# Most performed composers 2006-07



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

While browsing through the latest Almanac I came across a list of the most performed conductors over the past couple of years. Though it may not come as any surprise to some of you, it baffles me to find giants such as Mahler, Bach and Haydn buried in the list. One caveat: These numbers are only representative of members of the _American Symphony Orchestra League,_ which provided the list.

Name (Num. of Performances)


Mozart (425)
Beethoven (391)
Brahms (270)
Tchaikovsky (242)
Shostakovich (188)
R. Strauss (155)
Dvorak (150)
Prokofiev (130)
Stravinsky (126)
Ravel (124)
Mendelssohn (117)
Haydn (111)
Rachmaninoff (109)
Sibelius (103)
Mahler (101)
J.S. Bach (98)
Copland (97)
Wagner (89)
R. Schumann (88)
Handel (71)
Bernstein (71)
Source:
American Symphony Orchestra League
_The World Almanac and Book of Facts_ (2009)


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Wow- what an interesting list! I'm not sure I can entirely explain the less-frequent airings of Bach, Haydn, and Mahler... but I sure can speculate!

Bach- How much of the Bach repertoire lies outside the realm of orchestral performance? The vast majority of it, I'd say. The frequency of Bach performances logged by the Orchestra League, I'm sure, grossly underestimates the frequency with which Bach works are presented before the public.

Haydn- This might be a matter of pacing. Most major orchestral ensembles plan their bookings years in advance. Since 2009 is the Haydn bicentennial, maybe there was less Haydn planned in the years running up to this one.

Mahler- My first inclination was that degree-of-difficulty may have contributed to this ranking. (After all, the League contains a large number of "regional-level" orchestras, as well as the majors). But then, why would R. Strauss be so high on the list? [That is to say- his stuff is none-too-easy, either.] Maybe it's another case of forward looking, as the Mahler birth sesquicentennial is 2010, and the Mahler centennial of passing is 2011.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Mahler's expensive to pull off also; remember, many of the symphonies call for much more than the typical symphony orchestra. Multiple harp parts (several to each part, which nobody seems to ever do unless it's the BBC Proms or something), full choirs (three of these for the 8th, which is why that one NEVER shows up), and sometimes unconventional instrumentation (like mandolin in the 7th and 8th, posthorn in the 3rd and 7th, "hammer" in the 6th, sleigh bells in the 4th... really everything under the sun in the 8th). Maybe some directors are just so daunted by the aspect of assembling such forces that they'd rather have their Mozart and Beethoven and Brahms...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Also *Mahler* can be at the extreme end of lengthy. Maybe it's hard to fit into a program when orchestras are trying to attract subscribers with more pop crossover work.

I'd bet *Bach* was played more in the 50's and 60's by large orchestras because we were still at the tail end of all that Romantic resetting of those works into huge orchestral form, as in *Stokowski*'s version of the *Toccata and Fugue in Dm*. Now everything has to be HIP. Franky I think it's appropriate to play Bach via a huge orchestra - or a ukelele, or a synthesizer, or period instruments and tunings as you see fit.

[Edit: I am surprised at how far up the list is Tchaikovsky. Would this be a seasonal effect with The Nutcracker? Maybe I've just never quite "gotten" Tchaikovsky.]


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Another possible reason I just thought of would be the mere frequency orchestras perform a _single_ piece. For instance, Beethoven's 9th is great, but becomes a ritual with many groups (Christmas and other holiday concerts). I would also be willing to bet that, given the precipitous decline from Beethoven to Brahms, the majority of the Mozart pieces performed would also be repetitive (_Piano Concerto No. 21,_ Sym. No. 40, _The Magic Flute,_ and a few others).

Re: Weston...Would the number for Tchaikovsky be so high if they were to disregard the ballets? Probably not.


----------

