In a recent interview, Swensen appeared to be rather harsh toward contemporary composers, being quoted as saying that there should be no hard-and-fast obligation to perform new works, because music should be performed on its merits, not simply because it has been commissioned.

With that characteristic twinkle in his eye he concurs:

I did say that, but I said it in the context of a discussion involving commissions and I have a problem with this tradition of commissions. To me, the risk inherent in commissions is just too great. You know, I spend a tremendous amount of time with each and every score I learn and I simply need to be as sure as I can be that the music is worth the time I put into it! It is also my responsibility to the audience and to my colleagues on stage that ALL the music we programme is first rate. Commissions also seem to create a culture of arrogance among many composers. Conductors and orchestras are obliged to perform the music regardless of its quality. This can't be a good thing, even for composers.

Swensen suggests two possible alternatives to the current system; one is to request submissions for, say, 3 to 5 premieres in a given season. He envisages - say - the receipt of 500 scores, from which the conductor would choose. He also advocates - like an editor for an author - a much more collaborative relationship between conductors and composers.

I really want to be involved in a way that makes the chances of success for a piece as great as possible. Of course I want every premiere to be a success. But the larger the work, the bigger the dangers. For example, if a full-length new opera, demanding a huge production and tremendous financial investment, flops just because the commission system made it impossible for the conductor to have input into the actual composition of the work, then something is very wrong. It's quality control I'm talking about here. Without it, we are just giving lip service to today's composers. Giving them their 15 minutes of fame, often not enjoying their music, but feeling as if we've done some kind of good deed. One must admit that this sounds, at best, counterproductive.

Before Beethoven, composers were civil servants and didn't get much respect from their employers. Even most conductors didn't really seem to respect composers as a group until quite recently. For example, the legendary conductor, Arthur Nikisch was rehearsing Brahms' First Symphony with Brahms himself in attendance. The composer approached the podium, looked through Nikisch's score, looked up slowly and said, in front of the whole orchestra, "I didn't write this!" (Apparently, Mr Nikisch had re-orchestrated and re-composed sections of the work). Of course, that degree of collaboration without the consent of the composer is deplorable.

Perhaps, since the rise of the conductor as a seemingly indispensable figure there has been a friction best exemplified by the conductor Mahler, who was quite happy to rewrite the scores of Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann symphonies as he saw fit, given that he himself was a composer.

I think this is a very serious moral question... I believe that the conductor must view himself as the composer's advocate regardless of whether or not he is himself a composer.

And what exactly is being an advocate of the composer?

To me, a true composer's advocate considers himself a loyal servant to the music and he treats the musical score with the utmost respect. But not with distant respect, because in order for the music really to live, he must assimilate it, make love with it and, by doing so, transform the music as the music transforms him.