Submitted by The Other George W., Jan 12, 2008 02:20

I am afraid that the prior comment is symptomatic of what is wrong with classical music and too much of its audience, namely its moribund wallowing in past repertory and unwillingness to take chances on the unfamiliar. Frankly, I find Maazel's relatively greater choices of newer music a refreshing contrast with past seasons, even if the repertory has otherwise stagnated during his time. And if anything, there has been too much reliance on the same old "beautiful music" during his tenure. A Beethoven Festival, a Brahms Festival or a Tchaikovsky Festival, nice as each is and as Maazel has programmed, hardly lays claim to originality, especially in New York City, which is supposed to pride itself on being on the cutting edge. Well, in all areas except symphonic music, for some ears. Great for box office? Sure. Great for an orchestra's growth? Not really.

Plus, the argument that everything before 1904 was all "beautiful" is, to be kind, fair old tosh. Just give a listen to the late Beethoven quartets, for example, or the Grosse Fuge, and one will find music that's challenging even now, even if it isn't "barbed wire". Also, by giving that cutoff date of 1904, that cuts off Debussy's La Mer, the three great ballets of Stravinsky, Mahler's own 8th and 9th Symphonies, Sibelius after the Violin Concerto, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Bernstein's West Side Story, all of Aaron Copland....oh, what's the use, some people just aren't open-minded about such things.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.