
I'm talking about PROFESSIONAL and PERMANENT orchestras,
that implies a core group of paid professional, a season and a place
to hold concerts.

Another thing which you forget is this- the London orchestras,
for example, of which there are indeed many excellent ones,
will typically only play a London concert _once_. The main
orchestras in the US will play 4 or 5 performances of the
same programme in the same venue.

Other than making American impresarios look a lot greedier
and give performers a lot more stress, what exactly does that
imply?

It's an example of difference, and distribution. Both situations
have problems, and benefits, in my opinion, but you have to
remember that fact. Many of the european orchestras play less
than one concert a week during the season. Some of the radio
orchestras, even less. But, you knew that, right?

I still don't see your point. You were unable to counter my
PROVEN argument that Europe has a lot more professional
and permanent symphony orchestras than the US.

The current exchange rate is an aberration created by the Bush
administration to make US businesses more competitive, but let's
not digress.
Actually I'm pleased that Britain has finally adopted
such policy. As a foreign student in the US, nobody gave me any
break, while hundreds of Americans were happy to pay the minimal
fees charged by places like Academia Chigiana (of which I am an
alumnus,) courtesy of Italian taxpayers. It's time Europeans start to
treat American students like foreign students are treated in America:
basically cash cows...

It's mostly asian students that they hope to attract actually.

Watch out, an idiot like SMD may accuse you of being racist
for saying that... :-)

First of all, you complain about what you perceive as the US
policy, now you're happy to perceive a reciprocity.

There's a BIG difference, EU citizens still pay low fees...

Really? Is it childish to ask you WHY you have elected Europe
to pursue a career as a new music composer when, as you claim,
the US offers the very same possibilities?

You assume, incorrectly, that I moved to the UK just to pursue a
career. In any case, I'm not saying that the possibilities are the
very same-

Ooooohh, so you're starting to concede that, after all, I may
be right...

I'm saying that they often have different outlets and that
the grass is not always greener on the other side.

Well, sometimes it is. If you were pursuing a career in film
music, where would you go, London or LA?

I answered it. It's re-quoted above for you to see. If you don't like
the answer, that's not my problem. I've tired of this now. I'm happy
to have a reasonable discussion about this. You're not the first
person who has argued that the US is a bleak landscape for composers.

So, evidently I'm not the "lone lunatic" who has such a wild
and erroneous impression of the music scene in the US. I'm
glad we're making some progress...

A lot of US composers have a similar view.

I wonder why...

Until the move to Europe. A few make it, and love it- others
don't, and return to the US.

....and still don't make it. Most give up and go into commercial
music or even other fields. Thanks for helping my point.

The same thing happens the other way around.

I don't think so. Very few European composers come here to
study to become new music composers (except for the occasional
master class, typically held by a European master attracted by a
huge fee...) Those who come to the US typically pursue a career
in film or commercial music (arranger, producer etc.) I am the first
to admit the US offers a lot more opportunities for film or commercial
composers than Europe, although it's not as easy as it may seem.

However, I seriously think you don't know what you're talking
about.

I'm sure you do. That's typical of people who believe they're always
right...

Closer to the bone, did you actually _go_ to, or know about the
contemporary classical opera that was recently performed in LA? I'd
love to have been there for that- but again, you've got your finger
on the pulse, so you must know.

I'm quite tired of your patronizing tone.

I sense an extraordinary amount of bitterness from your posts, and a
quick google search indicated this is enirely in character. I'm sorry
I wasted my time on you now- you've got an axe to grind, but a loose
grip on the handle I'm afraid. Still, I always enjoy talking about
the arts, I suppose...

plonk

Good going, you were losing the argument, you had no other choice
than to escape tail between the legs...

Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:

So, are you denying ever claiming that most music directors of major
US symphony orchestras are American? Are you denying ever claiming
that no American artists were in Paris in the 1920-30's? Are you
denying ever claiming that the Met has such variety of collection as
the Louvre?

Of course, I am denying it, because this is just a malicious
misreprentation of what I said

I was waiting for you to say that. Now watch and enjoy making
a total fool of yourself:

1.

Ever noticed that the almost all American orchestras are
conducted by foreigners?

...definitely hasn't been to a symphony in the US...

2.

Yeah sure, is that why the vast majority of America's
leading artists and intellectuals were living in PARIS
in the 20's?

...mistakes American artists and intellectuals for French ones...

3.

Yeah right. Where exactly is in America something as big
and rich in EVERY culture from Egyptian treasures to
contemporary art as the Louvre?

...has not been to the Met...

Please, do keep trying to search stuff on the net, even in languages
you can't possibly understand. You'll undoubtedly find other idiots
like you mad at me for making them look like fools...

Scott wrote:

Maybe because everything you hear is censored bull****...


Same, old, tired argument.

...to which you obviously have nothing to counter...


Why bother? You're not interested in the truth anyways.

I am, that's why, unlike you, I don't limit myself to right-wing
US sources...

Vitaly Shmatikov wrote:

I agree for the most part. I just don't think it contradicts my belief
that Iraqis, by and large, are happy to be rid of Saddam. Iraq has
been a mess, is a mess, and will be a mess for the foreseeable future.
But life for the average Iraqi seems to be significantly better than
it was under Saddam - and no, I didn't learn this from Fox News,
not that there is anything wrong with that

It is interesting to see news from a variety of sources. Last night I watched
a bit of CNN news and they were talking about how they have the telephone
system working, that Iraqis can now call outside of the country, and that
they have Internet Cafes where people can send email and use the internet.
Then I flipped over to BBC news where they were covering a number of
different battles going on across the country, masses of civilians fleeing
the war zones. As bad as Saddam was, it is plain to see why he and his party
acted in such a repressive manner. Anyone who thought that Iraq was ready for
democracy had a few screws loose.



If Bush
wanted to go after SH because of the atrocities he and his sons
committed against the Iraqi people, then that's the case he should
have made for the war.

Unfortunately, he would not have been able to go to war on the basis
of *that* case. As I said many times, removal of Saddam is a good
consequence of a bad decision. Some people care about decisions,
I care about consequences.

I find it hard to see good consequences for bad decisions, and I fail to see
much of a positive nature in the consequences. Much of the country's
infrastructure and economy was destroyed and, despite rosy images portrayed
in American media, the country is a mess. There is chaos and widespread
fighting. Coalition casualties are mounting at a rising rate. It's bad
enough to go to war on false pretences, but to try to convince us that the
results have been positive would require that the rest of us to be as
gullible as Bush's supporters.

Dave Smith wrote:

Anyone who thought that Iraq was ready for
democracy had a few screws loose.

....or simply didn't give a rat's ass abou the Iraqis
and was aiming at something else. You know, like
giving the VP company, weapon manufacturers
and other GOP contributors *very* lucrative
government contracts...

I find it hard to see good consequences for bad decisions, and I fail
to see much of a positive nature in the consequences. Much of the
country's infrastructure and economy was destroyed and, despite rosy
images portrayed in American media, the country is a mess. There is
chaos and widespread fighting. Coalition casualties are mounting at a
rising rate. It's bad enough to go to war on false pretences, but to
try to convince us that the results have been positive would require
that the rest of us to be as gullible as Bush's supporters.

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

(hums 'He resisted all temptation / To be from other nation / He is an
Englishman / He remains an Englishman')


Thank you. That is one of the most amusing posts seen here in a long
time.
--==++AJC++==--

Nice to see someone getting hte musical reference. Although I never
am sure if it is 'to belong to other nation'.