[EDIT at the end of the statement]

For the first time in my career, an orchestra — the Essener Philharmoniker — has refused to perform one of my works.

I am the portrait composer of the Festival NOW! in Essen, Germany. The festival commissioned me to write a new concerto for violin and orchestra. Two years ago, during an initial meeting with the orchestra’s management, I asked whether I could also use unconventional instruments as part of the orchestration. This has always been a fundamental element of my compositional practice. Like many composers, I have been extending musical possibilities with nonstandard objects for over twenty years — not as a gesture of being “contemporary,” but because they are integral to how I imagine sound. If a sound cannot be produced with traditional instruments, I look for the materials that can produce it.

At that meeting, I was initially informed that the use of objects would not be allowed. I told them that this would be like programming my name without my music. After that, they reassured me I could do whatever I needed. And so, I wrote the piece. 

Recently, after receiving the score, the orchestra saw the number of objects and extended techniques involved and decided to hold a vote. They requested an additional fee — something not uncommon in such cases, since objects are often treated as second instruments — but they proposed a price so high it was effectively an obstruction. In a secret vote, 30% of the musicians refused to play the piece, and the orchestra ultimately cancelled the performance, without even consulting the conductor, Elena Schwarz, or the soloist, Carolin Widmann.

I believe deeply in this piece and it is painful not to be able to hear it live after working on it for so long. However, I have the privilege of working with institutions that support me and my music, and I am fortunate enough to be confident I will get to hear this composition in ideal circumstances in the future.

This is not the case for everyone. In a way, it is good that this happened to me, because I have the visibility and the public support to speak openly about it. If this had happened to someone with less institutional backing, perhaps nobody would have heard about it. And if situations like this are not addressed, they risk creating a climate where composers — especially younger ones — begin to anticipate refusal and adapt their language in advance. This quiet form of self-censorship can have a devastating effect: it discourages risk, limits artistic freedom, and gradually narrows the collective imagination.

What concerns me most is a profound lack of curiosity. An orchestra, as one of the most powerful and symbolic bodies in musical life, cannot claim to represent our time if it accepts only one type of music — the one that fits within the most conventional definitions of instrumentation and form. Of course, composers can write pieces with traditional techniques and instruments; it has been done for centuries and will continue to be done for centuries. But that cannot and must not be the only music we imagine or perform.

History is full of works that have expanded what an orchestra can be, how it can sound, how it can exist in the world. Refusing to engage with new ideas does not protect the orchestra; it diminishes it. It narrows its future. It reinforces a dangerous complacency at a time when the musical world is already facing deep challenges — challenges that require openness, imagination, and courage.

In other artistic fields, this openness is already happening. As a curator myself, I see theater, opera, dance, and other performing arts constantly reinventing their forms, questioning their spaces, challenging their own languages and traditions. Meanwhile, in the orchestral world, I am being told, in essence: do not think beyond the comfort zone.

This is not only my personal disappointment; it is a sign of a broader cultural inertia. If orchestras are to remain relevant, they must embrace risk, imagination, and multiplicity. They must be willing to confront the unfamiliar, not retreat from it. To refuse to play a piece because it dares to imagine a different sound world is, ultimately, to refuse a part of the future.

 

EDIT 29.10.2025

After publishing this statement, I received further information about the vote and the subsequent cancellation of my piece. I was told that after receiving the score, the orchestra requested that essentially each object used in the piece be treated as a second instrument, which resulted in a very high additional fee. The festival then proposed a lower amount as a compromise.

The musicians voted on whether to accept this financial offer, not on whether to perform the piece. The decision to cancel the performance was ultimately made by the management.

The decision not to perform my piece was taken on October 20, ten days before the concert, without any direct communication from the orchestral management with me, the conductor, or the soloist — even though there was still time to find a constructive solution. Elena Schwarz withdrew from the concert in protest at the orchestra’s decision.

I delivered the completed score later than ideal — this is true, and I take full responsibility for it. However, since July 2025, I had been in continuous contact with Günter Steinke (artistic director of the NOW! Festival), who was fully aware of the delay. The soloist already had the full part in August and recorded it on September 6, while I sent two-thirds of the score to the conductor in mid-September and the complete score to the orchestra on October 3 — but I also took full responsibility for providing and preparing all the objects at my own expense (over €2,000) and worked closely with Elena Schwarz to ensure sufficient rehearsal time.

The reason I did not mention the delivery timeline in my first statement is simple: the explanation I was given for the cancellation referred exclusively to the use of objects, not to the timing of the score delivery. This was confirmed in an email from Marie-Babette Nierenz (Intendantin Essener Philharmonie) on 24 October, in which she clearly stated that the performance could not take place because the orchestra and management were unable to reach an agreement regarding the Sondervergütung (special fee) for the use of so-called Sonderinstrumente. The missed deadline was not mentioned as a factor.

The whole situation arose from miscommunication and a lack of dialogue. The festival has since issued a public apology to me for not making it clear that the use of objects was simply NOT an option. They should have probably commissioned a different composer.

Everything I wrote in my original statement reflects exactly the information I was given at the time.