However, the proven form of the solo concerto with comments on the pieces will not change.
The 6 themes and the composer in charge. A breakdown by year has not yet been made here. For each theme there is a short text by me, in the course of time it is supplemented by texts of the composers and their programmes.
Many rightly claim that art, and with it music, is always political. Just as rightly, however, it is questioned whether it is possible for music to convey a clear (political-social) message through music. Right and left rock music, for example, differ more in their lyrics than in the music itself.
How much can New Music nevertheless succeed in taking up political processes? Are there pieces that formulate certain questions unambiguously or of which musicians are certain that the particularities of a work clearly pose questions in the direction of society and politics? Does music by "political" composers (such as Nono, Nikolaus A. Huber, Henze) differ from that of their colleagues (and why)?
In our society, musicians (unless they have sufficient resources from other sources) live within the framework of the cultural business. The selection of composition commissions, of played pieces and programme concepts is not least always dependent on economic issues. Even to the question of whether all those involved in the music business can devote sufficient time to the individual project or whether economic reasons force them to accept any possible project (and thus have too much work). Or the aspect that certain requests require a "yes" in order to strengthen or maintain one's own reputation, which in turn has financial consequences.
So there are (at least) two fields that could be reflected in music: On the one hand, the economy as a whole and, on the other, the specific question of the economic dependence of one's own actions.
In the Middle Ages music belongs within the septem artes liberales to the quadrivium, along with mathematics, arithmetic and astronomy. In the trivium, grammar, rhetoric and dialectic are contrasted. This is astonishing, because trivium is actually about the humanities - in modern terms - but music stands together with the natural sciences. According to today's understanding, the classification would have been assumed to be different.
In our culture, science and technology are interlinked. Does this mean that taking up new techniques is also a reference to science? Is making large amounts of data audible already music? Is it even worthwhile to let science flow into music? Where does a connection between music and (natural) science show up in today's pieces?
Art certainly has something to do with expression. In music, this is often reduced to the expression of emotions. But expression can mean much more than that. One can express one's opinion and there are mathematical expressions, just to mention two more examples.
How can music do that, express emotions? Can it be precise, or does it get stuck in general? And what can music express beyond emotions? How one-dimensional is the idea of emotional expression possibly?
We all have an idea of what a cello sounds like. Regardless of whether the cello is used "as usually", or whether so-called new ways of playing play a role, or whether it is used as an experimental field for previously unheard sounds: Perhaps because I am a cellist, I am always seduced by the sound of the cello.
Where is the sound while composing respectively in the finished piece? Is it, so to speak, the surface that results from a deeper structure? Or is it the starting point that gives birth to a certain structure of the work out of itself? Are there any differences between pieces that emanate from the one or the other - can you still recognize that in the finished piece at all? Can pure sound become the carrier of content?
Some pieces of music are clearly intended as a process, others as a finished works. Nevertheless, there are always cases in which something that one thought was a finished work is still changed (shortly after the premiere or even decades later). And occasionally there are such convincing versions of processually planned works that they are given a work character.
Is there any difference between work and process at all? Isn't music as art, apart from pre-produced music, always a process anyway, never just a work, due to the role of the performer? And what about the audience that hears a step in the process as it would hear a finished work? So is the difference noticeable except in the program booklet text? And if so, how?