Posted by John S. on July 03, 2003 at 10:54:59:
In Reply to: "How to Kill Orchestras" - NY Times posted by dp on July 01, 2003 at 11:29:40:
“As American orchestras lick their wounds, or die of them, the blame falls on fleeing contributors, bad management and disappearing audiences. Maybe these are symptoms, not causes. Real causes…”
One cause may be that classical music has failed to counter effectively the religion (weapon) of the twentieth century consumer culture, namely advertising. In our society, consumers are constantly taught that buying a product will instantly solve some problem or create wealth or opportunity, or that the product will make them cool. You have to have a SUV or a pickup truck to enjoy the outdoors. You used to have to smoke cigarettes to show that you were independent and in control, etc. Music consumers are bombarded with a torrent of advertising saying that such and such group is cool. Why should they buy tickets to see something that’s considered stodgy, old or elietist?
In the 1950’s we had the NBC symphony orchestra on commercial television. Classical music was cool. That was before advertisers discovered that they could sell more soap with watered down programming down that attracted a wider audience. Today, we must pretend that all arts are equal for the sake of political correctness. This leaves classical and to a lesser extent jazz music at a disadvantage because they are highly cultivated arts. Classical music takes repeated hearings to appreciate. The instruments are difficult to mass produce, expensive, and take years to learn to play.
In the 1960’s public television was created, in part, to provide arts content that was not commercially viable. But public television has fallen victim to the same economic pressures, and now Lawrence Welk and The Three “- - - ” predominate. Classical orchestras, composers and musicians have a product to sell, and they aren’t selling it effectively and they aren’t getting enough exposure in the mass media. Instead, we are getting an overdose of a handful of over-advertised “marketable” celebrity performers.
One possible way to counter this trend, and possibly to add a bit of sport, might be to have televised competitions of performers and composers with real prizes. How about a competition where the competitors have to compose their own music? This might be a way to bring back something of the cult of the virtuoso instead of the cult of the marketable celebrity. It might also be possible to attract corporate sponsors to pay for the prizes.
“Classical music has only itself to blame. It has indulged the creation of a narcissistic avant-garde speaking in languages that repel the average committed listener in even our most sophisticated American cities. Intelligent, music-loving and eager to learn, such listeners largely understand that true talent and originality must find their own voice. What they do not understand is why the commitment to reach and touch listeners in the seats does not stand at the beginning of the creative process, as it did with Haydn and Mozart. This kind of art-for-art’s-sake has much to answer for.”
There is plenty of excellent, accessible new music being composed. Orchestras just aren’t doing a good job of recognizing, promoting and commissioning our best composers. Look at the current tuba/euphonium repertory. Wilhelm Concertino, Gillingham Vintage, Penderecki Capriccio, Plog Three Miniatures, Stevens Liberation of Sisyphus. Wow! This is great stuff… and it’s all contemporary music! Beethoven’s Fifth is programmed ad nauseum because it’s recognizable, marketable and great music! New music needs to be promoted! Good composers need to be supported!
Today is the first time in history where it has been possible earn a fine living composing music that nobody likes. In the past, great composers may have been poorly regarded in their time and/or died young in obscurity, (like many of their listeners) but they always had to find at least one person who either supported them outright, published their music, or paid them to play.
Today most composers are supported by teaching at universities. Academics are under constant pressure to be new and original, when music is almost entirely derivative. The academic environment promotes, in my opinion, the elevation of the language of music above the content or message of music. By constantly changing the language of music, the composer can stay ahead of the listener’s learning curve, and listener can’t evaluate the music until he knows the language. If one were to compose in a recognizable style, the composer becomes open to comparison with the great masters, a dangerous position for tenure seekers. Also, most academics have terminal degrees, therefore academic composers themselves are the only persons properly qualified to review academic music!
We’ve heard it all before. Genius is never appreciated in it’s time. Tchaikovsky is a minor composer because he didn’t advance the art of composition, he is just like his contemporaries. (And yet who gets played!!...) Strauss lived too long, and changed too little to be a great composer. So and so is a great composer because of his contributions to the development of compositional technique. It is impossible to compose new music in an old style, or someone else’s style. One must use polytonality, mixed meter and every other technique in the bag to compose great music.
Baa Humbug! The message of the music is what’s important! The greatest proof of this is the absence of the classical music junkyard, where once proud tunes and styles, now as obsolescent as a five year old computer, go to rot down into obscurity. Classical music should be defined in the same way as classical literature, it’s music that has withstood the test of time. Classical music is being written now! What makes great music for performers is the same thing that makes Shakespeare’s Hamlet a great play for actors. It’s the ability and opportunity for the performer to move and surprise the audience, to show the range of emotion, and to show empathy.