I’ve been mulling over the following program in my spare thinking time the last couple of weeks. The Pacific Symphony performs it tomorrow through Saturday. I can’t make up my mind if it’s inspired, or lame. I suppose it’s somewhere in between. Here it is:
Daugherty: The Gospel According to Sister Aimee (2012) for Organ, Brass and Percussion (World premiere)
Daugherty: Radio City (2011) Symphonic Fantasy on Arturo Toscanini and the NBC Symphony Orchestra in America (American premiere)
Barber: Adagio for Strings
Tchaikovsky: Violin Concerto
On the one hand, two pieces by Daugherty is too much. On the other, it’s nice to hear some new music. (BTW, I think Daugherty tries too hard with his titles.)
The order of the concert has changed. Previously the Barber came between the two Daugherty pieces. At any rate, the Barber and the Tchaikovsky are clearly on the program as sugar to make the medicine go down, or at least as names that will help sell tickets. The concerts are being marketed on the basis of the Tchaikovsky concerto, so I’m sure there will be a lot of audience members there who will be terrorized (if that’s the right word) by the Daugherty pieces. Not that he’s so wild. He’s kind of a populist, in fact.
Anyway, I can’t decide. What do you think?
Classical Life 
1. Any program with two Daugherty works on it qualifies as lame.
2. I want to know whether Daugherty is aware that the NBC Symphony performed at Carnegie Hall and NBC Studio 8H, not at Radio City.
3. If Pacific Symphony audiences are afraid of Michael Daugherty, the music director needs to program some genuinely scary and challenging music.
I think he’s scared them plenty through the years. That’s why he’s playing Daugherty.
Bingo.
Sad, very sad.
I am always glad to hear “new” compositions. I may never want to hear it again, but I have, at least, learned from the experience.
I think the programmer means well, but on the other hand, if the composer is less than interesting or of marginal competence then two pieces is two too many. New music should be performed (and there was a period, many years ago, where I had several compositions performed, thank goodness) but if there is no talent/interest, then why subject your audience who has the option of staying away like maybe for ever.
Even if both pieces by Daugherty are great, it still might be better to hear one piece by another composer, and one piece by him.
It is unfair to judge a program before hearing it, because in new music a lot depends on its quality and in familiar music a lot depends on the quality of performances – but on paper this one looks LAME.
Two recently written pieces can be interesting, but two Daughertys is almost certainly too much.
Two mega-popular staples such as BarberAdagio and the TchaikFiddleConcerto is too much as well. There should be a limit of one such über-warhorse per indoor program.
But once again – all this is on paper only.
I agree, MarK … on paper only. I’ll keep an open mind when I review it.
Yes, I agree with the “on paper” theory. Sometimes things that look weird on paper actually make for very satisfying programs. I’ve certainly put together some of those “weird on paper” programs…but with probably mixed success.
I’ll be curious to read your thoughts after hearing the program, Tim.
No individual thing about this makes it lame, but the way it’s assembled pretty much does:
– One Daugherty work would be fine, but two? And grouped together in the same half of the program, that is even more questionable.
– I certainly like the Barber and the Tchaikovsky, but they seem mismatched back to back
Opening a half with the Barber seems kind of questionable.
The general flow of the comments here would have been the kiss of death for the Louisville Orchestra back in the 40’s and 50’s. This was an orchestra that played program after program of “never before heard” music, i.e. new music. Some of the music was mediocre and some was great. In any case, they made a great contribution to music and the American experience. I find the timidity of most of the comments posted on this topic depressing. One would think that an evening of new music or a somewhat unorthodox program was the equivalent of hemlock for many of those represented here. Ives would have looked forward to this program, as I do.
Bill – the criticism above is largely of Michael Daughtery, who is a competent composer of amiable and forgettable music. I love new and 20th c. music; he’s just not a composer who interests me.
Timidity? Looks like Bill is pulling our collective legs here.
One can hardly get much more timid than opening a program with not one but TWO pieces by a composer who is known for his unoriginal “ultra-accessible” writing and following those with not one but TWO Certified Top-40 Standards including a long-ago-proven tear-jerker and, to top it all off, a sure-fire push-button-standing-ovation trigger.
Having said that, the concert might actually prove to be reasonably enjoyable if the new pieces are better than expected and the second-half performances are truly outstanding.
What MarK says.
This forum is lame.
Not anymore it isn’t – now that Bernard’s inspired comment is here!