Despite "Jim"'s dissent above, I thought David Toub's comment above about Glass and Berg were totally on target.

As for Glass being cited as "some sort of 'let's namecheck a living American composer that doesn't use serialism' joke," I for one was not laughing. When I was in high school, Lulu and Einstein on the Beach were the two works that convinced me that an experience emanating from an opera house could be as visceral as any coming from the world of musical theatre, punk rock and every other non-classical music experience coming at me at the time. Not gold 'ole Verdi and Wagner or The Merry Widow. Eeegads, poor Kyle! I had to wait a few years for the revival of Einstein at BAM a few years later to confirm the effectiveness of Glass's music as part of a larger stage totality after only imagining that total experience from the essays and photos accompanying my four Tomato LPs, but first I saw the opening night of the American premiere of Satyagraha which already confirmed my belief in Glass as a pre-eminent operatic composer. I later sought out Wozzeck and had an equally powerful epiphany that was both theatrical and musical. So, for me, too, Glass and Berg led the way.

In the years since, I've fallen in love with operatic works ranging from Zimmermann's serial Die Soldaten to Adams's post-minimalist Death of Klinghoffer. Much as I wallow in the theory underlying both minimalism and serialism, and, for that matter, loads of other -isms, what happens on a stage requires a much more immediate reckoning. And no specific stylistic vocabulary authomatically disqualifies or qualifies anyone from creating effective operatic music as all of these works attest. After my extremely revelatory encounters with James Tenney a couple of weeks ago (the results of which are soon to be published on NewMusicBox), I keep wondering why we minimalists and serialists can't share the same playground once and for all!
Frank J. Oteri

To Kyle, Alex and others:
Just wanted to add to your very lively conversation off the critics survey report; you'll find a COMPLETE list of how each of 54 living and 52 historical composers were ranked; the picture is much more complicated than the discussion so far would indicate.

Also, appropo to hearing new music in orchestral vs. chamber and other venues: note the survey also provides the following stats: About half the stories filed by critics are reviews, and of those, 72% tend to focus on the works of historical composers. Match this to the statistic that 76% of critics surveyed indicated covering orchestral music as one of the three favorite things they like to cover BUT, only 25-29% indicated new music ensembles or contemporary opera were on their top three list of favorite types to cover.

Just one critic in six says that at least half their reviews deal with works of living composers.

The appropriate question to consider, I think, is: Is this preference for orchestral music (which by definition means less exposure to new music) created by the critics, or a situation they are forced into by editors who prefer institutional coverage?

How much power do critics really have to change the forums and formats of what they write about - or, are they just generally so comfortable with the traditional review/preview, with orchestral emphasis, coverage that they've become lazy?

Interested in your thoughts.
Willa Conrad