# What music do classical music audiences wish to hear?



## mmsbls

I just watched this video of Alma Deutscher's Siren Sounds Waltz performed at Carnegie Hall. Siren Sounds is essentially a Romantic waltz (or several strung together). The audience seemed to love it and gave her a standing ovation. OK, fine. What surprised me somewhat was the audience's response to Deutscher's comments before the performance.

She said, "…in the 21st century, music must reflect the ugliness of the modern world. Well, in this waltz instead of trying to make my music artificially ugly in order to reflect the modern world, I went in exactly the opposite direction. I took some ugly sounds from the modern world, and I tried to turn them into something more beautiful through music." The audience gave her enthusiastic applause (you can hear this at the beginning of the video). You can also read this article by a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

I've wondered for some time what classical music lovers would actually like to hear in orchestral concerts. I realize most listeners are fairly conservative and dislike much modern and contemporary music, but I wonder what they wish contemporary composers to write. Do they wish to hear premieres of Romantic and earlier sounding music (e.g. like Schubert, Brahms, Beethoven, but written by contemporary composers)? Do they wish to hear "new" music that sounds different than earlier music but still has nice melodies and harmonies they are used to hearing? Personally, I don't know how composers could write music that is new, different, but also "pleasant sounding" to conservative ears.

I know there are differences between people's desires, but I'm trying to understand what the majority of those in classical music orchestral audiences wants to hear. Do you think audiences for orchestral concerts, in general, wish to hear older music (e.g. Beethoven 5), new music written in similar styles to older music (e.g. what many here would call pastiche), truly new music that somehow sounds pleasant to them (I don't know what this would be), new music that sounds different and can be "difficult" to appreciate (e.g. music from most contemporary composers)? This is not what you would wish to hear but what you believe most people in audiences wish to hear.

I would vastly prefer comments in this thread to focus on what audiences want rather than whether modern/contemporary music is horrible. You can also state what you personally would prefer to hear at orchestral concerts.


----------



## milk

mmsbls said:


> I just watched this video of Alma Deutscher's Siren Sounds Waltz performed at Carnegie Hall. Siren Sounds is essentially a Romantic waltz (or several strung together). The audience seemed to love it and gave her a standing ovation. OK, fine. What surprised me somewhat was the audience's response to Deutscher's comments before the performance.
> 
> She said, "…in the 21st century, music must reflect the ugliness of the modern world. Well, in this waltz instead of trying to make my music artificially ugly in order to reflect the modern world, I went in exactly the opposite direction. I took some ugly sounds from the modern world, and I tried to turn them into something more beautiful through music." The audience gave her enthusiastic applause (you can hear this at the beginning of the video). You can also read this article by a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
> 
> I've wondered for some time what classical music lovers would actually like to hear in orchestral concerts. I realize most listeners are fairly conservative and dislike much modern and contemporary music, but I wonder what they wish contemporary composers to write. Do they wish to hear premieres of Romantic and earlier sounding music (e.g. like Schubert, Brahms, Beethoven, but written by contemporary composers)? Do they wish to hear "new" music that sounds different than earlier music but still has nice melodies and harmonies they are used to hearing? Personally, I don't know how composers could write music that is new, different, but also "pleasant sounding" to conservative ears.
> 
> I know there are differences between people's desires, but I'm trying to understand what the majority of those in classical music orchestral audiences wants to hear. Do you think audiences for orchestral concerts, in general, wish to hear older music (e.g. Beethoven 5), new music written in similar styles to older music (e.g. what many here would call pastiche), truly new music that somehow sounds pleasant to them (I don't know what this would be), new music that sounds different and can be "difficult" to appreciate (e.g. music from most contemporary composers)? This is not what you would wish to hear but what you believe most people in audiences wish to hear.
> 
> I would vastly prefer comments in this thread to focus on what audiences want rather than whether modern/contemporary music is horrible. You can also state what you personally would prefer to hear at orchestral concerts.


 Is it rude/improper to say that her comments sound like a childish view of art and history? That they're inadvertently (or part of someone's intention to be) political? In Japan, where I live, I think audiences are mostly very old and mostly want to hear standards they have been trained to already appreciate, like Chopin or Mozart or Debussy. I don't think they'd notice if a new note of music was ever written. 
There was a (bubble) time in Japan when people (probably mostly women) had more time and more money and could spend more extravagantly on (avant garde) things they thought were the fad. They also travelled more and cared more about being relevant in highfalutin foreign circles. 
I wonder if art can really work in capitalistic societies if it's merely audience-driven. Ultimately, don't you get a kind of sentimentalism that leads to the craving of a child's view of the world?


----------



## Xisten267

Speaking for myself as I can't speak for an audience:

I would love to listen to some "hot" instruments such as electric guitars and synthetizers in CM. I would also love to listen to "microtonal tonal" pieces, whatever this term means. I want uplifting music like that of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, not the bleakness of a Schnittke. I want to hear something whose structure not only exists but also can be followed by me even if I'm not a musician. I want the composers to actually compose their works, not to just give some random instructions to the performers so that they are the ones to create the music. I want to hear actual music, not noise (even if noise can be part of the music). I want the music to have a direction - I want to feel that a piece is advancing in time. I want originality: the composer should have his own musical voice. Finally, I still want the pieces to have complexity and details - the "looking simple but actually complex" motto is a great one if you ask me.


----------



## Simon Moon

Obviously, I am in the small minority here, but I want more works composed from the 1950's to the present.

The music of: Elliott Carter, Joan Tower, Magnus Lindberg, Roger Sessions, Charles Wuorinen, Toru Takemitsu, Thomas Ades, and others. 

Music by these composers, is hardly noise, it has a direction, it is very original, they are certainly complex. And yes, it is even sometimes beautiful, but not in an obvious way, sometimes the beauty is implied not explicit. 

I would go to Disney Hall much more often, if more of this was programmed. But of course, not many people are fans, so I am destined to listen at home. Good thing my home system is up to the challenge.


----------



## ArtMusic

If I could dream, then I would wish a composer as talented as say Mozart or Bach be alive today writing new art music that inspires listeners, and based on artistic heritage mostly from the 17th to 19th centuries. Young Alma Deustcher is doing just that. Now failing that, it explains why listeners revert to the past.


----------



## Ethereality

A lot of listeners don't know what they want to hear, they just go along for the ride. It's the people who go out of their way to register to a forum who want to share their personal thoughts and feelings on what they enjoy.

Personally, I enjoy older Classical composers but also want to hear new music composed using textural new age instruments, like ethnic winds, ethnic drums, plucked instruments like guitars and rich bells. Some more-eclectic use of _brass_. Orchestration and texture has a large piece of the pie in the Classical tradition.

I have only found 'weak compositions' utilizing this instrument family, such as this 



 *Maybe* a new composer can come along in the Big 4 and explore these other ensembles.

I also like this subtle choir effect at _1:21_ 



 It brings back ancient feelings.


----------



## SanAntone

I can't speak for "an audience" so I will only speak for myself. 

What I want to hear is new music written by this generation of composers. I am open to anything they come up with, some of which I will like more than the rest. I don't judge it, I am simply curious. My hope is for more ensembles to be open to new composers, and in fact, there are many new works being premiered.

This is a wonderful time for new classical music.


----------



## mbhaub

Audiences like what they know, and they know what they like. 

Now it must be agreed upon that audiences vary remarkably from town to town, country to country and so on. It's tricky and probably irresponsible to lump all audiences together...but by and large here's my impression:

Audiences want music that is exciting, moving, tuneful, and familiar. They don't want to be lectured to or talked down to. They certainly do not want to be bored or insulted. And orchestral/soloist pyrotechnics are always welcome.

I deal with programming concerts all the time and for my part of the world, the caliber of players I work with and the audiences I have I think I have a very, very good idea how to program for them. The Standard Repertoire is a pretty good guide. You can program more esoteric music IF you present it to them correctly: Ives can be tough, but easier if you let the listeners in on what he's doing. Schoenberg and followers- forget it. It's ugly, tuneless and insulting.

I personally really like the forgotten highways in music, even the rarer works by familiar composers. Those can work really well. Even obscure music by lesser-known composers if chosen carefully will go over well. But they must be paired up with familiar favorites. After some time audiences will trust you if you play good music.

My experiences with really obscure music is painful. The local symphony back in the '70s used to play contemporary works by Mexican and other Latin American composers with some frequency. I thought it was great. Sensemaya -- what a great work. Audiences disagreed and when those things were on the program the house was noticeably smaller. About 10 years ago I went to San Francisco to hear the symphony do one of my most cherished works: the Schmidt 4th. The first half of the concert was the Schumann piano concerto and the hall was full. After intermission it was apparent that easily 50% of the audience left - they had no interest in sitting through a 20th c Austrian symphony they'd never heard of. So much for the sophistication of that city.

I have a friend whose husband runs the local classical station. I asked him once why we rarely hear more contemporary music, much less avant garde or serial music on the station (not that I really wanted to). His answer was simple: he didn't want to hear 50,000 radios suddenly being shut off.

After over 50 years of going to concerts I no longer want to take the time and money to go hear another run through of any symphony by Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mozart...the only way I'll go to a concert willingly is if there's something really interesting like a symphony by Glazunov, Rubinstein, Raff, and company. And that doesn't happen too much.


----------



## ORigel

I'd like contemporary composers to write Classical/Romantic style pieces mixed in with modernist and avant-garde works. However, I do NOT care for most pop/classical fusion music or film scores.

Each style has its place. I like modernist and avant-garde music, but I like the Romantic repotoire more.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Going to a concert is different than going to see a movie. I would want to see something in concert I was already familiar with, and like, which generates the enthusiasm for me to pick that event in the first place. Not the place I would want to discover something new. I did attend a premiere to some contemporary work that was part of a program that featured Beethoven. I found it interesting enough, it wasn't really atonal either, but it's not the reason I went. 

I did drive from Toronto to a concert that featured Martinu's 4th in Detroit. That was with Neeme Jarvi conducting, one of the few who recorded the work. Very good concert, and was the most memorable one for me. But again, Martinu is not an atonal composer.

I love Schoenberg, but oddly enough, I wouldn't really care to hear his music in concert. I'd rather hear Varese or Stravinsky, something with a stronger rhythm and more fireworks. Heard the Firebird Suite a couple of times. The strong deep bass intro can't be captured in recording the same way, and that was worth going to the concert to hear.


----------



## DaveM

IMO, ‘traditional’ classical music is a universal language of the expression of emotions. While it started in Western Europe, it has been ‘discovered’ in cultures far different than where it originated. Among other things, it is why we can watch an opera in Italian and German without knowing a word of the language and still understand from the music (and also the acting and set of course) exactly what is being expressed. This is why audiences will continue to demand and prefer classical music that has the traditional accessible melody, harmony and sounds that remind of joy, love and sorrow.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

It's simple: I want to hear orchestral music from every era, especially today.


----------



## julide

I either want to hear late romantic orchestral music... or a string quartet or neue musik....


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

I personally think Deutscher's statement is naïve: "…in the 21st century, music must reflect the ugliness of the modern world". It's a catchy little soundbyte that doesn't actually reflect contemporary music or composers intentions at all. Modern composers have been straying from conventional tonality since _long_ before the turn of the century because they've seen new methods and dimensions of creativity and are utilizing them as such. That "ugliness" she's referring to is just a different musical language she happens to perceive as ugly because it's not conventionally pleasing and extrapolates that they must intentionally trying to make their music sound "ugly". It's just different, that's all, and can carry tremendous amounts of emotional and aesthetic depth.

However, I'm familiar with Alma Deutscher's personal mission of reviving more accessible music and if people like it, clearly she's doing something right. It's not a matter of opinion, rather cold hard facts, that contemporary composers alienate audiences by the nature of the music that they write. For example, I really like Kaija Saariaho but if she and the kind of music she writes ever bring about some kind of renaissance of Western Art Music's popularity with common audiences, that's the day pigs fly and hell freezes over and turquoise colored flamingos that **** champagne take over the earth. The exact same goes for any other AV-G composer who writes for a niche. While there is a wide range of contemporary WAM that's more accessible than others while still being AV-G, it's still never going to reach a wide appeal with audiences and always exist within some sort of niche. That doesn't apply to everyone though, to say Arvo Pärt's career has been thriving and he has been enjoying enormous popularity would be an understatement.

I do respect Alma Deutscher's mission in trying to revive popularity with modern audiences, I think with the current state of affairs it's something the industry really needs. I don't really like Eric Whitacre, for instance, but I do respect that he's keeping classical music alive and audiences interested. These are very important roles that they play and I'm glad they play them. They make people happy and they're not hurting anybody, and it keeps people wanting to listen to and pursue classical music.


----------



## mikeh375

Whereas I admire Deutscher's undoubted talent, her work is a stylistic anachronism that is sustained, even encouraged by a public and industry who only want to hear and sell music with immediate appeal. 

Art and expression in music can be so much more and imv it's a shame she hasn't (yet?) developed her inner ear and aesthetic proclivities to accommodate a more unique/personal language, as she might find she has something more profound and relevant to say. This needn't be atonal/AG btw. 
But getting back on track with the OP, she's clearly delivering the goods and pulling them in.

(I just can't shake the feeling that she has been artistically compromised at present, but I could be wrong and perhaps she is happy to stay in her soundworld. It'll be a waste of great ability if she does imv).


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

mikeh375 said:


> Whereas I admire Deutscher's undoubted talent, her work is a stylistic anachronism that is sustained, even encouraged by a public and industry who only want to hear and sell music with immediate appeal.
> 
> Art and expression in music can be so much more and imv it's a shame she hasn't (yet?) developed her inner ear and aesthetic proclivities to accommodate a more unique/personal language, as she might find she has something more profound and relevant to say. This needn't be atonal/AG btw.
> But getting back on track with the OP, she's clearly delivering the goods and pulling them in.
> 
> (I just can't shake the feeling that she has been artistically compromised at present, but I could be wrong and perhaps she is happy to stay in her soundworld. It'll be a waste of great ability if she does imv).


I'm listening to the Siren Sound Waltz right now as I'm typing this. I quite like it! I think you have to keep in mind she's just a kid. By the time she's 25 for instance, she could have a totally different outlook on music or have developed a more varied and substantial musical language. I'm already impressed with what she's able to accomplish as is - it sounds like Johann Strauss II, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it whatsoever.

EDIT: The more I listen to it, the more I really like the details of her orchestration, it's so tasteful. I also like the way she develops the siren theme.


----------



## mikeh375

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I'm listening to the Siren Sound Waltz right now as I'm typing this. I quite like it! I think you have to keep in mind she's just a kid. By the time she's 25 for instance, she could have a totally different outlook on music or have developed a more varied and substantial musical language. I'm already impressed with what she's able to accomplish as is - it sounds like Johann Strauss II, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it whatsoever.
> 
> EDIT: The more I listen to it, the more I really like the details of her orchestration, it's so tasteful. I also like the way she develops the siren theme.


I do keep in mind her age which is one reason I have admiration for her, her musicianship and composing. I just hope she is not hemmed in and dictated to by the aesthetic demands of her success as it could be to the detriment of her personal development. Like I say, given her talent, such a pathway might result in a loss to the art of music composition by denying us a distinct, original voice but it might already be too late for that to happen, I hope not.


----------



## milk

mikeh375 said:


> I do keep in mind her age which is one reason I have admiration for her, her musicianship and composing. I just hope she is not hemmed in and dictated to by the aesthetic demands of her success as it could be to the detriment of her personal development. Like I say, given her talent, such a pathway might result in a loss to the art of music composition by denying us a distinct, original voice but it might already be too late for that to happen, I hope not.


 it seems to me that most/many/some great modern artists defied their fans at a certain point to lead them to something more. Bob Dylan comes to mind. I'm doubtful Deutcher can do that because she's boxed herself in so much or maybe it's her guardians and handlers. She's defined her reason for being narrowly. Just my opinion but it seems like a road to banality and oblivion. It would be interesting if she did turn around and disappoint everyone. That would be something I'd like to see. Let her get to 18 and have a psychedelic experience.


----------



## MrMeatScience

There's a lot of debate in musicological circles these days about what we should be programming. A large contingent of people don't want anything to change. Then, mostly among younger people (under 50, say) in the field, there seems to be a "burn it down" mentality that wants to hear predominantly new music, with a particular emphasis on the music of disenfranchised groups. More of the people I know who espouse this position are coastal American types, although I've noticed an increase in their ranks in the wider anglosphere lately.

I'm somewhere in the middle. I tend to think of a process of canon expansion as the ideal. I've lived in and regularly attended concerts in continental Europe, America, and now the UK, but I think my American orchestra was closest to striking the right balance in terms of programming. There was a new piece (last 10-15 years) on almost every programme, but they still performed Brahms/Beethoven/Haydn, etc.. It felt fresh and exploratory, and there was an exciting sense that you might find a diamond in the rough. 

I think Deutscher is too young to pass any real judgement on yet. Certainly she's extremely talented, but I agree that her current aesthetics are juvenile. But that's fine, because she IS a child. Give her time.


----------



## larold

I think the arguments about what audience want to hear -- as if that alone would re-energize classical music in a period of decay -- is some kind of savior pill ignores what is going on in the rest of the world. It's clear audience do not want to hear mediocre new music and even more clear they do not want to pay for it.

What do they want to hear? I think in terms of concertizing the question more appropriately is what kind of concert experience do people want in the 21st century when they can hear any music they want just by clicking their phones or tablets. If you look at other art forms and the newer concert venues in classical music you will see they want something more than the music.

If you look at the art form that has prospered as classical music has declined -- sports -- you'll see it went through a similar era where audiences were in decline and for the same reason: they no longer had to attend concerts to see the event meaning the event itself had to offer something more than just the main course (music, in the case of CM.)

Major League Baseball reinvented itself by building new stadia that were not only ball parks ... they are also museums, walking areas, food and alcohol shops aplenty, shopping malls and entertainment arenas with such things as Ferris wheels and carousels for children and families. This is essentially what has happened to most professional sports arenas.

If you think, "That is sports, not art," the same thing has happened in film to movie theaters, an art form also in decline but not nearly as seriously as classical music. If you want to know where all the movie theater patrons went ... the answer is the same place classical music listeners went: Home to watch/listen for free or greatly reduced cost. Where I live there's only one movie theater than can still draw an audience. It also has a restaurant and bar so you can have a beer and sandwich (or more) while you watch a flick. A similar set of circumstances that encircled classical music has grasped the world of books, libraries and literature.

Classical music hasn't yet grasped that its music simply isn't enough anymore even though people have been resistant to concerts for going on 25 years. The only new venue that seems to understand it a little better is the Elbphilhamonie in Hamburg, a concert venue that offers some of the extra entertainment classical music does not. 

Most of the rest have just gone on with the old tried and true ideas -- such as those bandied about here about scheduling more or less contemporary music --talked about new music like this person, or some of the stupid ideas like scheduling the music of female composers or adding players and soloists of color, as if any audience member would pay money to see concerts like that. Those ideas have all been tried for years and failed to generate interest in them.

I have known for years my wife would be much more likely to attend a concert with me if there was also a flower show going on in the venue at the same time or if there was something else there she could connect with of interest to her. Until classical music people understand we are in the 21st century of visual events and interest, multitasking, shortened attention spans when people can hear anything they want on their phones and no longer need concerts, we'll be having these discussions on what concerts need to engage fans. We'll keep watching more orchestras go bust as well.

If you think I'm all wet ask yourself what was the last worldwide classical music concert event that was a smash everywhere? Your answer will be the Three Tenors tours in the 1990s, mostly in outdoor venues where people could shout and scream all they wanted, concerts that often featured popular art figures as well the the three tenors.

The classical music concert isn't dead as the Dodo bird yet but it's on the way there. Only a new kind of thinking and visualizing classical music differently will change the pattern.

The last concert I attended I thought creative was a Halloween event put on by my local orchestra. It featured a bunch of well-known music like the Sorcerer's Apprentice and one I'd never heard of. It also featured a dozen dancers from a local dance company who slithered and danced around the stage during the music.

Later, before the unknown piece was played, a young girl about 8 wandered on stage. A cellist asked if she needed help. She said her name -- it was the same as the music about to be played. The cellist told her to sit down and they'd play her story. They did, the orchestra played, dancers danced, the girl hung around for the next piece and spoke to the audience between musical performances, and this was an enthusiastic, fun event that cost me a $5 donation.

Why some professional orchestra manager can't think this creatively is beyond me


----------



## ORigel

mikeh375 said:


> Whereas I admire Deutscher's undoubted talent, her work is a stylistic anachronism that is sustained, even encouraged by a public and industry who only want to hear and sell music with immediate appeal.
> 
> Art and expression in music can be so much more and imv it's a shame she hasn't (yet?) developed her inner ear and aesthetic proclivities to accommodate a more unique/personal language, as she might find she has something more profound and relevant to say. This needn't be atonal/AG btw.
> But getting back on track with the OP, she's clearly delivering the goods and pulling them in.
> 
> (I just can't shake the feeling that she has been artistically compromised at present, but I could be wrong and perhaps she is happy to stay in her soundworld. It'll be a waste of great ability if she does imv).


I am fine with anachronism. However, I would prefer something deeper than what Deutscher currently writes.


----------



## Strange Magic

My experience growing up was of hearing all around me mostly the CM of 1900-1950. Memories and influence of the Impressionists, the Russians, many still living, people like Bartok, Villa-Lobos, British composers, Respighi, so many others, were all around still. These composed a huge spectrum of music--way bigger than anything heard before--yet mostly tonal and often brimming with melody. Modern film music sprang from this milieu, as did works of real emotional power (Bartok, Shostakovich), new and even "exotic" (and erotic) beauty, and just plain great new ways of writing symphonies and concertos (Prokofiev, Martinu, etc.) In many, many ways a Golden Half-Century, the Best Ever in CM. Just what the outer boundary of public acceptance of this sort of music was or is, is unknown to me, but the diversity of music within that elastic boundary was and still is immense.

Now that we can hear anything, any time, via recordings, YouTube, etc., any audience can be satisfied sitting at home--I know I am. but I think certain paths that have clearly turned out to be musical dead ends as far as an actual public is concerned are and will be quietly abandoned, and whatever the Secret Sauce of the first half of the 20th century will be rediscovered, perhaps using, as suggested above, non-standard instruments in orchestral performances: the flexatone in Khachaturian's PC is one example; also Prokofiev's use of wood blocks occasionally (4th Symphony)--but now with synthesizers of every sort, electric guitars, the theremin, bongos, the tabla, all sorts of exotic "ethnic" instruments, etc., the possibilities are almost infinite. Rather than Back to the Future, I would like to see a Forward to the Past of the music of the 1900-1950 era, continuing to mine that incredibly diverse and rich seam of musical ore.

We may have to wait until the grey- and white-haired audience dies out (I am older than many of them) but I would rather go into a concert hall and hear Prokofiev's 3rd Symphony or 2nd PC than yet another performance of Beethoven or Brahms (even my beloved Brahms).


----------



## Sid James

If we're talking about audiences to orchestral concerts, of course they will mainly be listening to mainstream performance repertoire of roughly 200 warhorses. I think there's more scope for composers to be commissioned to write new music for chamber groups (and there are groups catering exclusively to new music such as Ensemble InterContemporain).

I think other posters above have more or less answered the main question. Composers like Arvo Part and Philip Glass come to mind as composers whose music fits in with the mainstream orchestral repertoire. Eric Whitacre is another example, although his specialty is choral music.

I would distinguish these from Alma Deutscher in that they have developed their own unique style. I found her waltz to be boring. As a comparison, check out "And the Waltz Goes On," a composition by the actor Anthony Hopkins (in an earlier life, he was a budding musician) played by Andre Rieu and his orchestra. Its vaguely reminiscent of something Russian, and full of passion and yearning. Perhaps it would have been a hit had it been composed in the heyday of the waltz era.

As for what Deutscher said, it reminded me of a quote by Alan Hovhaness:

_A certain form of beauty has its place in the world. Naturally, ugliness is important, but there should be a balance between beauty and ugliness. If everything is ugly, if I only hear the noise in the street, the noise of traffic - this certainly isn't music. (Especially us today in living, having to cross a street everyday - I think we need something besides that.) And we may be satisfied by some kind of beauty - not a beauty which merely copies a beauty of 100 years ago or 200 years ago, but our own beauty, a new kind of beauty._

There are strong similarities, but the last sentence is the key difference. While Hovhaness was a master of old forms like counterpoint, and was influenced by other composers, he forged his own path and his music sounds nothing like that of others.

Maybe I don't have to compare Deutscher to others and just accept that she is a superstar of classical music? Maybe even forget greatness or innovation, its so modernist and so last century (in the middle of last century, 1950's, to be exact). To an extent, freedom is good, composers can do and say what they want without fear nor favour. At the same time, if our cultural climate becomes all about keeping audiences comfortable, then what artists do will inevitably become irrelevant. In the case of classical music, more dead and irrelevant than it already is.

Today I happened to listen to my recording of Shostakovich's Piano Trio No. 2. There is definitely a contrast between beauty and ugliness in this work. It ends in what amounts to a harrowing, almost psychopathic, dance of death. When it was premiered, many in the audience left the hall in tears. They understood why this music was like this, beyond ugly and brutal. Millions where caught up in a devastating war, and the music could only begin to reflect that reality.

Again, maybe my thinking is too last century. I mean where's 1944? But despite the nonjudgmental anything goes ethos of postmodernism, I think something fundamental about music has been lost.


----------



## janxharris

_The is no exquisite beauty...without some strangeness in the proportion._

*Edgar Allan Poe*


----------



## Mandryka

milk said:


> I wonder if art can really work in capitalistic societies if it's merely audience-driven. Ultimately, don't you get a kind of sentimentalism that leads to the craving of a child's view of the world?


Well I think at least one popular composer we were talking about in another place, Reich, is a counter example to this. Rihm too.


----------



## Coach G

If I were a great conductor, and not just some guy waving a pencil at his CD/record player, and I was given the oppurtunity to conduct and program a series of summer concerts, I'd love to focus on our-home grown American composers; not just the obligatory nod to the likes of a handful of works by Ives, Copland, Gershwin, Bernstein, and Barber; but also Walter Piston, William Schuman, Roger Sessions, Henry Cowell, Roy Harris, Ferdinand Gottschalk, Morton Gould, Harold Shapiro, Alan Hovhaness, Lou Harrison, John Cage, etc. In each concert I'd make a point to showcase at least one work by one of our much neglected but very talented African-American composers, and not just Scott Joplin and William Grant Still; but LOTS of them, such as Aldophus Hailstork, Ulysses Kay, William Dawson, TJ Anderson, Florence Price, and many more! Promoting our great American women composers such Ellen Taffe Zwillich, (again) Florence Price, Jennifer Higdon, and Amy Beach would also also be a big part of my mission; and I'd also include Vivian Fung even though she's Canadian, just because I think she's doing some interesting things, musically, in the great white north. 

My objective would be to celebrate our great American (or North American) musical culture in all it's diversity. 

Each concert would also have to include a new work by a composer that is actually among the LIVING. 

And I would love it if my program and it's focus cheeses off the conservative Youtube/Fox loudmouths like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Tucker Carlson, and Hannity; who are always complaining about "Cultural Marxism"; "SJW" culture, and "Woke" culture. Their angry supporters can go punch the walls for all I care.


----------



## SanAntone

Coach G said:


> My objective would be to celebrate our great American (or North America) musical culture in all it's diversity.
> 
> Each concert would also have to include a new work by a composer that is actually among the LIVING.


Some more African American composers, all of whom have written concert works: Duke Ellington, Ornette Coleman, Wynton Marsalis, Andrew Davis, Charles Mingus. And, living composers would be nice - there's dozens of them to be found on YouTube.


----------



## Coach G

MrMeatScience said:


> There's a lot of debate in musicological circles these days about what we should be programming. A large contingent of people don't want anything to change. Then, mostly among younger people (under 50, say) in the field, there seems to be a "burn it down" mentality that wants to hear predominantly new music, with a particular emphasis on the music of disenfranchised groups. More of the people I know who espouse this position are coastal American types, although I've noticed an increase in their ranks in the wider anglosphere lately.
> 
> I'm somewhere in the middle. I tend to think of a process of canon expansion as the ideal. I've lived in and regularly attended concerts in continental Europe, America, and now the UK, but I think my American orchestra was closest to striking the right balance in terms of programming. There was a new piece (last 10-15 years) on almost every programme, but they still performed Brahms/Beethoven/Haydn, etc.. It felt fresh and exploratory, and there was an exciting sense that you might find a diamond in the rough.
> 
> I think Deutscher is too young to pass any real judgement on yet. Certainly she's extremely talented, but I agree that her current aesthetics are juvenile. But that's fine, because she IS a child. Give her time.


To me it's not so much a "burn-it-down" mentality. All my favorite composers are among the heavy hitters, the dead European White Men: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, etc. The point as far as I see it is getting rid of this "museum piece" culture that permeates classical music more than any other art form. In cinema, you have your classic movies, by your classic actors: the likes of Charlie Chaplin, Humphrey Bogart, John Wayne, Rock Hudson, Elizabeth Taylor, Sidney Poitier, who are all well-respected and I love sitting down to watch an old classic movie on TV.

Even so, that's not what people watch when they go out to a movie. They go out to see something new. It's the same with Broadway musicals. You have your "classics" and your "revivals" but that's what they are: _classics_ and _revivals_, not something that is forever unchanging, immovable, and unreachable.

The likes of our Golden Age conductors, orchestras, and concert musicians such as Bernstein, Karajan, Reiner, Horowitz, Glenn Gould, Isaac Stern, Heifetz have already raided the standard repertoire many times over and have provided us with zillions of wonderful recordings of the likes of Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms, to the point that going to see some conductor, soloist, and orchestra play the Brahms' _Violin Concerto_ is no longer even an evaluation of the _music_ but, rather, of the _performance_. Did the they hit all the right notes? Were they too fast or to slow? Were the dynamics good? How does it compare to the immortal Heifetz, Stern, or Kogan recording of 1950-something?

About two or three years ago I went to see some Italian outfit play a Baroque performance that included Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_, a piece that's been covered probably a couple hundred times on recordings by almost every famous concert violinist and then some. So I heard a boy, about ten or twelve, tell his parents a few rows in back of me: "The violinist played a few notes wrong." Is that what concert life is all about? And is the experience really teaching the kid to love the music?


----------



## starthrower

I'll go listen to anything once in a live situation. Just to be out among other music fans hearing live music in the air. But more often than not it's going to be at a small venue where I can get in for 15-25 dollars. And that usually means a chamber recital or some contemporary music. I'll let the well to do conservative types spend 70-80 dollars to go hear the old warhorses.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

SanAntone said:


> Some more African American composers, all of whom have written concert works: Duke Ellington, Ornette Coleman, Wynton Marsalis, Andrew Davis, Charles Mingus. And, living composers would be nice - there's dozens of them to be found on YouTube.


I don't know Andrew Davis. The rest of these are jazz composers. Great music (IMO) but not classical music.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Coach G said:


> If I were a great conductor, and not just some guy waving a pencil at his CD/record player, and I was given the oppurtunity to conduct and program a series of summer concerts, I'd love to focus on our-home grown American composers; not just the obligatory nod to the likes of a handful of works by Ives, Copland, Gershwin, Bernstein, and Barber; but also Walter Piston, William Schuman, Roger Sessions, Henry Cowell, Roy Harris, Ferdinand Gottschalk, Morton Gould, Harold Shapiro, Alan Hovhaness, Lou Harrison, John Cage, etc. In each concert I'd make a point to showcase at least one work by one of our much neglected but very talented African-American composers, and not just Scott Joplin and William Grant Still; but LOTS of them, such as Aldophus Hailstork, Ulysses Kay, William Dawson, TJ Anderson, Florence Price, and many more! Promoting our great American women composers such Ellen Taffe Zwillich, (again) Florence Price, Jennifer Higdon, and Amy Beach would also also be a big part of my mission; and I'd also include Vivian Fung even though she's Canadian, just because I think she's doing some interesting things, musically, in the great white north.
> 
> My objective would be to celebrate our great American (or North American) musical culture in all it's diversity.
> 
> Each concert would also have to include a new work by a composer that is actually among the LIVING.
> 
> And I would love it if my program and it's focus cheeses off the conservative Youtube/Fox loudmouths like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Tucker Carlson, and Hannity; who are always complaining about "Cultural Marxism"; "SJW" culture, and "Woke" culture. Their angry supporters can go punch the walls for all I care.


Alternatively, you could program Peterson:






and Shapiro:


----------



## Haydn70

Sid James said:


> Maybe I don't have to compare Deutscher to others and just accept that she is a superstar of classical music? Maybe even forget greatness or innovation, its so modernist and so last century (in the middle of last century, 1950's, to be exact). To an extent, freedom is good, composers can do and say what they want without fear nor favour. At the same time, if our cultural climate becomes all about keeping audiences comfortable, then what artists do will inevitably become *irrelevant*. In the case of classical music, more dead and *irrelevant *than it already is.


Irrelevance is a virtue:

https://www.futuresymphony.org/the-virtue-of-irrelevance/


----------



## mmsbls

I thank everyone for their thoughts on modern orchestral works.



Sid James said:


> As for what Deutscher said, it reminded me of a quote by Alan Hovhaness:
> 
> _A certain form of beauty has its place in the world. Naturally, ugliness is important, but there should be a balance between beauty and ugliness. If everything is ugly, if I only hear the noise in the street, the noise of traffic - this certainly isn't music. (Especially us today in living, having to cross a street everyday - I think we need something besides that.) And we may be satisfied by some kind of beauty - not a beauty which merely copies a beauty of 100 years ago or 200 years ago, but our own beauty, a new kind of beauty._
> 
> There are strong similarities, but the last sentence is the key difference.


Thanks for this quote, Sid. I'm still unsure what today's audiences wish. Assuming the response to Deutscher's comment was representative of most orchestral (or other) audience members, they clearly wish music that is not too different from what they know. But I do wonder if most would be happy hearing old music _always_, or if they would want music from contemporary composers. If they do wish to hear contemporary music, do they wish it to be what we would call pastiche (not really different at all from the past) or do they want what Hovhanes calls "not a beauty which merely copies a beauty of 100 years ago or 200 years ago, but our own beauty, a new kind of beauty"?

Many here on TC would say there's plenty of beauty in contemporary music, but I suspect most audience members would not find beautiful what those who enjoy contemporary music find beautiful. So maybe the real question is whether composers can find, and wish to create, a style of music that most listeners will find engaging and beautiful and that is significantly different from earlier music to be interesting to those who adore contemporary music. I suspect that would be rather difficult, but I'm hardly knowledgeable on that possibility.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> Many here on TC would say there's plenty of beauty in contemporary music, but I suspect most audience members would not find beautiful what those who enjoy contemporary music find beautiful. So maybe the real question is whether composers can find, and wish to create, a style of music that most listeners will find engaging and beautiful and that is significantly different from earlier music to be interesting to those who adore contemporary music. I suspect that would be rather difficult, but I'm hardly knowledgeable on that possibility.


I think the traditional paradigm of the concert hall has been superseded over the last 20-30 years regarding contemporary classical music. Composers and ensembles have side-stepped the old established venues and have worked to create their own concert opportunities and audiences.

I see a two-track environment: 1) the old guard continuing to program the same repertory of 18th-19th century works in symphony halls and 2) new music ensembles commissioning works from composers and marketing concerts in a variety of smaller non-traditional venues.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> I think the traditional paradigm of the concert hall has been superseded over the last 20-30 years regarding contemporary classical music. Composers and ensembles have side-stepped the old established venues and have worked to create their own concert opportunities and audiences.
> 
> I see a two-track environment: 1) the old guard continuing to program the same repertory of 18th-19th century works in symphony halls and 2) new music ensembles commissioning works from composers and marketing concerts in a variety of smaller non-traditional venues.


I agree that in some cases there has been a separate track established. One problem is that having one orchestra in a region is expensive and difficult to support. Having two becomes even harder. Personally, I think the two track environment is a good approach, but I worry about sustaining both or even either. There certainly are smaller venues for contemporary music, and much contemporary music is written for small ensembles.


----------



## ArtMusic

Sid James said:


> ....quote by Alan Hovhaness:
> 
> _A certain form of beauty has its place in the world. Naturally, ugliness is important, but there should be a balance between beauty and ugliness. If everything is ugly, if I only hear the noise in the street, the noise of traffic - this certainly isn't music. (Especially us today in living, having to cross a street everyday - I think we need something besides that.) And we may be satisfied by some kind of beauty - not a beauty which merely copies a beauty of 100 years ago or 200 years ago, but our own beauty, a new kind of beauty._


That's easier said than done on "a new kind of beauty". The avant-garde have been on that since about 1950's. Its beauty is appreciated by relatively limited audience, not by the majority of classical music listeners. So I say what young Alma Deustcher is doing is indeed the much needed new beauty and it is relevant. Who's to say it is not?


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> ..There certainly are smaller venues for contemporary music, and much contemporary music is written for small ensembles.


That's an important distinction and all the more power to these small ensembles for contemporary music, but some people who imply that classical music is going in that direction as if it is a glorious new reawakening that signals a bright new era of classical music that has already side-stepped traditional venues need to dial back expectations. After contemporary music having had so much time to forge a new highly-influential path and apparently having failed, it's followers and supporters will need to be happy with the way things are pending something unforeseen.

To me Alma Deutcher is a fond and perhaps bittersweet reminder of the talent that a young individual can be blessed with that gave rise to a Mozart or a Beethoven. Also, perhaps, her music, as amazing as it is for one so young, brings us back to the reality that the CM era of the 18th and 19th century can not be resurrected and we will have to be happy with the miracle that it was.


----------



## ArtMusic

DaveM said:


> To me Alma Deutcher is a fond and perhaps bittersweet reminder of the talent that a young individual can be blessed with that gave rise to a Mozart or a Beethoven. Also, perhaps, her music, as amazing as it is for one so young, brings us back to the reality that the CM era of the 18th and 19th century can not be resurrected and we will have to be happy with the miracle that it was.


Are we therefore to conclude that classical music in the era of the great 18th and 19th centuries have long finished? Vaughn-Williams for example was one of the last of the great composers in that tradition.


----------



## adriesba

I personally want to hear some of everything, from all time periods. I used to be someone who thought modern classical music is awful, overly dissonant, and random sounding, as if the musicians didn't care what notes they were playing. Turns out I was very wrong, the more recent classical I listen to, the more I find to like. If people could hear some of everything, they may eventually find something they enjoy from all periods.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I don't get why composers today are under constant pressure to produce "new stuff". I would say, if it doesn't occur "naturally", just don't bother. Why do they force themselves to the agony? 
There's plenty of music of the common practice that still needs to be rediscovered or revived. 
Even if composers of today and their music never existed, it would not bother me. Life is too short to care about everything.


----------



## DaveM

ArtMusic said:


> Are we therefore to conclude that classical music in the era of the great 18th and 19th centuries have long finished? Vaughn-Williams for example was one of the last of the great composers in that tradition.


There were a few composers that carried some of the late 19th century Romantic period into the earlier 20th. IMO, those who think there is a chance of a return to CM with the melody, harmony and other elements characteristic of the 19th century are mistaken as are those that think modern, contemporary or avant-garde music is going to resurrect CM.


----------



## ArtMusic

DaveM said:


> There were a few composers that carried some of the late 19th century Romantic period into the 20th.


Indeed, Aram Khachaturian did, too.


----------



## arpeggio

I really do not know. I can only speak from experience and anything I would say would be anecdotal.

I have been to concerts where there was contemporary music programmed that the audience liked. I have been to a few concerts where some of the audience hated it.

One of the festivals I attend on a regular basis is in Staunton, Virginia. They program everything from HIP's to avant-garde. They always have one or two guest composers and program at least one premier. I have never seen a negative reaction to an avant-garde work. I once saw a Cage work receive a standing ovation. 

My feeling, and it is just a feeling, is that when a contemporary work is well played, the audience likes it.


----------



## Bulldog

ArtMusic said:


> So I say what young Alma Deustcher is doing is indeed the much needed new beauty and it is relevant. Who's to say it is not?


Me - it is not relevant.


----------



## Sid James

mmsbls said:


> Thanks for this quote, Sid.


No problem.


> If they do wish to hear contemporary music, do they wish it to be what we would call pastiche (not really different at all from the past) or do they want what Hovhanes calls "not a beauty which merely copies a beauty of 100 years ago or 200 years ago, but our own beauty, a new kind of beauty"?


I'm hardly knowledgeable either, but I guess there is definitely a market for new music composed in older styles. One which I find quite effective is the piano concerto written for Lang Lang by Nigel Hess which inhabits an early 20th century realm. Perhaps finding out how many of these types of works are being performed, recorded and widely disseminated would be a way of answering your question. I don't think that's easy, but its the most objective measure I can think of.

Arguably pastiche has always been a part of the mix of classical music, some earlier examples remain in the repertoire. The Neoclassical trend saw quite a few good examples produced, e.g. Rodrigo's Fantasía para un gentilhombre and Respighi's Gli Uccelli are two I can think of.

There are plenty of composers whose style is eclectic, but their music has an individual stamp, it is more than the sum of its parts. Hovhaness is probably a good example, drawing inspiration from Baroque, non-Western music and even using some experimental techniques and tape.

I think that the closest current examples - eclectic composers who do blend old and new, whose music has proven to be palatable to mainstream concert audiences - are the ones I and others have mentioned: Glass, Part, Whitacre, maybe Higdon, Golijov, John Adams and Max Richter. I think that composers who incorporate world music will also continue to be widely accessible and have good sales, for example the oud player Joseph Tawadros.

I doubt that what Deutscher is offering is the only the type new music which mainstream audiences can find palatable. I don't understand what her superstar status means and I can't see any artistic value in this carbon copy music. Its not even good as pastiche. A waltz should have some sort of emotional pull, take the listener and never let go, maybe even a slight sense of craziness. Its not even worth going further and comparing the Siren Sounds Waltz to extended concert works of similar length like Ravel's La Valse or Richard Strauss' Rosenkavalier waltz sequences.

I'm also thinking what type of teachers has she had? Any teacher worth their salt will encourage their students to go beyond the models they use to forge their own styles. Perhaps she is surrounded by a coterie of supporters and admirers who are encouraging this? I am simply baffled by this.


----------



## milk

Becoming self-aware is part of maturation. Humility is a kind of self-awareness. They should protect young talent from the embarrassment and resentment that may occur retrospectively from having one’s talents manipulated for politics. Anyway, there’s so much contemporary music and I hope to hear music that reflects human transcendence - as great art does. I think creative programming brings together old and new thematically or connects audiences to the experience. I worry about some music being too academic. But there’s lots of new music that should be accessible to audiences.


----------



## mikeh375

Sid James said:


> No problem.
> 
> ..............I doubt that what Deutscher is offering is the only the type new music which mainstream audiences can find palatable. I don't understand what her superstar status means and I can't see any artistic value in this carbon copy music. I'm also thinking what type of teachers has she had? Any teacher worth their salt will encourage their students to go beyond the models they use to forge their own styles. Perhaps she is surrounded by a coterie of supporters and admirers who are encouraging this? I am simply baffled by this.


I think Sid that if she enters into a conservatory and finds herself amongst peers, then that would help her broaden her horizons considerably and even give her some perspective artistically speaking. The big question is will she even bother going to one. I believe it would do her the world of good, opening her ears to the music of her peers, many of which will be equally talented and perhaps not so reliant on a language that reached its pinnacle several hundred years ago. There will be some students who will be able to pump out good pastiche and not think anything of it.

The difficulty as always would be to place her with the right teacher, one who could draw her out and open her ears because although she is going to no doubt be wealthy financially if she carries on as she is, she will end up poor artistically imo if she does not develop her own more distinct way.

The last thing I'd want to see for such a talent would be chocolates for sale in somewhere like Salzburg with her name and face on the wrapper.


----------



## Highwayman

I`ve witnessed a "high-browed" Istanbul audience give Ludovico Einaudi a standing ovation... I cannot definitively know what the audiences wish to hear but whatever they want, I`ll have the opposite. :lol:

But seriously, I don`t think that the mainstream CM audiences care about the music anymore. All they care for is the mythology (in the Barthesian sense) around the music or the composer. For instance, a Turkish audience would love to hear a performance of the _Alla Turca_ movement of K. 331 for the gazillionth time rather than anything by Mozart. I`d doubt it if the work would gather the same amount of love if it were titled as _Alla Greca_. Or any operas by Donizetti would get higher attention than those of Wagner simply because his elder brother was an Ottoman Pasha. Any composers/performers who invoke socio-political connotations, who have disabilities, who are/were child prodigies or who are physically attractive/interesting will get some attention regardless of the music they make.


----------



## DaveM

I hate the word ‘pastiche’ when it is used as an obvious or subtle pejorative.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> I hate the word 'pastiche' when it is used as an obvious or subtle pejorative.


just as well I didn't mean it as such then Dave. I have nothing but admiration for Deutscher as I've made clear I think. My context for using the term was within the confines of a conservatory were she will quite possibly be exposed to other composers who can also write in a classical vein but choose not too. This might help her in some way to move on. I realise I'm speculating and wishing something for her that she herself may not even want, but I really do hope she gets through this stage of her composing and starts to find her own voice.

Irrespective of how you think I meant it, 'pastiche' is a noun that will dog her work until she moves on.


----------



## DaveM

mikeh375 said:


> just as well I didn't mean it as such then Dave. I have nothing but admiration for Deutscher as I've made clear I think.


In all fairness to you, I was referring more to a post preceding yours which said that Alma Deutscher's music has no artistic value and is not even good as pastiche and inferred that her education and direction, such as it is, is or has been substandard. I don't know how anyone can think they know better when no one really knows what her day-to-day life is these days.


----------



## mikeh375

DaveM said:


> In all fairness to you, I was referring more to a post preceding yours which said that Alma Deutscher's music has no artistic value and is not even good as pastiche and inferred that her education and direction, such as it is, is or has been substandard. I don't know how anyone can think they know better when no one really knows what her day-to-day life is these days.


no prob Dave..
She is already approaching that of a first class musician, but see my revised post above. Of course speculation is rife but when the pressure of success and a winning formula resulting in adulation is thrown into the mix with someone so young, care in the nurture is paramount. Will she move away from the classical tonality, even come up against her own personal early 20thC tonal crisis? I hope the questing artist in her makes it so and I hope those pressures around her do not hem her in.
Hey here's a thought, if she gets a bit, you know, 'chromatic', well you never know, she might bring those of her audience with concordant ears with her into more exciting and up to date sound worlds....ah well, it could happen eh?...


----------



## BabyGiraffe

ORigel said:


> I'd like contemporary composers to write Classical/Romantic style pieces mixed in with modernist and avant-garde works. However, I do NOT care for most pop/classical fusion music or film scores.
> 
> Each style has its place. I like modernist and avant-garde music, but I like the Romantic repotoire more.


So, you want to hear modernized works that are based on 16-17-18 century pop/church/dance/theatrical music, but not modern take on this?
Anyway, you are not alone, I feel that most people on this planet after certain age get lost in nostalgia and start living in romanticized (and imagined) past times.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

BabyGiraffe said:


> So, you want to hear modernized works that are based on 16-17-18 century pop/church/dance/theatrical music, but not modern take on this?
> Anyway, you are not alone, I feel that most people on this planet after certain age get lost in nostalgia and start living in romanticized (and imagined) past times.


I miss Abi. I wish we could spend more time together.

(I-V-I)


----------



## Enthalpy

Some random thoughts...

In *Germany* where I live presently, _many_ people play music themselves, and appreciate more complicated music. Prokofiev and Bartók have become just classical composers for a German (concert) audience. An orchestra can play Berg or Varese without losing (all) its public. So which music is accepted depends on the country.

Pop music is *tonal*. Classical music is not. Bach wasn't tonal, nor was John Dowland a century earlier. Alas, most people hear only or mostly pop music, which damages the taste. But don't tell pop music listeners that what they hear is ultraconservative, centuries behind baroque music: they believe it to be revolutionary.

*Older people are less conservative* than younger ones - at least up to 70+. It just takes years to discover and appreciate music not heard at the radio.

I don't desire to discover a new style in a concert. I need to *hear several times a piece, a composer, a style to like it* (or not). Even for music as old as Ysaÿe's violin sonatas or Bach's Chaconne. Youtube or a CD is the proper place for that. In a concert, I prefer to hear music I know or I'll probably like, just because I can't switch the concert programme like I switch the YouTube video. So sorry for that... But "Music I know" does include post-Schoenberg composers.

At an orchestra concert, I hope to hear an *orchestra's huge sound resources*. Discover new instruments, combinations, or just hear nice ones. Ma mère l'Oye, Pictures at an exhibition, sure. Also, since there are 100 musicians, hear superimposed phrases, as Beethoven already wrote. As a conductor, Boulez was fantastic for letting hear them all. But, sorry again, I find many symphonies unbearably boring (Mahler, Bruckner, Bruch, and more), and these would keep me away from the hall.

While I got to like difficult music (up to Anthony Braxton) I just *enjoy simple nice music too* and would attend a concert for it: Polovtsian dances, sorcerer apprentice, danse macabre, Sheherazade... provided it's not vulgar (J. Strauss, Mozart, Bizet or film music).

Musicians and orchestras *favour public domain* works because of money. This means we hear composers dead for >70 years, and it may be no coincidence that Bartók and Proko become widely accepted now. To my opinion, 20 years would largely suffice. No need to pay fees to heirs the composer never knew.

*Time has filtered out the old composers and pieces* that some public likes. This hasn't still happened with more recent works.

And finally, this work isn't tonal, modal and so on, it doesn't resemble much what we use to hear, but *it pleased the audience at first hearing*, possibly because there's action and interesting sounds:
Qilaatersorneq (creation of the piece)​and yes, I easily admit this matters a lot for me too.


----------



## Haydn70

Enthalpy said:


> And finally, this work isn't tonal, modal and so on, it doesn't resemble much what we use to hear, but *it pleased the audience at first hearing*, possibly because there's action and interesting sounds:
> Qilaatersorneq (creation of the piece)​and yes, I easily admit this matters a lot for me too.


Did it please the audience? I don't think so. I heard polite, perfunctory applause, nothing more. I have attended hundreds of performances of classical music in the concert hall, the opera hall and in chamber music settings and I have never heard a boo. At minimum, no matter the nature of the piece, the applause has always been, at minimum, just as I stated above: polite and perfunctory. At most, of course, I have witnessed extremely enthusiastic applause and bravi, etc. I believe the most an audience member will do if they do not like a piece is withhold applause. Audiences are just too polite to boo.

My point here is that audience response is a poor indicator of what it may think of a piece of new music, unless of course the response is very enthusiastic. But a perfunctory response tells us nothing.


----------



## milk

I imagine John Luther Adams would have received enthusiastic applause. I don’t know for sure. I think it’s accessible and, thematically, I expect it’s pleasing to a wide audience. He’s not my favorite but I’d go listen to him if his work came to town. I’m sorry to make this about “music I like,” but a work like Pleiades by Xenakis has got to be dazzling. I can’t imagine any audience would react tepidly. I want to see something like that (although it’s even very old at this point).


----------



## Eclectic Al

Enthalpy said:


> While I got to like difficult music (up to Anthony Braxton) I just *enjoy simple nice music too* and would attend a concert for it: Polovtsian dances, sorcerer apprentice, danse macabre, Sheherazade... provided it's not vulgar (J. Strauss, Mozart, Bizet or film music).


I'm not a great fan, but I must admit this is the first time I have seen Mozart singled out as vulgar. 

I have sometimes wondered if the reason I am not a great fan is because he is not vulgar enough.


----------



## hammeredklavier

--------------------------------


----------



## Ariasexta

As a baroque fanatic, I want to hear honest music which sound effortless, unaffected, natural. As long as the music sound natural that will just be fine with me, no matter be it classical or modern. However, the mainstream aesthetics today is rather funkiness and punkiness in all sorts of cultural attributes. The effortlessness is one of the greatest beauty in art for me, whereas the overt-contrivedness and weary funkiness of modern culture is enormously nauseating and repulsive. However, the popularity of the ugliness is also not natural of our age, it is something deliberately implanted tastes by leftist institutions, which have been trying to direct the public to be "tolerant" to corrupt and evil values.


----------



## Coach G

If the YouTube video that was cited in the OP is a fair representation of Alma Deutscher's powers a s a composer, I would say she's very promising, and has all the right qualities to become a superstar which include extraordinary talent, drive, imagination, and according to her Wikipedia entry, perfect pitch. At 16 years old, she's actually quite incredible. Her piece is capable, pleasant, and while I thought the beginning was interesting, I thought that the whole of it was too long and during the middle of it my mind began to wander a bit. I don't doubt the sincerity or the validity of the idiom she has chosen and while many great composers of the Modern era were movers and shakers, breaking new ground, as they say in _Star Trek_, "boldly going where no man (or woman) has gone before; many others such as Britten and Barber did just fine and had important things to say in a style that tonal, traditional, and lyrical.

I wouldn't suggest that Deutscher needs a teacher to set or straight, as according to her Wikipedia entry she has always found a conventional education to be boring and stifling, and obviously she's done just fine without it up until now. And there were lots of great composers that learned through unconventional pedagogy: the big names of the Might Five: Mussorgsky, Borodin, and Rimsky; Ives, who was taught be his father, George Ives, who had Ives singing _Jesus Loves Me_ in one key while his father sang it in another; and then there were Debussy who studied under Franck and Prokofiev who studied under Rimsky-Korsakov; who basically rejected the past and their teachers, in favor of their own incredible musical visions.

On a different note, what this thread and the great minds on TC have demonstrated is the need for new music to become the heart of concert life. If we were watching Yuja Wang or Khatia Buniatishvili playing in a concert, and a piece by Mozart or Beethoven, we wouldn't even be discussing the music. The merits and greatness of Mozart and Beethoven would be taken as a given, and if not, who among us would have the audacity to dare claim that Mozart or Beethoven composed anything less than immortal, divine, and unmovable? No, it would be all about the _performance_, the tempo, the dynamics, and whether or not Yuja or Khatia can measure up to Horowitz or Gould; and then it may even become a foolish discussion of what Yuja and Khatia were wearing. If you don't believe me, find a video on YouTube of Yuja or Khatia and read the comments below. Is this what concert life is all about?

So with a new work, whether it is composed in a tonal, traditional, and lyrical way; or whether it strives to be far out; it becomes not so much a discussion of _performance_ but of _music_. The great and erudite minds here on TC have so far expressed about 20 different and diverging opinions on the merits of the _music_ that Alma Deutscher has created; and NOT whether or not the conductor "was a little slow in there" or whether or not "the guy on the trumpet missed his cue", or wasting time talking about what the musicians were wearing. If you think that Vladimir Horowitz, or Rudolf Serkin, or Claudio Arrau, or Glenn Gould has already given the world the Cadillac, the Lincoln Continental, or the Rolls Royce of the piano music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Debussy, Liszt or Brahms; and you already OWN it on CD or download, why would you pay money to see someone else do it who you know is not going to measure up the recording you fell in love with way back when?


----------



## arpeggio

In spite of the above rationalizations, I have still attended concerts where music of Cage, Huza, Crumb and Carter received standing ovations.

I subscribe to the Berlin Philharmonic's Digital Concert Hall. On November 20, 2020 they performed _433_. No one in the audience booed.


----------



## mmsbls

milk said:


> I imagine John Luther Adams would have received enthusiastic applause. I don't know for sure. I think it's accessible and, thematically, I expect it's pleasing to a wide audience. He's not my favorite but I'd go listen to him if his work came to town. I'm sorry to make this about "music I like," but a work like Pleiades by Xenakis has got to be dazzling. I can't imagine any audience would react tepidly. I want to see something like that (although it's even very old at this point).


I agree that both John Luther Adams's music and Pleiades likely would not result in the extreme negative reactions that some modern music does. Neither, however, sound like the classical music of the Baroque through Romantic eras. So I wonder how many in today's audiences would welcome such works in concert. I guess I really don't know what audiences want to hear. Is it the music of the Baroque through Romantic eras, music that sounds very similar (Deutscher's music), or new styles in music that somehow sounds accessible?

If orchestras programed only music written before, say, 1900, would audiences decrease noticeably?


----------



## mbhaub

mmsbls said:


> If orchestras programed only music written before, say, 1900, would audiences decrease noticeably?


No, they'd likely increase. I know people who truly believe "real" music ended with Schubert. Go figure.


----------



## adriesba

I would like if the local orchestra played more modern pieces. Sometimes they do, but they tend to be pieces that don't lean towards extreme modernist styles. It would be interesting to see how the audience would react to something by Boulez or Penderecki. Actually, they haven't even done that much by Stravinsky. Someone earlier in the thread brought up copyrights, and I thought maybe that was why. But then again they have performed music by John Williams which makes it seem like they are being cautious with modern repertoire.


----------



## Sid James

DaveM said:


> I hate the word 'pastiche' when it is used as an obvious or subtle pejorative.





DaveM said:


> In all fairness to you, I was referring more to a post preceding yours which said that Alma Deutscher's music has no artistic value and is not even good as pastiche and inferred that her education and direction, such as it is, is or has been substandard. I don't know how anyone can think they know better when no one really knows what her day-to-day life is these days.


Pastiche is what it is. I was using it in the dictionary sense of the word (same as the OP, mmsbls). In any case, the context of both of my posts clearly demonstrates that I don't look down upon pastiche, and I gave examples to support my argument. I took care not to rubbish Deutscher, spending about an hour each on the two posts. Other posters have been far more scathing than I.

Applying logical fallacy (namely slippery slope) to what I said and playing games with semantics isn't going to cut the mustard with me and neither is indirectly replying to me. It would have been better to bring your opinion of what I said - even though it is based on a faulty interpretation of what I said - directly to me. It doesn't matter now, but if you want further clarification, look up the word pastiche in the dictionary, and there's a good wikipedia article on it as well.


----------



## eljr

mmsbls said:


> I just watched this video of Alma Deutscher's Siren Sounds Waltz performed at Carnegie Hall. Siren Sounds is essentially a Romantic waltz (or several strung together). The audience seemed to love it and gave her a standing ovation. OK, fine. What surprised me somewhat was the audience's response to Deutscher's comments before the performance.
> 
> She said, "…in the 21st century, music must reflect the ugliness of the modern world. Well, in this waltz instead of trying to make my music artificially ugly in order to reflect the modern world, I went in exactly the opposite direction. I took some ugly sounds from the modern world, and I tried to turn them into something more beautiful through music." The audience gave her enthusiastic applause (you can hear this at the beginning of the video). You can also read this article by a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
> 
> I've wondered for some time what classical music lovers would actually like to hear in orchestral concerts. I realize most listeners are fairly conservative and dislike much modern and contemporary music, but I wonder what they wish contemporary composers to write. Do they wish to hear premieres of Romantic and earlier sounding music (e.g. like Schubert, Brahms, Beethoven, but written by contemporary composers)? Do they wish to hear "new" music that sounds different than earlier music but still has nice melodies and harmonies they are used to hearing? Personally, I don't know how composers could write music that is new, different, but also "pleasant sounding" to conservative ears.
> 
> I know there are differences between people's desires, but I'm trying to understand what the majority of those in classical music orchestral audiences wants to hear. Do you think audiences for orchestral concerts, in general, wish to hear older music (e.g. Beethoven 5), new music written in similar styles to older music (e.g. what many here would call pastiche), truly new music that somehow sounds pleasant to them (I don't know what this would be), new music that sounds different and can be "difficult" to appreciate (e.g. music from most contemporary composers)? This is not what you would wish to hear but what you believe most people in audiences wish to hear.
> 
> I would vastly prefer comments in this thread to focus on what audiences want rather than whether modern/contemporary music is horrible. You can also state what you personally would prefer to hear at orchestral concerts.


I prefer "to hear "new" music that sounds different than earlier music." Period.


----------



## fluteman

What music do classical music audiences wish to hear? Though I'm sure this topic is posed with the best of intentions, it seems to be a nonsensical circular (i.e., to ask it is to answer it) question, as are many like it posed as thread topics here. How does one define the term "classical music audiences", if not by the type of music they wish to hear? The trouble is, asking What type of music do contemporary audiences in general, or well-educated, cultured, sophisticated audiences, or serious audiences, or audiences looking for more than mere light entertainment, distraction or relaxation, or for whatever is a popular hit at the moment, wish to hear? all of which potentially are far more legitimate questions and thread topics, generally don't result in the answer the original poster, usually with a rather obvious agenda, is looking to establish under the guise of asking a supposedly neutral, innocent question.

When I've attended performances of Le Marteau sans maître, Quatuor pour la fin du temps, Music for a Summer Evening, Elliott Carter string quartets, or other famous modern classics, I often notice that many audience members are very young adults, and when I've overheard their conversations, I've found many of these are progressive jazz or rock musicians. Do these people count as part of the "classical music audience"? The Kronos Quartet has now had a highly successful career of 47 years with over 40 recordings. Is their obviously substantial audience the "classical music audience"? What do they want to hear?


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> ...all of which potentially are far more legitimate questions and thread topics, generally don't result in the answer the original poster, usually with a rather obvious agenda, is looking to establish under the guise of asking a supposedly neutral, innocent question.


You asked what I mean by classical music audience, and I will give you a rather specific answer, but first could I ask:

1) What answer do you believe I was looking to establish?
2) What do you believe my agenda was?
3) Why do you believe my agenda was obvious?

Thanks.


----------



## Simon Moon

fluteman said:


> When I've attended performances of Le Marteau sans maître, Quatuor pour la fin du temps, Music for a Summer Evening, Elliott Carter string quartets, or other famous modern classics,* I often notice that many audience members are very young adults, and when I've overheard their conversations, I've found many of these are progressive jazz or rock musicians. Do these people count as part of the "classical music audience"? * The Kronos Quartet has now had a highly successful career of 47 years with over 40 recordings. Is their obviously substantial audience the "classical music audience"? What do they want to hear?


Bold mine.

This is quite interesting to me.

There is a long lasting thread over on Progressive Ears forums, dedicated to classical music. And, while it is no surprise that most prog fans are also fans of classical music (and progressive forms of jazz), what may be surprising is that there are a much higher percentage that are into classical music of the mid to late 20th century, and 21st century among prog fans, than here on Talk Classical.

Maybe because quite a bit of prog, especially the subgenres of avant-prog and Zeuhl, are pretty challenging in much the same way as so many mid to late 20th century composers are. In fact, many of these bands state influences from these same composers.

Maybe our (prog fans) mindsets have already been primed by our search for new bands and new sounding music, that Carter, Berio, Wuorinen, Tower, Lindberg, etc., etc., are just a small step beyond what our ears have already been primed to hear with bands like: Thinking Plague, Aranis, Univers Zero, Art Zoyd, etc.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> You asked what I mean by classical music audience, and I will give you a rather specific answer, but first could I ask:
> 
> 1) What answer do you believe I was looking to establish?
> 2) What do you believe my agenda was?
> 3) Why do you believe my agenda was obvious?
> 
> Thanks.


I said nothing about you in particular. [Ed.: By "the original poster", I wasn't referring to you in particular, but to posters who post topic questions that answer themselves, especially those who do that repeatedly.] Rather, I posed a series of questions, the first of which was, How does one define the term "classical music audiences, if not by the type of music they wish to hear? If I chose to be snide or rude, all too common on the internet, including here, I would simply answer the question you ask, What kind of music do classical music audiences wish to hear? With what obviously is the correct answer: classical music. I mean, What color is the Lone Ranger's white horse? (And yes, people who consistently post questions like this frequently do have an agenda that becomes increasingly obvious through mind-numbing repetition. A recently banned member comes to mind. But that was an aside.)

Just to make sure I wouldn't just be taken for being a wise a##, I suggested several alternative and I think more meaningful topic questions, in part in the hopes that you or someone else participating here would chose one or more. Then, perhaps, a more meaningful discussion could be had. Finally, I concluded with several specific musical examples that might be considered once a more meaningful question is posed.


----------



## DaveM

Sid James said:


> Pastiche is what it is. I was using it in the dictionary sense of the word (same as the OP, mmsbls). In any case, the context of both of my posts clearly demonstrates that I don't look down upon pastiche, and I gave examples to support my argument. I took care not to rubbish Deutscher, spending about an hour each on the two posts. Other posters have been far more scathing than I.
> 
> Applying logical fallacy (namely slippery slope) to what I said and playing games with semantics isn't going to cut the mustard with me and neither is indirectly replying to me. It would have been better to bring your opinion of what I said - even though it is based on a faulty interpretation of what I said - directly to me. It doesn't matter now, but if you want further clarification, look up the word pastiche in the dictionary, and there's a good wikipedia article on it as well.


Actually,I never intended to respond to your post. I posted a one line comment regarding 'pastiche' used as a pejorative on this forum. It's only because someone else replied to it thinking that I was referring to their post that I went into further detail.

I know what the word pastiche means and in discussions about 'old' vs. 'new' music, it is not unusual to see it used as a pejorative eg. 'the music is just pastiche.' and sometimes using it inaccurately as a synonym of an anachronism.

Your statement was:
'.._I can't see any artistic value in this carbon copy music. Its not even good as pastiche...'_

Saying that an artist's music has no artistic value is a bit of a slam. I don't know whether one considers it 'rubbishing' the artist or not. And '_It's not even good as pastiche'_ infers, at least to me, that the music can't even measure up to an implied lesser level of pastiche'.

And you ended up with:
'_..I'm also thinking what type of teachers has she had? Any teacher worth their salt will encourage their students to go beyond the models they use to forge their own styles. Perhaps she is surrounded by a coterie of supporters and admirers who are encouraging this? I am simply baffled by this.'_

You have the right to say whatever you want about Deutcher's music and whatever her education is. I have a right to suggest that it comes across as unfair. Nothing personal or hard feelings were intended.


----------



## ORigel

BabyGiraffe said:


> So, you want to hear modernized works that are based on 16-17-18 century pop/church/dance/theatrical music, but not modern take on this?
> Anyway, you are not alone, I feel that most people on this planet after certain age get lost in nostalgia and start living in romanticized (and imagined) past times.


I want to hear a mix of styles-- I am rarely in the mood for avant-garde music (I like Schnittke and Xenakis, so far), sometimes in the mood for modern music (I love Bartok), and frequently in the mood for common practice music.

Listening to Deutscher, I hope she develops a more-creative style in the future, maybe moves towards early 20th century levels of dissonance.


----------



## ORigel

Sid James said:


> No problem.
> 
> I'm hardly knowledgeable either, but I guess there is definitely a market for new music composed in older styles. One which I find quite effective is the piano concerto written for Lang Lang by Nigel Hess which inhabits an early 20th century realm. Perhaps finding out how many of these types of works are being performed, recorded and widely disseminated would be a way of answering your question. I don't think that's easy, but its the most objective measure I can think of.
> 
> Arguably pastiche has always been a part of the mix of classical music, some earlier examples remain in the repertoire. The Neoclassical trend saw quite a few good examples produced, e.g. Rodrigo's Fantasía para un gentilhombre and Respighi's Gli Uccelli are two I can think of.
> 
> There are plenty of composers whose style is eclectic, but their music has an individual stamp, it is more than the sum of its parts. Hovhaness is probably a good example, drawing inspiration from Baroque, non-Western music and even using some experimental techniques and tape.
> 
> I think that the closest current examples - eclectic composers who do blend old and new, whose music has proven to be palatable to mainstream concert audiences - are the ones I and others have mentioned: Glass, Part, Whitacre, maybe Higdon, Golijov, John Adams and Max Richter. I think that composers who incorporate world music will also continue to be widely accessible and have good sales, for example the oud player Joseph Tawadros.
> 
> I doubt that what Deutscher is offering is the only the type new music which mainstream audiences can find palatable. I don't understand what her superstar status means and I can't see any artistic value in this carbon copy music. Its not even good as pastiche. A waltz should have some sort of emotional pull, take the listener and never let go, maybe even a slight sense of craziness. Its not even worth going further and comparing the Siren Sounds Waltz to extended concert works of similar length like Ravel's La Valse or Richard Strauss' Rosenkavalier waltz sequences.
> 
> I'm also thinking what type of teachers has she had? Any teacher worth their salt will encourage their students to go beyond the models they use to forge their own styles. Perhaps she is surrounded by a coterie of supporters and admirers who are encouraging this? I am simply baffled by this.


She has more than that waltz; performances of her piano concerto (weak) and violin concerto (some good passages in the first movement) are on Youtube. If she continues composing in that vein, her talent will be wasted.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> I said nothing about you in particular. [Ed.: By "the original poster", I wasn't referring to you in particular, but to posters who post topic questions that answer themselves, especially those who do that repeatedly.] Rather, I posed a series of questions, the first of which was, How does one define the term "classical music audiences, if not by the type of music they wish to hear? If I chose to be snide or rude, all too common on the internet, including here, I would simply answer the question you ask, What kind of music do classical music audiences wish to hear? With what obviously is the correct answer: classical music. I mean, What color is the Lone Ranger's white horse? (And yes, people who consistently post questions like this frequently do have an agenda that becomes increasingly obvious through mind-numbing repetition. A recently banned member comes to mind. But that was an aside.)
> 
> Just to make sure I wouldn't just be taken for being a wise a##, I suggested several alternative and I think more meaningful topic questions, in part in the hopes that you or someone else participating here would chose one or more. Then, perhaps, a more meaningful discussion could be had. Finally, I concluded with several specific musical examples that might be considered once a more meaningful question is posed.


I believe you did not understand my question, but I don't really understand your response because it seems so removed from what I am interested in learning. Let me try to be a bit more specific and clarify.

First, you asked how to define a classical music audience. Specifically, I am interested in _orchestral_ classical music audiences. There are many ways to define that term, but I am asking a very practical question and so define the term in a practical manner. The simplest definition to help with my question is _all those who have attended an orchestral classical music performance in, say, the past 5 years_. In theory, one might wish to vary the time period or perhaps weight each audience member by the number of performances they have attended in the past 5 years, but a simple "anyone who has attended an orchestral concert in the past 5 years" likely would suffice. Of course audiences are not uniform and will have differing desires, but I'm trying to get a sense of what the majority or plurality would like.

My question was "What kind of music do classical music audiences wish to hear?", but I was asking something more specific. My 4 proposed potential answers were trying to understand specific details of the audiences desires.

The first detail is whether audiences wish to hear music composed by living composers. If they simply wish to hear music composed in the Romantic period and earlier, they do not. I would guess that contemporary composers have a large stake in that answer.

The second detail concerns the style of music. If audiences do wish to hear music by living composers but want those composers to write in Romantic or earlier styles, there are presently relatively few contemporary composers they would wish to hear. Alternatively, most contemporary composers would have to significantly change their composition style to appease the audience. Contemporary composers and music programmers presumably care about this detail.

If audiences wish to hear new music that contemporary composers seem to compose, there's a good match between what is being written and what audiences want. I think most people on TC doubt a high or even significant percentage of audience members want to hear that music. I have always felt that view is true, but I simply don't know.

Finally, audiences may wish to hear contemporary composers write music in a new style that they enjoy as much as CPT music. A style that presumably has melody and harmonic structure somewhat similar to CPT music but is different in some unspecified way. I'm not sure what this music would be. I have often felt that some TC members would like this situation, but I'm rather unclear how new or how similar to CPT music they would want.

I don't know what a legitimate question is, but my question gets at what I want to know. Your suggestions do not. My question certainly does not answer itself. Suggesting the obvious correct answer is "classical music" is like saying the correct answer to "What is 4 + 4?" is obviously "a number". I am not trying to establish any particular answer. I ask because I'm interested and do not know the answer. I have no agenda other than answering something that interests me. I simply want to better understand what various percentages of today's classical orchestral audience wish to hear at concerts.

I hope that gives you a better sense of my question.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Coach G said:


> If the YouTube video that was cited in the OP is a fair representation of Alma Deutscher's powers a s a composer, I would say she's very promising, and has all the right qualities to become a superstar which include extraordinary talent, drive, imagination, and according to her Wikipedia entry, perfect pitch. At 16 years old, she's actually quite incredible.
> 
> I wouldn't suggest that Deutscher needs a teacher to set or straight, as according to her Wikipedia entry she has always found a conventional education to be boring and stifling, and obviously she's done just fine without it up until now. And there were lots of great composers that learned through unconventional pedagogy: the big names of the Might Five: Mussorgsky, Borodin, and Rimsky; Ives, who was taught be his father, George Ives, who had Ives singing _Jesus Loves Me_ in one key while his father sang it in another; and then there were Debussy who studied under Franck and Prokofiev who studied under Rimsky-Korsakov; who basically rejected the past and their teachers, in favor of their own incredible musical visions.


There are videos of her where she improvises partimenti, so her education is probably at least as good as that of any classical composer in 1700-1800s period.
Anyway, I wouldn't count on her composing anything "great" until her 30s... Wunderkind or not, it doesn't matter, you need maturity to come with your own aesthetics and personal style.


----------



## milk

Ariasexta said:


> However, the popularity of the ugliness is also not natural of our age, it is something deliberately implanted tastes by leftist institutions, which have been trying to direct the public to be "tolerant" to corrupt and evil values.


:lol: As long as this thread is not corrupted or evil I think it can keep going. I have no authority or cachet around here. Still, I implore everyone, don't take the bait!


----------



## milk

BabyGiraffe said:


> There are videos of her where she improvises partimenti, so her education is probably at least as good as that of any classical composer in 1700-1800s period.
> Anyway, I wouldn't count on her composing anything "great" until her 30s... Wunderkind or not, it doesn't matter, you need maturity to come with your own aesthetics and personal style.


 it seems irresponsible of her advisors not to help her steer clear of making political and misinformed statements about music. I don't want to criticize a child for not being cute so I have to attribute this to her people. I've read somewhere that her father feels this way about music and released some sort of statement at some event a while back. She's precocious, obviously, and maybe old enough at this point to understand what being open-minded and free is worth in society and what it's like when people start attacking something as ugly or degenerate. Despite the "black and white" thinking typical of adolescence, it's also a good time to understand how very big the world is. For a musician to make these kinds of statements disappointing but I guess she's too young to be really taken to task critically. Her guardians, on the other hand, really should know better.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

milk said:


> it seems irresponsible of her advisors not to help her steer clear of making political and misinformed statements about music. I don't want to criticize a child for not being cute so I have to attribute this to her people. I've read somewhere that her father feels this way about music and released some sort of statement at some event a while back. She's precocious, obviously, and maybe old enough at this point to understand what being open-minded and free is worth in society and what it's like when people start attacking something as ugly or degenerate. Despite the "black and white" thinking typical of adolescence, it's also a good time to understand how very big the world is. For a musician to make these kinds of statements disappointing but I guess she's too young to be really taken to task critically. Her guardians, on the other hand, really should know better.


Anyone can talk anything. There is no cultural police in most countries. And who cares? I suggest: don't idolize your favourite art or science and philosophy figures. 
(Honestly, "black and white thinking" is something very valuable, our biosphere wouldn't have been on the edge of a collapse, if most people thought in "black and white", but let's not go off-topic.)


----------



## mikeh375

milk said:


> it seems irresponsible of her advisors not to help her steer clear of making political and misinformed statements about music. I don't want to criticize a child for not being cute so I have to attribute this to her people. I've read somewhere that her father feels this way about music and released some sort of statement at some event a while back. She's precocious, obviously, and maybe old enough at this point to understand what being open-minded and free is worth in society and what it's like when people start attacking something as ugly or degenerate. Despite the "black and white" thinking typical of adolescence, it's also a good time to understand how very big the world is. For a musician to make these kinds of statements disappointing but I guess she's too young to be really taken to task critically. Her guardians, on the other hand, really should know better.


I agree with this hence my hope that she starts to mingle with equally talented peers at a conservatory to open her up to more creative possibilities. I didn't know about her father's feelings about music and that just increases my worry that she will never be what she undoubtedly has the ability to be. I really hope she becomes her own artist.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

mikeh375 said:


> I agree with this hence my hope that she starts to mingle with equally talented peers at a conservatory to open her up to more creative possibilities. I didn't know about her father's feelings about music and that just increases my worry that she will never be what she undoubtedly has the ability to be. I really hope she becomes her own artist.


I get the sentiment you've been expressing, but in my opinion I think there's a surplus of musical talent and even genius. Far more supply than the demand. Even if Alma Deutscher prefers to remain in an ananchronistic idiom, I don't think humanity will be robbed of a great talent the likes of which we'll never hear again. For every Alma Deutscher there's 20 others. Thats just my opinion though.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I get the sentiment you've been expressing, but in my opinion I think there's a surplus of musical talent and even genius. Far more supply than the demand. Even if Alma Deutscher prefers to remain in an ananchronistic idiom, I don't think humanity will be robbed of a great talent the likes of which we'll never hear again. For every Alma Deutscher there's 20 others. Thats just my opinion though.


Talent is worth nothing, right. She already got her names known by the public. That's way more valuable for her future career.
Anyway, you can compose fresh music even in anachronistic idiom by changing a few variables (scales, instrumentations/orchestration, form etc) in the stylistic formula (which she didn't do in her early music from what I heard).


----------



## milk

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I get the sentiment you've been expressing, but in my opinion I think there's a surplus of musical talent and even genius. Far more supply than the demand. Even if Alma Deutscher prefers to remain in an ananchronistic idiom, I don't think humanity will be robbed of a great talent the likes of which we'll never hear again. For every Alma Deutscher there's 20 others. Thats just my opinion though.


Probably so and having creativity and even success is no guarantee of anything else. Are there other very young composers out there who are writing weirder music I wonder? Harry Partch did a lot with the instruments he borrowed and created. Sometimes I think the next generation should try to create new instruments.


----------



## mikeh375

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I get the sentiment you've been expressing, but in my opinion I think there's a surplus of musical talent and even genius. Far more supply than the demand. Even if Alma Deutscher prefers to remain in an ananchronistic idiom, I don't think humanity will be robbed of a great talent the likes of which we'll never hear again. For every Alma Deutscher there's 20 others. Thats just my opinion though.


I agree, it'd be such a shame though to lose a talent like hers simply because of commercialism and formative influences.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

milk said:


> Harry Partch did a lot with the instruments he borrowed and created. Sometimes I think the next generation should try to create new instruments.


New acoustic instruments doesn't mean new sounds. Timbre is well studied since like the 80s? Digital electronic instruments have no timbral limitations (in theory, in practice it depends on the computational power).
There are plenty of new, great designs, like:
http://www.eigenlabs.com/product/alpha/ (several dimensions of touch expression on the keys and also breath pipe)
https://www.expressivee.com/2-osmose (21st century "piano"; there are are similar keyboards that are keyless or keyless with isomorphic layouts - for example https://www.rogerlinndesign.com/linnstrument)


----------



## Coach G

BabyGiraffe said:


> There are videos of her where she improvises partimenti, so her education is probably at least as good as that of any classical composer in 1700-1800s period.
> Anyway, I wouldn't count on her composing anything "great" until her 30s... Wunderkind or not, it doesn't matter, you need maturity to come with your own aesthetics and personal style.


I don't know if I agree with you on that. Shostakovich composed his _Symphony #1_ (1925) while still a teenager., and his counterpart, Serge Prokofiev composed the _Piano Concerto #1_ (1911) while barely out of his teens. Stravinsky completed _Firebird_ in 1910 when he was in his late 20s. These guys were the movers and shakers of a new Modern era in Russian music; they were already demonstrating ideas that were very different from their old Russian masters such as Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov. The creative output of a teenager or a person in their 20s may lack "maturity" but it may also embody some of the attributes of being young that may elude us as we get older: unbounded passion, enthusiasm, optimism, idealism,


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Coach G said:


> unbounded passion, enthusiasm, optimism, idealism,


What subjective categories you will associate with musical compositions is up to you, anyway, I don't see how your examples prove anything...


----------



## Coach G

BabyGiraffe said:


> What subjective categories you will associate with musical compositions is up to you, anyway, I don't see how your examples prove anything...


Shostakovich's _Symphony #1_, Prokofiev's _Piano Concerto #1_, and Stravinsky's _Firebird_, were all created by composers under the age of thirty; and Shostakovich while still a teenager and Prokofiev while barley out of his teens. They are great enough to have remained in the standard repertoire 100 years later, and to have the likes of Bernstein, Ormandy, Szell, and many others recording them. What? Don't you like those works?


----------



## BabyGiraffe

Coach G said:


> Shostakovich's _Symphony #1_, Prokofiev's _Piano Concerto #1_, and Stravinsky's _Firebird_, were all created by composers under the age of thirty; and Shostakovich while still a teenager and Prokofiev while barley out of his teens. They are great enough to have remained in the standard repertoire 100 years later, and to have the likes of Bernstein, Ormandy, Szell, and many others recording them. What? Don't you like those works?


Piano concerto has very repetitive and undeveloped parts; many sections in this symphony are hectic like in his later music, but many transitions feel bad and it gets boring very soon... so, I don't really like any of these two. They have good moments, but I don't consider them great music. Btw, what is standard repertoire doesn't mean much to me - many good compositions are forgotten and lost, while mediocre to bad works are played just because the same composer has other compositions of better quality that made him famous. 
I like Firebird, but 27-28 is not young, I think you took the idea of 30 years too literally (anyway, I guess everyone knows at least a few people in their 40s that (sometimes) still think or act like children, so the whole idea of biological age being a criteria is not that reliable).


----------



## Coach G

BabyGiraffe said:


> Piano concerto has very repetitive and undeveloped parts; many sections in this symphony are hectic like in his later music, but many transitions feel bad and it gets boring very soon... so, I don't really like any of these two. They have good moments, but I don't consider them great music. Btw, what is standard repertoire doesn't mean much to me - many good compositions are forgotten and lost, while mediocre to bad works are played just because the same composer has other compositions of better quality that made him famous.
> I like Firebird, but 27-28 is not young, I think you took the idea of 30 years too literally (anyway, I guess everyone knows at least a few people in their 40s that (sometimes) still think or act like children, so the whole idea of biological age being a criteria is not that reliable).


OK, fair enough.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I believe you did not understand my question, but I don't really understand your response because it seems so removed from what I am interested in learning. Let me try to be a bit more specific and clarify.
> 
> First, you asked how to define a classical music audience. Specifically, I am interested in _orchestral_ classical music audiences. There are many ways to define that term, but I am asking a very practical question and so define the term in a practical manner. The simplest definition to help with my question is _all those who have attended an orchestral classical music performance in, say, the past 5 years_. In theory, one might wish to vary the time period or perhaps weight each audience member by the number of performances they have attended in the past 5 years, but a simple "anyone who has attended an orchestral concert in the past 5 years" likely would suffice. Of course audiences are not uniform and will have differing desires, but I'm trying to get a sense of what the majority or plurality would like.
> 
> My question was "What kind of music do classical music audiences wish to hear?", but I was asking something more specific. My 4 proposed potential answers were trying to understand specific details of the audiences desires.
> 
> The first detail is whether audiences wish to hear music composed by living composers. If they simply wish to hear music composed in the Romantic period and earlier, they do not. I would guess that contemporary composers have a large stake in that answer.
> 
> The second detail concerns the style of music. If audiences do wish to hear music by living composers but want those composers to write in Romantic or earlier styles, there are presently relatively few contemporary composers they would wish to hear. Alternatively, most contemporary composers would have to significantly change their composition style to appease the audience. Contemporary composers and music programmers presumably care about this detail.
> 
> If audiences wish to hear new music that contemporary composers seem to compose, there's a good match between what is being written and what audiences want. I think most people on TC doubt a high or even significant percentage of audience members want to hear that music. I have always felt that view is true, but I simply don't know.
> 
> Finally, audiences may wish to hear contemporary composers write music in a new style that they enjoy as much as CPT music. A style that presumably has melody and harmonic structure somewhat similar to CPT music but is different in some unspecified way. I'm not sure what this music would be. I have often felt that some TC members would like this situation, but I'm rather unclear how new or how similar to CPT music they would want.
> 
> I don't know what a legitimate question is, but my question gets at what I want to know. Your suggestions do not. My question certainly does not answer itself. Suggesting the obvious correct answer is "classical music" is like saying the correct answer to "What is 4 + 4?" is obviously "a number". I am not trying to establish any particular answer. I ask because I'm interested and do not know the answer. I have no agenda other than answering something that interests me. I simply want to better understand what various percentages of today's classical orchestral audience wish to hear at concerts.
> 
> I hope that gives you a better sense of my question.


Yes, it does. When you say _orchestral_ classical music, you are referring to music written for the traditional symphony orchestra, an ensemble consisting exclusively of acoustic instruments that evolved into their final form in the mid- to late-19th century (including the piano, of course), and that was designed and intended specifically to play the music of that period. The orchestra has historical antecedents dating back to the 17th century, but in a recognizably modern form these only go back to the early 18th century. Some composers continue to keep that worthy tradition alive today, not least because the remaining major orchestras and other classical music institutions commission them to do so, and I think that's a good thing (I've served on the boards of two such organizations). But I agree with Zubin Mehta's observation that the symphony orchestra (essentially) is a museum, the primary purpose of which is to preserve and celebrate western music from the early 18th to late 19th centuries.

So, again, you have asked a question that answers itself. People who repeatedly go to a museum of the 18th and 19th centuries mainly are interested in the art of that period. They may also be interested in art of other periods, but they will have to go elsewhere for much if not most of it.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> Yes, it does. When you say _orchestral_ classical music, you are referring to music written for the traditional symphony orchestra, an ensemble consisting exclusively of acoustic instruments that evolved into their final form in the mid- to late-19th century (including the piano, of course), and that was designed and intended specifically to play the music of that period. The orchestra has historical antecedents dating back to the 17th century, but in a recognizably modern form these only go back to the early 18th century. Some composers continue to keep that worthy tradition alive today, not least because the remaining major orchestras and other classical music institutions commission them to do so, and I think that's a good thing (I've served on the boards of two such organizations). But I agree with Zubin Mehta's observation that the symphony orchestra (essentially) is a museum, the primary purpose of which is to preserve and celebrate western music from the early 18th to late 19th centuries.
> 
> *So, again, you have asked a question that answers itself.* People who repeatedly go to a museum of the 18th and 19th centuries mainly are interested in the art of that period. They may also be interested in art of other periods, but they will have to go elsewhere for much if not most of it.


I agree with everything you have said except for the bolded part. There are two distinct ways to satisfy people who wish to hear CPT orchestral music. One is to perform music from composers who lived during the 18th and 19th centuries. Another is to perform music by contemporary composers who write in that style. In the OP I described an audience's response to Deutscher's comments. I assumed that audience actively wanted to hear a living composer's CPT music. They presumably also would enjoy standard repertoire from that period. That question is really what I'm interested in.


----------



## DaveM

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> ..For every Alma Deutscher there's 20 others.


At a prodigy level on the piano and violin and having composed an opera, violin concerto and piano concerto -some played at major venues- before the age of 13? Name one.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I agree with everything you have said except for the bolded part. There are two distinct ways to satisfy people who wish to hear CPT orchestral music. One is to perform music from composers who lived during the 18th and 19th centuries. *Another is to perform music by contemporary composers who write in that style.* In the OP I described an audience's response to Deutscher's comments. I assumed that audience actively wanted to hear a living composer's CPT music. They presumably also would enjoy standard repertoire from that period. That question is really what I'm interested in.


I can't agree with the bolded statement. Contemporary creative artists can try to imitate the styles of centuries long gone, but they almost never can reproduce them exactly, at least not at their highest level. The best creative art always extends beyond even the most skillful and accurate imitation. That is why Zubin Mehta wisely wants his beloved symphony orchestra to be thought of as a museum. Otherwise it either would have to be radically revised, or it would fade out of our cultural life even more rapidly than it already is.

Edit: As for Ms. Deutscher's Siren Sounds Waltz, to me it would go nicely with a Disney animated feature of the 1940s (or even an old Tom and Jerry cartoon). A number of those old Hollywood composers came from Austria or Germany, or studied with those who did, and show a heavy Johann Strauss influence, as she does in that piece. But today's audiences certainly no longer want or get that sort of music in today's movies and TV, so why should composers still produce it, other than as an occasional nostalgia trip? Certainly, beating Johann Strauss at his own game is a tall order. Once the novelty of being a prodigy wears off, she will have to come up with something more interesting.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

DaveM said:


> At a prodigy level on the piano and violin and having composed an opera, violin concerto and piano concerto -some played at major venues- before the age of 13? Name one.


You're not wrong, it's certainly an exaggeration. The main point I wanted to make was that society produces talent and even genius very easily on its own, especially now more than ever due to wider availbility of musical higher education and the virtues of living in the information age. Also the cutthroat, competitive nature of the industry on an international level will consistently produce talent like a well-oiled machine.


----------



## Mandryka

fluteman said:


> I can't agree with the bolded statement. Contemporary creative artists can try to imitate the styles of centuries long gone, but they almost never can reproduce them exactly, at least not at their highest level. The best creative art always extends beyond even the most skillful and accurate imitation. That is why Zubin Mehta wisely wants his beloved symphony orchestra to be thought of as a museum. Otherwise it either would have to be radically revised, or it would fade out of our cultural life even more rapidly than it already is.


Rihm is an exception to this, as is Sciarrino.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> I can't agree with the bolded statement. Contemporary creative artists can try to imitate the styles of centuries long gone, but they almost never can reproduce them exactly, at least not at their highest level. The best creative art always extends beyond even the most skillful and accurate imitation. That is why Zubin Mehta wisely wants his beloved symphony orchestra to be thought of as a museum. Otherwise it either would have to be radically revised, or it would fade out of our cultural life even more rapidly than it already is.


I think we're talking about different things. You are saying that contemporary composers can't properly reproduce CPT music at a high level. Maybe that's true. I'm asking what _audiences wish to hear_. In the video Deutscher's music is played, and the audience appears to love it. So apparently, program managers can indeed program such music, and such music will satisfy some people who wish to hear CPT orchestral music by contemporary composers. The question is what percentage of orchestral audiences wish to hear such music. I don't know.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> ..I'm asking what _audiences wish to hear_. In the video Deutscher's music is played, and the audience appears to love it. So apparently, program managers can indeed program such music, and such music will satisfy some people who wish to hear CPT orchestral music by contemporary composers. The question is what percentage of orchestral audiences wish to hear such music. I don't know.


Here's a scenario: At the beginning of a typical major orchestra concert with a typical program these days consisting of a popular traditional symphony or concerto and overture and one short contemporary work, the conductor comes out and announces that he/she has a surprise for the audience: a previously unannounced recently commissioned work will have its premiere after the intermission.

Of the two possibilities, a contemporary modern composer introduces his modern atonal work or Deutscher coming out and introducing her new concerto, which will cause the greatest positive reaction of the audience? My guess would be the latter. I don't think that it's because Deutscher's works are among the greatest CM creations composed or because she has a charismatically innocent composure beyond her years in front of an audience (which she does have) that is what is packing concert halls.

I think what is capturing so much attention is that this young extremely gifted person is unapologetically composing and playing common practice period music and expressing an opinion in so many words that the classical music of pre 20th century was the golden era of beautiful CM. It is likely refreshing for those who don't understand why they don't resonate with so many new works that are slip-streamed into concert programs.


----------



## arpeggio

DaveM said:


> At a prodigy level on the piano and violin and having composed an opera, violin concerto and piano concerto -some played at major venues- before the age of 13? Name one.


Why bother? I have in the past presented lists of prodigies that I know of and a few that I have met. It did not do any good when I did. I doubt that it will do any good now.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Here's a scenario: At the beginning of a typical major orchestra concert with a typical program these days consisting of a popular traditional symphony or concerto and overture and one short contemporary work, the conductor comes out and announces that he/she has a surprise for the audience: a previously unannounced recently commissioned work will have its premiere after the intermission.
> 
> Of the two possibilities, a contemporary modern composer introduces his modern atonal work or Deutscher coming out and introducing her new concerto, which will cause the greatest positive reaction of the audience? My guess would be the latter. I don't think that it's because Deutscher's works are among the greatest CM creations composed or because she has a charismatically innocent composure beyond her years in front of an audience (which she does have) that is what is packing concert halls.
> 
> I think what is capturing so much attention is that this young extremely gifted person is unapologetically composing and playing common practice period music and expressing an opinion in so many words that the classical music of pre 20th century was the golden era of beautiful CM. It is likely refreshing for those who don't understand why they don't resonate with so many new works that are slip-streamed into concert programs.


This sort of thing has long been around in the music world, and there is a massive amount of it in another highly popular art form: literary fiction. Novels are briefly popular for any number of reasons, but forgotten soon after. (Not that this fate inevitably will befall Ms. Deutscher. She is still very young.) That is not to say a "serious" work that is a complete flop from the start is any more likely to survive. Something that fails to make at least a reasonably positive impression soon after it appears is unlikely to be remembered. But it is interesting how what we now consider to be the 'greatest' music often was considered very good, but not the very best, in its own time. I've read that Telemann was a more popular composer than Bach in their day.

Anyway, I can't conclude too much from an enthusiastic response to a cute and precocious young girl who writes a waltz in the style of Johann Strauss. Musical talent is there, no doubt. We'll see where it leads, if anywhere.


----------



## milk

DaveM said:


> At a prodigy level on the piano and violin and having composed an opera, violin concerto and piano concerto -some played at major venues- before the age of 13? Name one.


Perhaps it's not all it's cracked up to be. We know the successes and forget the prodigies who went on into oblivion.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Here's a scenario: At the beginning of a typical major orchestra concert with a typical program these days consisting of a popular traditional symphony or concerto and overture and one short contemporary work, the conductor comes out and announces that he/she has a surprise for the audience: a previously unannounced recently commissioned work will have its premiere after the intermission.
> 
> Of the two possibilities, a contemporary modern composer introduces his modern atonal work or Deutscher coming out and introducing her new concerto, which will cause the greatest positive reaction of the audience? My guess would be the latter. ...


I agree. How about this scenario?

Ticket holders for a typical major orchestra season are polled to see which concert they would prefer attending. One option is a concert with 3 works by Romantic composers. A second concert has 2 works by Romantic composers and a work by a contemporary composer who composes in the Romantic style. Which do you think they might prefer?

I'm wondering if audiences care if they hear music from present day composers. You and I both feel that most audience members would not like to hear music from many contemporary composers because the music is unpleasant to them. If they knew the music would be very similar in style to the music they love, would it matter? Would they prefer knowing they are hearing a contemporary composer? Or would they simply prefer to hear the great music from earlier eras?


----------



## mikeh375

mmsbls said:


> I agree. How about this scenario?
> 
> Ticket holders for a typical major orchestra season are polled to see which concert they would prefer attending. One option is a concert with 3 works by Romantic composers. A second concert has 2 works by Romantic composers and a work by a contemporary composer who composes in the Romantic style. Which do you think they might prefer?
> 
> *I'm wondering if audiences care if they hear music from present day composers*. You and I both feel that most audience members would not like to hear music from many contemporary composers because the music is unpleasant to them. If they knew the music would be very similar in style to the music they love, would it matter? Would they prefer knowing they are hearing a contemporary composer? Or would they simply prefer to hear the great music from earlier eras?


As sad as it is, I think you are probably right mmsbls. Fortunately though there is also an audience for music that has contemporary relevance too. More worrying to me is that even some great composers in the 20thC who clearly had tangible links to the past are also ignored in programming, sacrificed even, for the old money making war horses. I also wonder about how many listeners will shun their music because the music travels a little further than just related keys and/or requires a little more effort to appreciate. Art can be so much more than immediate, comfortable entertainment.

The concert hall needs cash for sure and needs to programme popular music but imo, the line between a thriving, vibrant, healthy art venue and a mausoleum is thin.


----------



## milk

I have to admit that I don't really care much about Orchestra music. But, I do care about music broadly. I don't know how to say what I want to say. I feel like great art should have something to say in, of and about its time and place and culture as well as transcend all that.


----------



## Mandryka

milk said:


> I feel like great art should have something to say in, of and about its time and place and culture as well as transcend all that.


Do you think any music does those things? All I can think of is a John Zorn's Godard/Spillane and Naked City.


----------



## milk

Mandryka said:


> Do you think any music does those things? All I can think of is a John Zorn's Godard/Spillane and Naked City.


I think the greats probably do. Or they come close. Doesn't Bach? Or Dylan? Or Picasso? Or Chaplin?


----------



## Eclectic Al

milk said:


> I have to admit that I don't really care much about Orchestra music. But, I do care about music broadly. I don't know how to say what I want to say. I feel like great art should have something to say in, of and about its time and place and culture as well as transcend all that.


How about? Very much of its time, but also transcendent (to my mind).






I much prefer Hurford's performance, though. He does it much more slowly, and I'm imprinted.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Just got me back into this stuff. BWV694 is jazzy.
With Chorale Preludes the thing for me is how Bach could re-use the same tune over and over, and yet they remain so fresh. I guess a lot of the freshness is that he could doubtless improvise endlessly on these so-familiar themes.
Little can be more of its era than these chorale preludes on an organ, but the reaching for the sublime that Bach attempts is timeless.


----------



## hammeredklavier

fluteman said:


> I've read that Telemann was a more popular composer than Bach in their day.


"I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for *he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy.* I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."
-G.B. Martini, 1750


----------



## milk

Eclectic Al said:


> Just got me back into this stuff. BWV694 is jazzy.
> With Chorale Preludes the thing for me is how Bach could re-use the same tune over and over, and yet they remain so fresh. I guess a lot of the freshness is that he could doubtless improvise endlessly on these so-familiar themes.
> Little can be more of its era than these chorale preludes on an organ, but the reaching for the sublime that Bach attempts is timeless.


 I can't add anything really. For me, Bach shines a light in the darkness.


----------



## pianozach

"Pyrotechnics".

Yes. Virtuosity. Breathtaking excitement. Deep emotional moments.

And cannons.


----------



## mmsbls

mikeh375 said:


> As sad as it is, I think you are probably right mmsbls. Fortunately though there is also an audience for music that has contemporary relevance too. More worrying to me is that even some great composers in the 20thC who clearly had tangible links to the past are also ignored in programming, sacrificed even, for the old money making war horses. I also wonder about how many listeners will shun their music because the music travels a little further than just related keys and/or requires a little more effort to appreciate. Art can be so much more than immediate, comfortable entertainment.
> 
> The concert hall needs cash for sure and needs to programme popular music but imo, the line between a thriving, vibrant, healthy art venue and a mausoleum is thin.


There have been many discussions on TC on the topic of whether and how to include current music in concerts. Some have suggested there really is a significant audience for new music but that audience shows up in places outside traditional concert venues (e.g. smaller venues dedicated to new music, online sources such as youtube and Spotify). We have discussed having two large venues in cities - one for traditional CPT music and one for new music. The problem is that even traditional music venues struggle to make ends meet, so another large venue with less interest likely couldn't be supported.

I've been to many concerts where a new work (contemporary) has been included with older works. In non-orchestral venues, the audience has often been receptive. In orchestral venues, I sensed a distinct lack of interest in the new work.

Personally, my perfect concert would be a CPT work, a modern work, and a contemporary work. I understand that most others would probably not enjoy such a concert. Some would dislike the modern and contemporary works, and some would prefer not to hear the CPT work. Some would find the combination of those eras odd or disconcerting.

I have a question for you because I think you would have a vastly better sense of the answer than I would. How many (what percentage) of today's composition students or actual composers would prefer to write music similar to CPT music? I understand that students are generally (always?) discouraged from writing in older styles, but I wonder how many wish to do so?


----------



## Fabulin

I will repeat what I said in a thread comparing the 19th and 20th centuries some time ago - that modern corpus of music is as good as the corpus of the music in the past, but the "head" is missing.

My prediction is that the audiences want works of the sort of quality that made the war horses into war horses - not works equal to a minor symphony by a minor romantic composer (long-winded and boring slow movements, chaotic fast movements).


----------



## Eclectic Al

On a slightly different tack, does anyone have knowledge of how the concert-going public react to older music. I don't really attend concerts (and certainly not now) but do the programmers avoid Vivaldi or Rameau or even Bach or Handel or Haydn?

If so, why? Is it because audiences don't want it, or is it about that being now seen as more the preserve of HIP types, so it is not so easy to mix a bit of Lully in with some Prokofiev? Different orchestral forces?


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> I agree. How about this scenario?
> 
> Ticket holders for a typical major orchestra season are polled to see which concert they would prefer attending. One option is a concert with 3 works by Romantic composers. A second concert has 2 works by Romantic composers and a work by a contemporary composer who composes in the Romantic style. Which do you think they might prefer?
> 
> I'm wondering if audiences care if they hear music from present day composers. You and I both feel that most audience members would not like to hear music from many contemporary composers because the music is unpleasant to them. If they knew the music would be very similar in style to the music they love, would it matter? Would they prefer knowing they are hearing a contemporary composer? Or would they simply prefer to hear the great music from earlier eras?


Yes, reasonable questions, but again, "ticket holders for a typical major orchestra season", long a diminishing if not gradually dying breed, have certain expectations, in particular, western art music of the 18th and 19th centuries. Trying to force them to listen to anything radically different can be like defiling a temple. And I'd be interested to know about contemporary composers who compose in the Romantic style. I know of none. Certainly, there are those whose work is strongly influenced by one or more Romantic styles. But to truly adapt a style utterly devoid of any influences of the last 100 years is hard to pull off, and then to equal or better the achievements of Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler and even Johann Strauss on their own terms, is a tall order.

Are you familiar with the British composer Colin Matthews? He has spent much of his career studying and arranging 19th century Romantic (and earlier) music, and worked with Deryck Cooke on the latter's completion of Mahler's 10th Symphony, that Simon Rattle recorded with the BPO, iirc. He is a scholar of the music of Gustav Holst and has a working relationship with the Holst Foundation, and composed "Pluto: The Renewer", as a completion of The Planets, also recorded by Rattle and the BPO. (This was before the astronomer community decreed that Pluto should no longer be considered a planet.) This is as good an example as any of contemporary music composed in a Romantic style, but not by a charming, cute young lady (I've seen him in person, you can take my word). I don't see Pluto: The Renewer on any of the TC top classical music lists, nor do I think this sort of thing in general will fill the concert halls.


----------



## mmsbls

fluteman said:


> Yes, reasonable questions, but again, "ticket holders for a typical major orchestra season", long a diminishing if not gradually dying breed, have certain expectations, in particular, western art music of the 18th and 19th centuries. Trying to force them to listen to anything radically different can be like defiling a temple.


I think you, DaveM, and I all agree on this point.



fluteman said:


> And I'd be interested to know about contemporary composers who compose in the Romantic style. I know of none. Certainly, there are those whose work is strongly influenced by one or more Romantic styles. But to truly adapt a style utterly devoid of any influences of the last 100 years is hard to pull off, and then to equal or better the achievements of Brahms, Bruckner, Mahler and even Johann Strauss on their own terms, is a tall order.


Equaling some of the greatest composers ever to write music is extremely difficult and very few ever will in any style. I don't follow Deutscher's music, but my understanding was that she generally writes in a late Classical or early Romantic style. This thread is exploring whether audiences would like other contemporary composers to follow her lead.



fluteman said:


> Are you familiar with the British composer Colin Matthews? He has spent much of his career studying and arranging 19th century Romantic (and earlier) music, and worked with Deryck Cooke on the latter's completion of Mahler's 10th Symphony, that Simon Rattle recorded with the BPO, iirc. He is a scholar of the music of Gustav Holst and has a working relationship with the Holst Foundation, and composed "Pluto: The Renewer", as a completion of The Planets, also recorded by Rattle and the BPO. (This was before the astronomer community decreed that Pluto should no longer be considered a planet.) This is as good an example as any of contemporary music composed in a Romantic style, but not by a charming, cute young lady (I've seen him in person, you can take my word). I don't see Pluto: The Renewer on any of the TC top classical music lists, nor do I think this sort of thing in general will fill the concert halls.


I am not familiar with Colin Matthews. I assume his works will not top any "Greatest" music lists. The video I posted was from Carnegie Hall, and I have read that the concert was sold out. Maybe the only reason it sold out was that Deutscher, though very talented, is very unusual herself being so young. I really don't know.


----------



## arpeggio

I realize that this is anecdotal.

One of the groups I play with is the National Concert Band of America. At meetings the board kept thinking of ways to improve the attendance at our concerts. Many times there were more people on the stage than in the audience. A few years ago the band received a stiped that allowed us to do our concerts for free and we accepted donations.

We ended up making more money from the donations that when we charged for tickets. 

We program mostly contemporary band works with a few transcriptions of classics, some Broadway music and a classic march.

In our last concert before the pandemic hit, we played to a pack audience and they liked the contemporary music as much as the standard stuff.


----------



## fluteman

mmsbls said:


> Equaling some of the greatest composers ever to write music is extremely difficult and very few ever will in any style. I don't follow Deutscher's music, but my understanding was that she generally writes in a late Classical or early Romantic style. This thread is exploring whether audiences would like other contemporary composers to follow her lead.


Well, you have my view on that subject, which is, they would not, and demonstrably do not. I remember seeing my first "Why can't today's composers write like Mozart?" thread here years ago, and I suppose it's not too great a leap to expand the topic to, "Why can't today's composers write like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Bruckner, Wagner, and Mahler?" and I suppose courtesy of Ms. Deutscher, we should add Johann Strauss.

Another reason this doesn't (and can't) happen is that neither we nor the majority of contemporary composers, are Germans or Austrians, much less 19th century Germans or Austrians. It is true that classical music was introduced to America in the 19th century mainly by German musicians. The founders / original conductors in Boston (Georg Henschel), Philadelphia (Fritz Scheel) and Chicago (Theodore Thomas) all were German, and the original conductor of the New York Philharmonic, Ureli Corelli Hill, studied in Germany (the NYP was led mainly by German conductors -- Eisfeld, Bergmann, Damrosch and Thomas -- throughout the 19th century, as well as the Hungarian Seidl). These conductors in turn recruited many German players into their orchestras.

One result of this is that American classical music audiences traditionally have had a strong 19th century Germanic streak in their tastes, that held firm in the first half of the 20th century and didn't begin to recede until World War II. This doesn't hold in other countries. The Swiss composer and conductor Ernst Levy led the first ever performance in Paris of the Brahms German Requiem, and that didn't occur until the 1930s(!)

This traditional preference for 19th century German and Austrian classical music can still be seen in many of the posts by American members here (and in many of the German ones too, of course), but as music and musical tastes become ever more international, I suspect this trend will recede.


----------



## fluteman

hammeredklavier said:


> "I consider it superfluous to describe the singular merit of Sig. Bach, for *he is thoroughly known and admired not only in Germany but throughout our Italy.* I will say only that I think it would be difficult to find someone in the profession who could surpass him, since these days he could rightfully claim to be among the first in Europe."
> -G.B. Martini, 1750


Yes, good quote. Is this intended as a refutation of my comment that Telemann was more popular during their lifetimes? Not something worth debating, I think. 10 seconds on Google yielded this from Raymond Ericson in the Times in 1984 regarding Telemann: "Considered the leading German musician in the first half of the 18th century, when Bach was also active, he lost status after his death." Not that Ericson's word is gospel on this, but I've seen this said in many sources over the years. If someone has recently proved this to be wrong, fine. Anyway, my point was, some of the most popular composers during their own era are often not the ones considered among the best in later centuries. We've discussed Meyerbeer here before. Weber, Reicha, Pleyel and Onslow are others. The same is true in the literary world.


----------



## mikeh375

mmsbls said:


> ................Personally, my perfect concert would be a CPT work, a modern work, and a contemporary work. I understand that most others would probably not enjoy such a concert. Some would dislike the modern and contemporary works, and some would prefer not to hear the CPT work. Some would find the combination of those eras odd or disconcerting.
> 
> I have a question for you because I think you would have a vastly better sense of the answer than I would. How many (what percentage) of today's composition students or actual composers would prefer to write music similar to CPT music? I understand that students are generally (always?) discouraged from writing in older styles, but I wonder how many wish to do so?


There are better qualified people here (lecturers/professors), with direct experience over many years, who are more able to answer that than me mmsbls. From my own experience at a conservatory, I knew of none of my peers who wanted to write with CPT but there were some (including me) who wrote with advanced forms of it. I never experienced any pressure from the composition dept. to write in a certain way. We were all there in order to find our own ways of composing, encouraged by sympathetic tutors. In fact my professor was a serialist and not once did he encourage me to write as such as I was more interested in other techniques.

Some students were naturally contemporary in outlook of course and of those, I doubt there was more than a basic knowledge of CPT between them. (I define CPT as Baroque to mid- Romantic here). I remember walking into the canteen one day and sitting next to a composer who was a year above me. I had a copy of a fugue textbook with me. He said he'd never studied fugue. I was surprised and used to think that odd but gradually realised that anyone with contemporary proclivities had a perceived immediate past in music history of around 80 years that had absolutely nothing to do with CPT. Their technical and aesthetic learning curve was very different and rightly so imv.

In short then, nobody in my time in a conservatory wanted to write with CPT for the concert hall as I've defined it and that could've been expanded up to late Romanticism too. Some could of course, including me, but that formative learning curve and experience gained from studying CPT should only ever be a stepping stone to what will hopefully become a more personal way of doing things anyway to my way of thinking.

As to any composers working today who might 'want' to write in CPT (do you mean that they might feel peer pressure to not do so?), well I couldn't possibly answer but as you know, CPT is not as relevant creatively today in art/concert music. Technically there is a lot that can be learnt of course but it is not vital to the present zeitgeist. Of the composers I know personally, none have any desire to write in the old way because they have their own individuality, made possible by a century that has bequeathed innovation, technology and freedom. Deutscher's music is the only example I can think of that uses CPT in an overt and stylistically anachronistic manner.

BTW I like your ideal format for a concert programme.


----------



## Portamento

I wrote something riffing off of one of mmsbls' posts, but it's so long that I'm just attaching it as a pdf...


----------



## mikeh375

Portamento said:


> I wrote something riffing off of one of mmsbls' posts, but it's so long that I'm just attaching it as a pdf...


...excellent read portamento.


----------



## milk

mikeh375 said:


> ...excellent read portamento.


Seconded. I enjoyed the read!


----------



## Eclectic Al

mikeh375 said:


> Some students were naturally contemporary in outlook of course and of those, I doubt there was more than a basic knowledge of CPT between them. (I define CPT as Baroque to mid- Romantic here). I remember walking into the canteen one day and sitting next to a composer who was a year above me. I had a copy of a fugue textbook with me. He said he'd never studied fugue. I was surprised and used to think that odd but gradually realised that anyone with contemporary proclivities had a perceived immediate past in music history of around 80 years that had absolutely nothing to do with CPT. Their technical and aesthetic learning curve was very different and rightly so imv.


This surprised me. It seemed a bit like someone doing a degree in mathematics (say) and trying to avoid a study of complex analysis because they were interested in number theory. Well they would pretty soon discover that a lot of number theory is going to point you towards understanding complex analysis.

Or, perhaps closer to the topic, someone studying philosophy who thought they might ignore Plato and Aristotle because they were interested in some modern concept of political theory, and they had no interest in anything prior to Hegel. Well I would think you need to working understanding of past thinkers in order to enrich your own thinking.

Things like music are formed out of traditions, so I just suppose these people regarded themselves as not being part of the tradition which encompassed fugues as a part: otherwise they would presumably want to have a working knowledge of them. Fine - but surprising.


----------



## mikeh375

Eclectic Al said:


> This surprised me. It seemed a bit like someone doing a degree in mathematics (say) and trying to avoid a study of complex analysis because they were interested in number theory. Well they would pretty soon discover that a lot of number theory is going to point you towards understanding complex analysis.
> 
> Or, perhaps closer to the topic, someone studying philosophy who thought they might ignore Plato and Aristotle because they were interested in some modern concept of political theory, and they had no interest in anything prior to Hegel. Well I would think you need to working understanding of past thinkers in order to enrich your own thinking.
> 
> Things like music are formed out of traditions, so I just suppose these people regarded themselves as not being part of the tradition which encompassed fugues as a part: otherwise they would presumably want to have a working knowledge of them. Fine - but surprising.


Al, I used to be of a similar opinion. It's only when you consider that the 'tradition' and canon for a modernist mindset begins with someone like Webern that it makes sense. It's not to say that anyone learning from a particular point in time forward, cannot write (in this case) counterpoint, it's just that the newer language does not use, or is beholden to, the limiting criteria that a CP fugue would be subjected to - the counterpoint for new music being of a completely different nature and requiring different approaches, imagination and techniques. In fact there's a good case I believe, for suggesting that immersing ones modern self in CP technique might actually be counter-productive because the old parameters do not apply...I mean, at all, in most cases.

The composer I mentioned in my canteen tale is someone I've seen mentioned on a thread here in TC btw. It did him no harm to not be fully conversant with CPT. Still I personally think that early on, it's good to get to grips with at least some CPT in more depth than a passing acquaintance before one travels further.


----------



## Eclectic Al

mikeh375 said:


> Still I personally think that early on, it's good to get to grips with at least some CPT in more depth than a passing acquaintance before one travels further.


Wholly in agreement on that.

I think there's a lot to unpack in the word "further" though.

Personally I don't think that art forms progress (or go further, in that sense): I just think that they mutate, influencing and being influenced by the spirit of the times. Some mutations are successful (in the sense that they attract an audience, and may become the root of further mutations), and some mutations are not so successful (dying out with few followers). I certainly don't think that Webern (or others coming afterwards) are in any sense better than previous figures, and nor are they necessarily worse. I don't even think it is useful to use words like "advanced" in this context (which people often do): advancing towards what, exactly? If you did want to use a word like advanced then it would have to be advancing FROM something, so you would have to be aware of that something to feel that you were advancing. And by aware, I mean aware after having made a serious attempt to understand it.

Webern is interesting, also, because he didn't spring fully formed into being with no reference to any tradition: his Op 1 would be clear enough evidence of that. Furthermore, if in someone's music there is a reaction against elements of a tradition then that is as much (and maybe more) shaped by the tradition as a more gradual evolution might be. Hence, if someone looks back to Webern as a founding figure for their own endeavours, I would have thought it is a naive (or strangely incurious) person who does not then ask: "I wonder what inspired Webern to go the way he did?". I suspect you may agree with that.

One of the things that strikes me on occasion, if I listen to music composed hundreds of years ago, or look at art from even more hundreds ago, or read books written by people thousands of years ago, is how people are people. It's humbling, and if I am against modernism it would only be to oppose a modernism which seeks to jettison the past, rather than learn from it or build on it.


----------



## fluteman

Portamento said:


> I wrote something riffing off of one of mmsbls' posts, but it's so long that I'm just attaching it as a pdf...


Excellent discussion, thanks. I don't think Schoenberg's music as a whole has failed to enter the "Western canon" (something endlessly debated here, I know), but I do think that at least as important as anything he wrote himself is that his ideas have had a profound and lasting influence, in many ways both direct and indirect, on the Western music that followed. Ironically, that seems to be what he most wanted, but in his own view failed to adequately achieve.


----------



## mikeh375

Eclectic Al said:


> Wholly in agreement on that.
> 
> I think there's a lot to unpack in the word "further" though.
> 
> Personally I don't think that art forms progress (or go further, in that sense): I just think that they mutate, influencing and being influenced by the spirit of the times. Some mutations are successful (in the sense that they attract an audience, and may become the root of further mutations), and some mutations are not so successful (dying out with few followers). I certainly don't think that Webern (or others coming afterwards) are in any sense better than previous figures, and nor are they necessarily worse. I don't even think it is useful to use words like "advanced" in this context (which people often do): advancing towards what, exactly? If you did want to use a word like advanced then it would have to be advancing FROM something, so you would have to be aware of that something to feel that you were advancing. And by aware, I mean aware after having made a serious attempt to understand it.
> 
> Webern is interesting, also, because he didn't spring fully formed into being with no reference to any tradition: his Op 1 would be clear enough evidence of that. Furthermore, if in someone's music there is a reaction against elements of a tradition then that is as much (and maybe more) shaped by the tradition as a more gradual evolution might be. Hence, if someone looks back to Webern as a founding figure for their own endeavours, I would have thought it is a naive (or strangely incurious) person who does not then ask: "I wonder what inspired Webern to go the way he did?". I suspect you may agree with that.
> 
> One of the things that strikes me on occasion, if I listen to music composed hundreds of years ago, or look at art from even more hundreds ago, or read books written by people thousands of years ago, is how people are people. It's humbling, and if I am against modernism it would only be to oppose a modernism which seeks to jettison the past, rather than learn from it or build on it.


I like your mutation metaphor Al. 
By 'further' I meant travelling in several ways. For example, a composer might 'travel' into their own psyche, or perhaps they can explore more esoteric techniques. They can unhinge their imagination somewhat or exercise a regulated restraint. However they approach their work, they of necessity I believe, have to inculcate a sense of adventure as they learn which is also in a sense, a journey of self-discovery that ultimately goes beyond the technical. This questing sense of adventure is vital in order to develop a personal way of writing and is primarily what I meant by travelling further.

Regarding Webern and his inspirations, one need not really look any further back than Schoenberg for a full understanding of the mature Webern imo. Of course one could keep on like this, going back in time, tracing influences (he was influenced early on by romanticism before Schoenberg), except there is no need to because Schoenberg's dodecaphonic innovations implied such a paradigm shift in composing, later realised, that could actually engender a new way of composing that needn't be reliant on any prior musical context, technical parameters or even reference. The implications for harmony, melody, timbre and later, rhythm, were liberating, opening up vast potential soundworlds that have mostly defined the latter half of the 20thC and in many cases, have unfortunately alienated audiences who end up bewildered and lost.

Mastery of technical means in order to express oneself coherently and with flair and imagination in what then was and still is, unbounded and fertile atonal and timbral fields, required a complete overhaul in technical and aesthetic approach to composing. This I believe is one reason why knowledge of how composing was done technically and musically prior to the 1900's is not essential because it does not, nay cannot relate to, nor exploit the new world of sound, imagination and rhetorical freedom with the highest levels of potential and expression needed. Some others may have a different view.


----------



## mmsbls

Portamento said:


> I wrote something riffing off of one of mmsbls' posts, but it's so long that I'm just attaching it as a pdf...


Thanks, Portamento. I think your third criterion "a distinctive musical personality, different enough from the other works in the collection to justify its inclusion while not so radically different as to exclude it entirely" is interesting. When I asked what audiences want to hear, there were 3 options for music from contemporary composers:

1) New music written in similar styles to older music (e.g. what many here would call pastiche)
2) Truly new music that somehow sounds pleasant to them (I don't know what this would be)
3) New music that sounds different and can be "difficult" to appreciate (e.g. music from most contemporary composers)

Number two would seem similar to that criterion above. Some late Romantic and early modern composers (Brahms, Shostakovich, Britten, etc.) were able to produce such music. I suspect that, as more music is created, it becomes harder and harder to produce truly new music that still sounds enjoyable to the majority of listeners. Maybe I'm wrong here, and few composers even try for this. 
mikeh's suggestion that "the 'tradition' and canon for a modernist mindset begins with someone like Webern" might indicate that these composers will never connect with what the majority of concert audiences want to hear.


----------



## Strange Magic

The enduring strength of Prokofiev, Shostakovich, and Bartok, to take three of the more "edgy" yet still tonal composers of the recent past--or what I hope will prove to be their enduring strength--is to interweave wonderful broad soaring melodies within their works. These serve to anchor many of their compositions in people's memories and to allow audiences to absorb the total pieces as the matrices within which the melodies are embedded. This music of the first half of the 20th century in my opinion will be the best template upon which to create new music for the concert hall that will actually both bring people in and keep them from walking out. And I do not think the seams worked by many other 1900-1950 composers, from Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Debussy, Sibelius, Respighi, De Falla, Villa-Lobos, Martinu, Walton, RVW, Gershwin, Copland, even Ferde Grofe, etc. have been fully worked out and all the ore exhausted.


----------



## milk

A quote from Steve Reich: 
"Beethoven was a great, great composer, whom I admire enormously. But for me, music history basically begins with Gregorian chant then goes to the end of 1750 with the death of Johann Sebastian Bach. Then it goes on without me paying much attention until Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartók and so on. The entire classical and Romantic period is filled with geniuses that I don't listen to and from whom I've learned absolutely nothing."


----------



## eljr

milk said:


> A quote from Steve Reich:
> "Beethoven was a great, great composer, whom I admire enormously. But for me, music history basically begins with Gregorian chant then goes to the end of 1750 with the death of Johann Sebastian Bach. Then it goes on without me paying much attention until Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartók and so on. The entire classical and Romantic period is filled with geniuses that I don't listen to and from whom I've learned absolutely nothing."


wow, pretty much how I feel. I thought I was alone.


----------



## DaveM

milk said:


> A quote from Steve Reich:
> "Beethoven was a great, great composer, whom I admire enormously. But for me, music history basically begins with Gregorian chant then goes to the end of 1750 with the death of Johann Sebastian Bach. Then it goes on without me paying much attention until Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartók and so on. The entire classical and Romantic period is filled with geniuses that I don't listen to and from whom I've learned absolutely nothing."


Geez, that's almost like a car enthusiast saying that they ignore automobiles made between the Ford Model T and the Tesla.


----------



## Portamento

fluteman said:


> I don't think Schoenberg's music as a whole has failed to enter the "Western canon" (something endlessly debated here, I know), but I do think that at least as important as anything he wrote himself is that his ideas have had a profound and lasting influence, in many ways both direct and indirect, on the Western music that followed. Ironically, that seems to be what he most wanted, but in his own view failed to adequately achieve.


I can't name a non-tonal piece of his in the canon. Maybe _Pierrot lunaire_, but even that's a stretch.



mikeh375 said:


> Mastery of technical means in order to express oneself coherently and with flair and imagination in what then was and still is, unbounded and fertile atonal and timbral fields, required a complete overhaul in technical and aesthetic approach to composing. This I believe is one reason why knowledge of how composing was done technically and musically prior to the 1900's is not essential because it does not, nay cannot relate to, nor exploit the new world of sound, imagination and rhetorical freedom with the highest levels of potential and expression needed. Some others may have a different view.


The difficulty is that there will never be a consensus on what's essential, so composition departments will just keep emphasizing whatever they want. In my opinion, I think even 12-tone theory is pretty non-essential -- useful for understanding the psyche of certain composers but not much else. What we need is a lot more focus on non-Western traditions / modes of thinking about music. Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart were just 3 people and there's no reason why they should make up a huge chunk of the curriculum.



mmsbls said:


> When I asked what audiences want to hear, there were 3 options for music from contemporary composers:
> 
> 1) New music written in similar styles to older music (e.g. what many here would call pastiche)
> 2) Truly new music that somehow sounds pleasant to them (I don't know what this would be)
> 3) New music that sounds different and can be "difficult" to appreciate (e.g. music from most contemporary composers)
> 
> Number two would seem similar to that criterion above. Some late Romantic and early modern composers (Brahms, Shostakovich, Britten, etc.) were able to produce such music. I suspect that, as more music is created, it becomes harder and harder to produce truly new music that still sounds enjoyable to the majority of listeners. Maybe I'm wrong here, and few composers even try for this.
> mikeh's suggestion that "the 'tradition' and canon for a modernist mindset begins with someone like Webern" might indicate that these composers will never connect with what the majority of concert audiences want to hear.


First off, these are not _my_ criterion -- Burkholder deserves all the credit for coming up with that model. And yes, Shostakovich/Britten are two composers who were particularly successful at writing "museum pieces." I think you're right when you say that few composers even try to write music that can be enjoyed by all. Hell, even Brahms didn't try to do that: during his lifetime his music was generally respected rather than loved, and it was only in the early 20th century that popular taste grew accustomed to his innovations. Charles Wuorinen once said something to the effect that his music can only be understood once Webern is performed as often as Brahms; he's completely right about that.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Geez, that's almost like a car enthusiast saying that they ignore automobiles made between the Ford Model T and the Tesla.


Well, maybe through turbocharged engines. Actually your post made me think of what might happen within the auto industry. In the not too distant future, 2030-2035 or so, many auto companies will start reducing the number of internal combustion engine vehicles such that soon after extremely few vehicles will use engines. All vehicles most companies manufacture may be battery electric or fuel cell. New automotive engineers may study only batteries, fuel cells, power electronics, and motors. They may actually not learn anything about engines or mechanical drivelines since they will not need to know about them. The situation would somewhat similar to composers not studying CPT music.


----------



## arpeggio

Again this anecdotal and I have no proof so I could be wrong.

It seems that there is no such thing as a generic audience.

The audiences in New England are different than the audiences that are in Texas or Europe.

From what I have read from our Japanese friends, their audiences are very conservative.

I have attended festivals in New England that were very open to contemporary music.

I subscribe to the Berlin Philharmonic's Digital Concert hall. They program many avant-garde works. The audience does not appear to be hostile to those performances.

Generally speaking all of the members on my ignore list have an animas toward modern music. There are only fifteen on my list. Thirteen of them appear to be American.


----------



## Bulldog

arpeggio said:


> Generally speaking all of the members on my ignore list have an animas toward modern music. There are only fifteen on my list.


Only fifteen? Sounds like a huge number to me (I'm at zero).


----------



## arpeggio

Bulldog said:


> Only fifteen? Sounds like a huge number to me (I'm at zero).


I still read most of their their posts. The ignore is to remind me that I should not respond to their remarks.


----------



## ArtMusic

arpeggio said:


> Again this anecdotal and I have no proof so I could be wrong.
> 
> It seems that there is no such thing as a generic audience.
> 
> The audiences in New England are different than the audiences that are in Texas or Europe.
> 
> From what I have read from our Japanese friends, their audiences are very conservative.
> 
> I have attended festivals in New England that were very open to contemporary music.
> 
> I subscribe to the Berlin Philharmonic's Digital Concert hall. They program many avant-garde works. The audience does not appear to be hostile to those performances.
> 
> Generally speaking all of the members on my ignore list have an animas toward modern music. There are only fifteen on my list. Thirteen of them appear to be American.


The Japanese are exploring western classical music. How does does American and western society explore Japanese classical music to the same extent? Not nearly as much. For that, I give the Japanese much deserved credit. They even have orchestras (both modern and HIP). Do we have bands that perform and record Japanese classical music? So I think it is fair to say that (1) great classical music reaches out to outer people and cultures and (2) the Japanese are very open to good art that is not part of their heritage.


----------



## Mandryka

ArtMusic said:


> The Japanese are exploring western classical music. How does does American and western society explore Japanese classical music to the same extent? Not nearly as much. For that, I give the Japanese much deserved credit. They even have orchestras (both modern and HIP). Do we have bands that perform and record Japanese classical music? So I think it is fair to say that (1) great classical music reaches out to outer people and cultures and (2) the Japanese are very open to good art that is not part of their heritage.


Japanese music was a huge influence on Karlheinz Stockhausen, Olivier Messiaen, Michael Finnissy, Jean Claude Eloy, Richard Barrett, Roger Reynolds, Pierre Boulez, John Cage, and Benjamin Britten. What more do you want?


----------



## DaveM

Mandryka said:


> Japanese music was a huge influence on Karlheinz Stockhausen, Olivier Messiaen, Michael Finnissy, Jean Claude Eloy, Richard Barrett, Roger Reynolds, Pierre Boulez, John Cage, and Benjamin Britten. What more do you want?


Sources for the 'huge influence' because for some of those I think that's a 'huge' exaggeration.


----------



## ArtMusic

Mandryka said:


> Japanese music was a huge influence on Karlheinz Stockhausen, Olivier Messiaen, Michael Finnissy, Jean Claude Eloy, Richard Barrett, Roger Reynolds, Pierre Boulez, John Cage, and Benjamin Britten. What more do you want?


I say Japanese music had some influence on those composers, not huge. My point is Japanese society today are exploring, performing and studying western classical music more so than American and western societies are in response to an earlier post above that the Japanese are "very conservative".


----------



## mikeh375

Portamento said:


> The difficulty is that there will never be a consensus on what's essential, so composition departments will just keep emphasizing whatever they want. In my opinion, I think even 12-tone theory is pretty non-essential -- useful for understanding the psyche of certain composers but not much else. What we need is a lot more focus on non-Western traditions / modes of thinking about music. Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart were just 3 people and there's no reason why they should make up a huge chunk of the curriculum.


In my post, I didn't for one minute consider any supposed agendas from composition depts. because I didn't experience any and believe composing is fundamentally autodidactic. No matter how much a particular way of doing things may be encouraged, if it goes against the grain of a composer's natural aesthetic instincts, they wont be swayed. In my time at a conservatory, there was no agenda whatsoever, just emphasis on finding individual ways. This included exposure to new ways of doing things but that was all, there was no pressure to conform. A lot of the time we were left to our own devices.

The need for a 'consensus' on what is essential (to composing) apart from the obvious basics, seems to me to be not important given the plethora of styles being utilised today and the many methods of composing available. As you know, anything goes stylistically, from tonality, artificial modes, advanced common practice, atonality, aleatoric techniques, advanced instrument techniques, avant garde etc, as well as serialism. I would just add that as an organising principle, be that loosely, strictly, or in a more idiosyncratic way, 12 tone technique is still a valuable tool for a composer to learn imv because it can exert varying degrees of control and justification over dissonance and choice.

I'm also pretty sure that composers and students in formative years can benefit greatly from study of earlier masters and the 3 you mentioned can teach a lot. If I ruled the world, Bach especially would be compulsory..... I do agree that perhaps an ancillary course on music beyond the West would also be beneficial to younger composers and instrumentalists, opening their ears to the possibilities beyond CP and the Western canon. Perhaps such courses do exist in some institutions. In my time, we were exposed to Indian music and ragas amongst other styles and there was a Jazz course.


----------



## Mandryka

ArtMusic said:


> . My point is Japanese society today are exploring, performing and studying western classical music more so than American and western societies are in response to an earlier post above that the Japanese are "very conservative".


Yes I realised this a couple of hours after making the post, sorry for the misunderstanding


----------



## Nereffid

Portamento said:


> I wrote something riffing off of one of mmsbls' posts, but it's so long that I'm just attaching it as a pdf...





Portamento said:


> Musicologist Peter Burkholder has a model for understanding post-c. 1860 classical music that I like a lot. Essentially, from c. 1860 onward the living composer has been faced with the challenge of competing with past composers for space in concert hall repertoire. The formation of the Western canon, a highly selective body of work from c. 1600 that has achieved classic status, and the simultaneous "rise of the masters" can also be dated to this period. (We could get into how the Westen canon formed, but that is a long story for another post.) As concert halls lost their social function and became "museums" for the concentrated study of canonized music, living composers' works became increasingly historicist-that is, geared towards inclusion in these museums.


From the modern audience's point of view, add 100+ years of reinforcement of the historic canon from radio, TV and recordings and with every passing year there's an increasing body of what we might call "critically acclaimed" music that the general concert-going audience will never embrace.

One thing that strikes me from the Classic FM Hall of Fame - a radio audience, not a concert audience, of course - is that fully one-sixth of the music chosen by listeners is music that's less than 50 years old. But it's almost entirely film music, video game music, and the likes of Einaudi and Jenkins. Gorecki's 3rd symphony, Pärt's Spiegel im Spiegel and Glass's first violin concerto have been "allowed" into the mix, but otherwise there's no sign of anything much getting into this particular museum.


----------



## milk

ArtMusic said:


> The Japanese are exploring western classical music. How does does American and western society explore Japanese classical music to the same extent? Not nearly as much. For that, I give the Japanese much deserved credit. They even have orchestras (both modern and HIP). Do we have bands that perform and record Japanese classical music? So I think it is fair to say that (1) great classical music reaches out to outer people and cultures and (2) the Japanese are very open to good art that is not part of their heritage.


I don't really agree with this point of view. Are today's Japanese more like Edo people or Americans? Or maybe somewhere else "culturally"? I live in Japan and really think about it differently. I know this is a bit of a different topic but Japanese have an extremely conservative "tradition" to begin with because it revolves around reproducing the same craft forms exactly the same way as much as possible. While Shakespeare can be reinterpreted for modern audiences in an infinite variety of ways, in terms of staging, Noh theater is supposed to be reproduced in the same way each time. This makes sense in a society that values rote learning and in which sushi chefs learn their trade by watching and copying a master. I once had a history professor here tell me that Japanese don't do "interpretation" but only "stick to the facts." Even still, Noh theater is not popular. Kabuki is popular with older people still (but I, admittedly, don't know too much about it). Anyway, I don't think the embrace of western classical music makes a society liberal anymore than the adoption of suits and ties as a standard for formal dress does. I also don't think of classical only in terms of a parochial art form for one culture. Japanese audiences are probably similar to some audiences in some countries and/or I'd say they are very conservative despite producing a lot of big names in classical music. Japanese have a training that pushes a set of tastes. Maybe every society has this kind of deeper propaganda but Japan is stricter and more group-oriented. These days, classical music is popular but mostly for the kind of music Deutschler is pushing. HIP is very marginal here, despite claiming Maasaki Suzuki for its own, as well new forms of contemporary art music. Incidentally, I have a Japanese acquantance here who plays mainly French avant garde piano repertoire and works with a lot of French composers that are hosted by The French Institute and they seem to have a very pessimistic view of the scene here. Of course, there's much more going on in Tokyo than other places. I think a lot of stuff Japan does have in terms of institutions promoting new music is left over from the bubble years. I see a decline in art and global relevance in Japan. Like everywhere, social media seems to have produced a generation with a short attention span. Most young people are into J-pop, a simpler and shallower version of popular music, which is produced for young people by old men in big management companies. Young people don't read and don't understand even the power of their own economy and culture. They're extremely busy with so much busy-work. They don't have time for books much and are poorer and more squeezed than previous generations. 
Maybe the rest of the developed world is also like this to varying degrees. It makes me pessimistic about music. People seem to be satisfied in their little world and more stuck at the lower rungs of Maslow's pyramid. I don't see any reason why modern composers shouldn't be able to produce music that expresses the human capacity for transcendence but I also wonder if global capitalism depresses that capacity in humanity because it tends to reduce people to what's easily copied and packaged on a mass scale.


----------



## SanAntone

Cultures are changing across the planet because of social media and the quick and easy manner in which music and other aspects of a culture can travel into people's homes. The reverse has been true as well, Eastern culture has had a big impact in the West, as well as so-called "primitive" art from so-called undeveloped "third world" countries (these terms are an example of the self-absorbed cultural superiority that exists in the West, and something not to be proud of).

All this talk of the superiority of Western classical music makes me want to vomit.


----------



## milk

SanAntone said:


> Cultures are changing across the planet because of social media and the quick and easy manner in which music and other aspects of a culture can travel into people's homes. The reverse has been true as well, Eastern culture has had a big impact in the West, as well as so-called "primitive" art from so-called undeveloped "third world" countries (these terms are an example of the self-absorbed cultural superiority that exists in the West, and something not to be proud of).
> 
> All this talk of the superiority of Western classical music makes me want to vomit.


Over the years I've mentioned to some Japanese college students that Japanese Zen penetrated every facet of a certain generation of artists in America. The trouble is, they'd no idea what Zen is, aside from tea ceremony which is promoted in college clubs, so I gave up. Sometimes I'd say, "well, you know that writer Murakami? He was into the American writers who were into Japanese Zen." The trouble is, I only met one student every two or three years who'd read a Murakami book. 
Anyway, I love the influence of Asian music on 20th century American art music. Harry Partch was such a wild genius too. Sad to say that if any of the kids knew who he was today, they'd cancel him for cultural appropriation.


----------



## mmsbls

Nereffid said:


> From the modern audience's point of view, add 100+ years of reinforcement of the historic canon from radio, TV and recordings and with every passing year there's an increasing body of what we might call "critically acclaimed" music that the general concert-going audience will never embrace.
> 
> One thing that strikes me from the Classic FM Hall of Fame - a radio audience, not a concert audience, of course - is that fully one-sixth of the music chosen by listeners is music that's less than 50 years old. But it's almost entirely film music, video game music, and the likes of Einaudi and Jenkins. Gorecki's 3rd symphony, Pärt's Spiegel im Spiegel and Glass's first violin concerto have been "allowed" into the mix, but otherwise there's no sign of anything much getting into this particular museum.


That's interesting about the Classic FM poll. I assume most Classic FM listeners' classical music exposure is dictated primarily by the station playlist. They likely choose from what's played on that station. So the question is why do the DJs play those works? Presumably they have some reason to believe certain film scores, video game music, and other contemporary works will be highly enjoyed by their audience. I'd be interested to learn where those reasons came from.

I see that John Williams had 5 of the top 40 works in the 2020 Hall as well as many more in the top 300. I realize he wrote 99% of all movie scores, but that's still impressive.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

milk said:


> *Harry Partch was such a wild genius too. Sad to say that if any of the kids knew who he was today, they'd cancel him for cultural appropriation.*


Hey, I'm a "kid" (21) today who loves Partch and finds the whole notion of "cultural appropriation" - with a few exceptions - utterly ridiculous and contrary to liberal values.


----------



## Bulldog

SanAntone said:


> Cultures are changing across the planet because of social media and the quick and easy manner in which music and other aspects of a culture can travel into people's homes. The reverse has been true as well, Eastern culture has had a big impact in the West, as well as so-called "primitive" art from so-called undeveloped "third world" countries (these terms are an example of the self-absorbed cultural superiority that exists in the West, and something not to be proud of).
> 
> All this talk of the superiority of Western classical music makes me want to vomit.


I wish you hadn't said that. My stomach has been churning all morning.


----------



## SanAntone

Bulldog said:


> I wish you hadn't said that. My stomach has been churning all morning.


LOL :lol: Sorry.


----------



## Fabulin

mmsbls said:


> That's interesting about the Classic FM poll. I assume most Classic FM listeners' classical music exposure is dictated primarily by the station playlist. They likely choose from what's played on that station. So the question is why do the DJs play those works? Presumably they have some reason to believe certain film scores, video game music, and other contemporary works will be highly enjoyed by their audience. I'd be interested to learn where those reasons came from.
> 
> I see that John Williams had 5 of the top 40 works in the 2020 Hall as well as many more in the top 300. I realize he wrote 99% of all movie scores, but that's still impressive.


The curiosity got the better of me and I have jotted down the results into a chart. This was the top 30 (each had at least 3 works on the list):


----------



## fluteman

arpeggio said:


> Again this anecdotal and I have no proof so I could be wrong.
> 
> It seems that there is no such thing as a generic audience.
> 
> The audiences in New England are different than the audiences that are in Texas or Europe.
> 
> From what I have read from our Japanese friends, their audiences are very conservative.
> 
> I have attended festivals in New England that were very open to contemporary music.
> 
> I subscribe to the Berlin Philharmonic's Digital Concert hall. They program many avant-garde works. The audience does not appear to be hostile to those performances.
> 
> Generally speaking all of the members on my ignore list have an animas toward modern music. There are only fifteen on my list. Thirteen of them appear to be American.


I know all too well what you mean. Part of it is the strong traditional preference of the American audience for 19th century German and Austrian music, since the people who taught us classical music came from that background. World War II put a dent in that tradition, but it persists despite some resistance.

Unfortunately, the war and the ensuing 'cold war' gave a political perspective to that musical tradition, and some began to think of classical music in terms of right v. left or fascist v. communist. Some posters here are unwilling or unable to free themselves from this political perspective, and I agree they need to be 'ignored' in the sense of not rising to their bait, which can only result in a lot of useless debate.



SanAntone said:


> Cultures are changing across the planet because of social media and the quick and easy manner in which music and other aspects of a culture can travel into people's homes. The reverse has been true as well, Eastern culture has had a big impact in the West, as well as so-called "primitive" art from so-called undeveloped "third world" countries (these terms are an example of the self-absorbed cultural superiority that exists in the West, and something not to be proud of).
> 
> All this talk of the superiority of Western classical music makes me want to vomit.


Good post, except, please don't vomit. I recommend a nice cup of green matcha tea. Play that CD of koto music you have somewhere on the shelf. Then come back and continue fighting the good fight.


----------



## Fabulin

mmsbls said:


> I realize he wrote 99% of all movie scores


Mario Tedesco, Willy Schmidt-Gentner, Max Steiner, Elmer Bernstein, Ennio Morricone, Jerry Goldsmith, and quite a few others each wrote hundreds of scores. The number of films and TV series out there is immense - it's typical for the more famous of Hollywood session musicians to have played on 500, 800, or even a thousand different productions.
https://thelegacyofjohnwilliams.com/category/podcast/l-a-studio-legends/

Williams has written "only" 115 scores, although to be fair they are _on average _much longer and denser than what was typical for his contemporaries and predecessors in the film world. And even composers after him (nowadays) only write mammoth scores in teams.

Goldsmith and Morricone worked perhaps as fast as Williams did, but Williams's efforts were much more concentrated into fewer, higher quality works.

Of course what matters the most to Classic FM is his skill in melody writing. That's what got him into top 5, and Tchaikovsky into top 3. No surprise there.

By the way, Deutscher is a huge fan of Williams.


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> Good post, except, please don't vomit. I recommend a nice cup of green matcha tea. Play that CD of koto music you have somewhere on the shelf. Then come back and continue fighting the good fight.


This made me laugh, for all the right reasons.


----------



## Strange Magic

Fabulin said:


> The curiosity got the better of me and I have jotted down the results into a chart. This was the top 30 (each had at least 3 works on the list):
> View attachment 152767


What a strange poll! No Prokofiev. Bizarre! And Ravel at the bottom of the list??


----------



## mmsbls

Fabulin said:


> Mario Tedesco, Willy Schmidt-Gentner, Max Steiner, Elmer Bernstein, Ennio Morricone, Jerry Goldsmith, and quite a few others each wrote hundreds of scores. The number of films and TV series out there is immense - it's typical for the more famous of Hollywood session musicians to have played on 500, 800, or even a thousand different productions.
> https://thelegacyofjohnwilliams.com/category/podcast/l-a-studio-legends/
> 
> Williams has written "only" 115 scores, although to be fair they are _on average _much longer and denser than what was typical for his contemporaries and predecessors in the film world. And even composers after him (nowadays) only write mammoth scores in teams.


Yes, I worried that when I wrote that it wouldn't be taken as obvious sarcasm. I actually do think that Williams is exceedingly talented.


----------



## mmsbls

Strange Magic said:


> What a strange poll! No Prokofiev. Bizarre! And Ravel at the bottom of the list??


Actually I looked at the results and felt they roughly made sense given who was voting. The biggest surprise to me (in the quick look I had at the top 300) was that Mahler's Symphony No. 2 was on the list. How often does any classical music station play works that are over an hour long?

Sure this list would be laughed at by many TC members, but they have a completely different perspective on classical music. Elgar and Vaughn-Williams are British and likely played much more on Classic FM than on non-British stations. I assume when people voted for Wagner they were not voting for Tristan and Isolde but rather the Liebestod, not Die Walkure but rather the Ride of the Valkyries, and not Tannhauser but rather (I guess) the Pilgrim's Chorus and Bacchanale. I'm surprised that Bach's Mass in B Minor was in the top 100 due to its length.

I basically look at the list as the most enjoyed works played on Classic FM.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^That does explain a lot. I think we could easily put together a list of short "greatest hits" of each composer to account for the poll. But where is the "Classical Symphony" and Bolero?


----------



## fluteman

Fabulin said:


> By the way, Deutscher is a huge fan of Williams.


No surprise there, as Williams, though innovative in his way, fundamentally represents a continuation of the American movie / German and Austrian classical music tradition, as a student of the German Franz Waxman (himself a student of Max Reger) and the Juilliard graduate Bernard Herrmann. Max Steiner, one of the main founders of this tradition (and composer of the score for Gone With The Wind), was Austrian and studied with Robert Fuchs (who was greatly admired by Brahms) and Gustav Mahler.


----------



## milk

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Hey, I'm a "kid" (21) today who loves Partch and finds the whole notion of "cultural appropriation" - with a few exceptions - utterly ridiculous and contrary to liberal values.


Do you think I'm being paranoid about cultural appropriation? I could be overreacting.


----------



## Fabulin

fluteman said:


> No surprise there, as Williams, though innovative in his way, fundamentally represents a continuation of the American movie / German and Austrian classical music tradition, as a student of the German Franz Waxman (himself a student of Max Reger) and the Juilliard graduate Bernard Herrmann. Max Steiner, one of the main founders of this tradition (and composer of the score for Gone With The Wind), was Austrian and studied with Robert Fuchs (who was greatly admired by Brahms) and Gustav Mahler.


The story of the musical heart of Vienna transplanted under the Californian sun is a curious one, and rarely really put together into perspective:

Before The Great War Erich Korngold and Arnold Schoenberg had been jointly voted the greatest living Viennese composers.

By 1940 both were living in L.A., as were:

Julius Korngold - E. Hanslick's protegee and successor as a chief Viennese music critic
Alma Mahler and her circle
Bruno Walter - the former neighbour of the Korngolds
a host of first rate refugee musicians who formed the L.A. Phil, Studio Orchestras, the Hollywood Bowl Orchestra, and finally the "Columbia Symphony Orchestra - West"
Igor Stravinsky

And yet there was never a Viennese closure of that story.

Korngold was not welcome home after the war not only because his style was too innocent by some two World Wars, but also because of the gossip that he had been making huge cash during the war (in fact, he was philanthropic to the point where his friends had to fund his funeral).

Max Steiner was a non-entity to the Viennese, despite being musically and in spirit the closest to a direct successor of Johann Strauss and Franz Lehar. He would never return home.

Spielberg hired Williams because he imagined him as an 80-year old, Russian-style bearded man who wrote classical music for films. He called Williams "Max" after Max Steiner, and on several occasions (E.T., Empire of the Sun, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, War Horse) wanted Steinerian moments in music.

And yet when it comes to how it really begun - to _Jaws _- the exhausted by the production Spielberg wanted something more similar to an angsty Bernard Herrmann score for that one, just like the score he had for his TV film "The Duel". It was Williams who suggested scoring it as a "swashbuckling" adventure, with monstrous moments being in the vein of Waxmann, and the more heroic ones being closer to Korngold.

Two years later, there was no Korngold on the temp-track of the most fanfarous moments of Star Wars either - unless maybe somewhere in the space battle at the end. There were Miklós Rózsa, Antonin Dvorak, Edward Elgar, but not Korngold. Williams made that connection on his own, because when Lukas talked about music "like in the old serials", the composer remembered rather the sort of adventures he himself had watched as a child, and the music of the older composers he started under, which he wanted to bring back.

Erich Korngold's son - the music producer George Korngold, was quite pleased with the double revival of his father's legacy - first his own with Charles Gerhardt in 1972, then the second one by Williams. G. Korngold and Gerhardt recognized Star Wars and Close Encounters as immediate classics, and re-recorded and produced suites from them the same year the film came out - I don't think this had ever happened before (or after) with film scores. Certainly not at Kingsway Hall with Philharmonia Orchestra, and Kenneth Wilkinson as engineer.

Fast forward 40 years of JW's hard work, and he was being courted by the management of the Vienna Philharmonic to come and become the second American ever to conduct this orchestra, nota bene after his friend Leonard Bernstein.

I think that this was in part because of a strand of Korngoldian (and Brucknerian) spirit that he had nourished within his own style. Something was brought back home with that visit. During the conducting of the Close Encounters, in the finale Williams had precisely, to a split second, replicated Gerhardt's conducting from the 1977 recording.

Afterwards, Williams was commissioned to write a new fanfare for the Philharmoniker Ball, to replace the one by Richard Strauss, who was by the way Korngold's godfather, and who is Alma Deutscher's No. 1 favourite. Full Circle!

*P.S. *After an extensive marketing campaign, the recordings made during that visit were reported by the critic Norman Lebrecht to have been the best selling classical record of the year.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

milk said:


> Do you think I'm being paranoid about cultural appropriation? I could be overreacting.


I don't know... it is a pretty toxic idea that seems to have taken root in academia and society at large. I would wager that notion of "cultural appropriation" has done far more harm than good to my generation when it comes to the sharing, preservation, and prosperity of underrepresented cultures. People do seem afraid to be influenced by, actively incorporate ideas from, or even comment on cultures other than their own. But to what extent this is true, I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer.

At any rate, I'm a straight white male, so I'm not really supposed to have any say in the topic whatsoever.


----------



## fluteman

Fabulin said:


> The story of the musical heart of Vienna transplanted under the Californian sun is a curious one, and rarely really put together into perspective:


Yes, indeed. But not a surprising story to me, since as I said in an earlier post, the influx of German musicians began to profoundly influence American musical life in the mid-19th century, and that continued until the mid-20th century. John Williams is probably the last major living Hollywood composer with roots in that era.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> All this talk of the superiority of Western classical music makes me want to vomit.


If a woman was forced into a men's washroom, she would feel the same way.
This is why there should be separate forums; ones for "classical music (mostly common practice music)" and also ones for "non-classical music (which includes avant-garde / modern philosophical stuff)". It's for our own good.


----------



## milk

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I don't know... it is a pretty toxic idea that seems to have taken root in academia and society at large. I would wager that notion of "cultural appropriation" has done far more harm than good to my generation when it comes to the sharing, preservation, and prosperity of underrepresented cultures. People do seem afraid to be influenced by, actively incorporate ideas from, or even comment on cultures other than their own. But to what extent this is true, I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer.
> 
> At any rate, I'm a straight white male, so I'm not really supposed to have any say in the topic whatsoever.


 The Beatles would be cancelled too. And Picasso.


----------



## Portamento

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I don't know... it is a pretty toxic idea that seems to have taken root in academia and society at large. I would wager that notion of "cultural appropriation" has done far more harm than good to my generation when it comes to the sharing, preservation, and prosperity of underrepresented cultures. People do seem afraid to be influenced by, actively incorporate ideas from, or even comment on cultures other than their own. But to what extent this is true, I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer.
> 
> At any rate, I'm a straight white male, so I'm not really supposed to have any say in the topic whatsoever.





milk said:


> The Beatles would be cancelled too. And Picasso.


Whoa, hold your horses. No one is trying to "cancel" the Beatles just because they were inspired by the blues; they were respectful towards the blues' origins and did not try to exploit it. It's the same case with Ravel in his Violin Sonata No. 2. There's nothing _inherently wrong_ with appropriation. This stuff is very contextual and rarely reaches hugely offensive (*cough* _The Mikado_ *cough*) levels. The main thing to keep in mind is that "underrepresented cultures" should have the power to control/maintain their own cultures.



hammeredklavier said:


> If a woman was forced into a men's washroom, she would feel the same way.
> This is why there should be separate forums; ones for "classical music (mostly common practice music)" and also ones for "non-classical music (which includes avant-garde / modern philosophical stuff)". It's for our own good.


_Sigh._


----------



## milk

Portamento said:


> Whoa, hold your horses. No one is trying to "cancel" the Beatles just because they were inspired by the blues; they were respectful towards the blues' origins and did not try to exploit it. It's the same case with Ravel in his Violin Sonata No. 2. There's nothing _inherently wrong_ with appropriation. This stuff is very contextual and rarely reaches hugely offensive (*cough* _The Mikado_ *cough*) levels. The main thing to keep in mind is that "underrepresented cultures" should have the power to control/maintain their own cultures.
> 
> _Sigh._


 There are many examples of attempts to cancel what is perceived as cultural appropriation. The argument is not only absurd in theory, it's led to real absurdities. It's not just blues that the Beatles appropriated, it's Indian music too. When it comes to these kinds of appropriations in art and music, they're everywhere of course. I'd say we couldn't have art without borrowings, influences, dialogues and even, homage/theft. You say no one is trying to cancel the Beatles but I think it's the logical conclusion of the argument PLUS there are already examples of it spilling over into the real world. To me cultural appropriation is just one aspect of the "woke" culture that's running amok and causing all kinds of problems.


----------



## Strange Magic

The "woke" culture can be a difficult situation for a while but it is, IMO, a passing phenomenon that will wane as world culture under the New Stasis becomes both more homogeneous and yet more fragmented. It will never go completely away, but will depend in intensity on the degree to which cultures choose to regard their uniqueness as essential or instead as a hobby to be brought out on on Feast Days and on parade days, when the colorful costumes (often products of 19th century boosterism) and folk songs and dances are put on display. The danger is that demagogues on either side will make of cultural differences or the removal of them a matter of pitting groups against one another.


----------



## fbjim

a more healthy attitude is not to "cancel" the work of the beatles et al, but instead "cancel" the culture and institutions which enabled predominantly white artists to profit off the works of uncredited black ones. 


and then there's just junky stuff where "ethnic" music and melodies is used specifically for "foreign flavor" without regard to the culture around it, but that kind of thing is inherently going to be less important than what is baked into the institutions of the music recording industry


e) also this stuff is far less widespread than people think because of the dynamics of social media (where controversial posts people hate are boosted) and news, where a single naive college student getting mad at indian food being served in the cafeteria can become a three week news cycle if enough pundits decide it. i promise you that beyond a few random pundits and posts on Twitter, there is no risk of people running around pulling the Beatles off the shelves.


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> The "woke" culture can be a difficult situation for a while but it is, IMO, a passing phenomenon that will wane as world culture under the New Stasis becomes both more homogeneous and yet more fragmented. It will never go completely away, but will depend in intensity on the degree to which cultures choose to regard their uniqueness as essential or instead as a hobby to be brought out on on Feast Days and on parade days, when the colorful costumes (often products of 19th century boosterism) and folk songs and dances are put on display. The danger is that demagogues on either side will make of cultural differences or the removal of them a matter of pitting groups against one another.


I have no quarrel with the New Stasis paradigm that you frequently mention here. However, it is nothing new for disparate cultures to merge, leaving little more than fragments of what formerly were complete and entirely separate musical traditions. This happened when the Greek empire expanded to its position of dominance in the ancient world. One separate kingdom taken over by the Greeks was called Phrygia, in what is now western Turkey. Originally, the Phrygians had their own language, dress and customs, and importantly for us here at TC, a strong musical tradition. Phrygian music became incorporated in Greek traditions, including their instrument now translated as the "flute", but more accurately called the aulos, a simultaneously played pair of instruments that most resemble the modern oboe. (Two were played at once to create more volume, not harmony.) My moniker shows the aulos being played by the satyr Marsyas, on a coin minted in the Phrygian city of Apameia, during the period 133-48 BCE, when Phrygia already was part of the Greek empire.

Eventually (by the 7th century CE), the distinct Phrygian culture, including its language, had disappeared, and a few centuries after that, the name "Phrygia" ceased being used altogether in what became the Ottoman empire. However, the Phrygian influence on western music remained, and we still acknowledge evidence of that influence today whenever we use the phrygian mode. (Or, when someone is foolhardy enough to attempt to play the oboe, an ill wind that nobody blows good.)

Hammeredklavier's demand that we exclusively discuss what he thinks of as "classical" music and not what he considers avant-garde makes me think of an ancient Phrygian centuries after Phrygia has been incorporated into the Greek empire, bemoaning the gradual loss of the old music, except for fragments here and there.


----------



## Strange Magic

I am no student of the older modes, but note that most flamenco aficionados and guitarists refer to flamenco as being largely in Phrygian mode. Whether this is a cultural fragment transmitted forward for centuries, a spontaneous and random redevelopment of the mode, or an error, I leave to those far wiser than myself. 

Someone far wiser than myself is the delightful Paola Hermosin, here discussing in her beautiful Spanish (with subtitles) the whole subject of the ancient (and modernized) modes as they relate to flamenco. And she plays a mean guitar!


----------



## fluteman

Strange Magic said:


> I am no student of the older modes, but note that most flamenco aficionados and guitarists refer to flamenco as being largely in Phrygian mode. Whether this is a cultural fragment transmitted forward for centuries, a spontaneous and random redevelopment of the mode, or an error, I leave to those far wiser than myself.
> 
> Someone far wiser than myself is the delightful Paola Hermosin, here discussing in her beautiful Spanish (with subtitles) the whole subject of the ancient (and modernized) modes as they relate to flamenco. And she plays a mean guitar!


Great. Now, just as I think of the Dorian mode as the Eleanor Rigby scale, I'll think of the Phrygian mode as the flamenco scale. Of course, while I don't speak Spanish, I notice more recent concepts like the triad and the circle of fifths sneaking in there too.


----------



## Portamento

fbjim said:


> a more healthy attitude is not to "cancel" the work of the beatles et al, but instead "cancel" the culture and institutions which enabled predominantly white artists to profit off the works of uncredited black ones.
> 
> and then there's just junky stuff where "ethnic" music and melodies is used specifically for "foreign flavor" without regard to the culture around it, but that kind of thing is inherently going to be less important than what is baked into the institutions of the music recording industry
> 
> e) also this stuff is far less widespread than people think because of the dynamics of social media (where controversial posts people hate are boosted) and news, where a single naive college student getting mad at indian food being served in the cafeteria can become a three week news cycle if enough pundits decide it. i promise you that beyond a few random pundits and posts on Twitter, there is no risk of people running around pulling the Beatles off the shelves.


Well said! Take my "like"


----------



## BachIsBest

fbjim said:


> a more healthy attitude is not to "cancel" the work of the beatles et al, but instead "cancel" the culture and institutions which enabled predominantly white artists to profit off the works of uncredited black ones.
> 
> and then there's just junky stuff where "ethnic" music and melodies is used specifically for "foreign flavor" without regard to the culture around it, but that kind of thing is inherently going to be less important than what is baked into the institutions of the music recording industry
> 
> e) also this stuff is far less widespread than people think because of the dynamics of social media (where controversial posts people hate are boosted) and news, where a single naive college student getting mad at indian food being served in the cafeteria can become a three week news cycle if enough pundits decide it. i promise you that beyond a few random pundits and posts on Twitter, there is no risk of people running around pulling the Beatles off the shelves.


What about books by popular children's authors? No risk there either?


----------



## Portamento

BachIsBest said:


> What about books by popular children's authors? No risk there either?


This question wasn't directed at me, but I think there's definitely a lot of risk with popular children's authors. You may be referring to the recent Dr. Seuss controversy here. I think with problematic film -- say the "Censored Eleven" Warner Bros animations -- it's a lot easier to add a disclaimer; something like "these views were commonplace in the past, but to edit footage would be to pretend they didn't exist." Books are different though. Parents usually buy Dr. Seuss books in bulk and wouldn't check the first page(s) for a disclaimer. Could disclaimers have been put on the book covers? I don't know, but I certainly understand the decision to "cancel" the offenders.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

fluteman said:


> This happened when the Greek empire expanded to its position of dominance in the ancient world. One separate kingdom taken over by the Greeks was called Phrygia, in what is now western Turkey. Originally, the Phrygians had their own language, dress and customs, and importantly for us here at TC, a strong musical tradition. Phrygian music became incorporated in Greek traditions, including their instrument now translated as the "flute", but more accurately called the aulos, a simultaneously played pair of instruments that most resemble the modern oboe. (Two were played at once to create more volume, not harmony.) My moniker shows the aulos being played by the satyr Marsyas, on a coin minted in the Phrygian city of Apameia, during the period 133-48 BCE, when Phrygia already was part of the Greek empire.
> 
> Eventually (by the 7th century CE), the distinct Phrygian culture, including its language, had disappeared, and a few centuries after that, the name "Phrygia" ceased being used altogether in what became the Ottoman empire. However, the Phrygian influence on western music remained, and we still acknowledge evidence of that influence today whenever we use the phrygian mode. (Or, when someone is foolhardy enough to attempt to play the oboe, an ill wind that nobody blows good.)
> 
> Hammeredklavier's demand that we exclusively discuss what he thinks of as "classical" music and not what he considers avant-garde makes me think of an ancient Phrygian centuries after Phrygia has been incorporated into the Greek empire, bemoaning the gradual loss of the old music, except for fragments here and there.


First, there was never such thing as "Greek empire". Second, modern mode names are not the same as ancient modes, so there is zero influence. What you call "phrygian" could have been called by them "Dorian" (there were other names, too, depending on the tuning). Except that they thought modes as descending, so their "Dorian" may be actually the modern major scale mode? 
And Spanish flamenco music is derived from North African music schools traditions (considering Iberian peninsula was under the rule of Moors/Berbers for quite a lot of time).


----------



## milk

fbjim said:


> a more healthy attitude is not to "cancel" the work of the beatles et al, but instead "cancel" the culture and institutions which enabled predominantly white artists to profit off the works of uncredited black ones.
> 
> and then there's just junky stuff where "ethnic" music and melodies is used specifically for "foreign flavor" without regard to the culture around it, but that kind of thing is inherently going to be less important than what is baked into the institutions of the music recording industry
> 
> e) also this stuff is far less widespread than people think because of the dynamics of social media (where controversial posts people hate are boosted) and news, where a single naive college student getting mad at indian food being served in the cafeteria can become a three week news cycle if enough pundits decide it. i promise you that beyond a few random pundits and posts on Twitter, there is no risk of people running around pulling the Beatles off the shelves.


 it's easy to minimize when most people that are affected by cancel culture really aren't Beatle-famous or even well-known. I DO think it will affect music and the way composers like Harry Partch are seen in the future. In the mean time, it pops up in other places: "There is a List of Every Culturally Appropriative Restaurant in Portland"
https://www.tastingtable.com/dine/n...rritos-cultural-appropriation-restaurant-list
And if cultural appropriation doesn't get Picasso, sooner or later, MeToo will. They've got Philip Roth in their grip and they're not letting go.


----------



## Strange Magic

> BabyGiraffe: "And Spanish flamenco music is derived from North African music schools traditions (considering Iberian peninsula was under the rule of Moors/Berbers for quite a lot of time)."


You may be the only person who knows for certain the origins of flamenco. Everybody else attributes flamenco to Indian, Gitano, Jewish, Ecclesiastical, and/or Moorish/Arabic sources, either separately or together, in some unknown combination, or not.

The truth is--nobody knows from what roots flamenco developed. "Experts" have debated this question for many decades, but the lack of evidence continues to obscure flamenco's origins.


----------



## fluteman

BabyGiraffe said:


> First, there was never such thing as "Greek empire". Second, modern mode names are not the same as ancient modes, so there is zero influence. What you call "phrygian" could have been called by them "Dorian" (there were other names, too, depending on the tuning). Except that they thought modes as descending, so their "Dorian" may be actually the modern major scale mode?
> And Spanish flamenco music is derived from North African music schools traditions (considering Iberian peninsula was under the rule of Moors/Berbers for quite a lot of time).


Awww, this is a cultural forum, not a political history class. Yes, the territory conquered by Alexander the Great essentially splintered into separate Hellenistic 'kingdoms', including the Seleucid Empire (which itself was not always a single united political entity), which would have included Phrygia. I meant the dominance of the "Greek empire" in cultural terms, not that it was a single united political entity. (Edit: Notice the Greek inscriptions on the coin that I use for my moniker, though the Greeks lost control of Phrygia in the later part of the period in which this coin was minted.) And I said we acknowledge the significance of the Phrygian contribution to music in the ancient world with the term "Phrygian mode". AFAIK, this is a modern music theory term. Finally, I wasn't saying anything about flamenco music other than to thank Strange Magic for his link. I would imagine flamenco music derives from more than one source or musical tradition.


----------



## DaveM

Everyone knows that the ancient Inca started flamenco. They got the name from watching the movements of flamingos hence the name flam-inca which the Spanish changed to flamenco when they came to the Americas and took up the dance.


----------



## fluteman

DaveM said:


> Everyone knows that the ancient Inca started flamenco. They got the name from watching the movements of flamingos hence the name flam-inca which the Spanish changed to flamenco when they came to the Americas and took up the dance.


Your theory is for the birds.


----------



## Portamento

milk said:


> it's easy to minimize when most people that are affected by cancel culture really aren't Beatle-famous or even well-known. I DO think it will affect music and the way composers like Harry Partch are seen in the future. In the mean time, it pops up in other places: "There is a List of Every Culturally Appropriative Restaurant in Portland"
> https://www.tastingtable.com/dine/n...rritos-cultural-appropriation-restaurant-list
> And if cultural appropriation doesn't get Picasso, sooner or later, MeToo will. They've got Philip Roth in their grip and they're not letting go.


You're being ridiculous. Partch is not going to be cancelled because he did not seek to exploit other cultures by appropriating them. Charles Griffes, on the other hand (to name another American composer), did appropriate non-Western culture in the "exotic" / offensive sort of way.

The Portland story is complicated. However, what's clear was that the owners of the burrito shop had a certain amount of privilege to visit Mexico on holiday and, upon starting their business, quickly achieve a feature in a publication. They didn't recognize the problematic narrative that went along with their actions, but should they have been cancelled for it? I don't think so, because conservatives immediately jumped on it as a sign of cancel culture run amok. There are much worse examples of appropriation out there and focusing on these minor things obscures the main message (which is a good one). I'm not as familiar with Philip Roth, but he was definitely... well, a complicated man.


----------



## pianozach

Portamento said:


> " . . . As concert halls lost their social function and became "museums" for the concentrated study of canonized music, living composers' works became increasingly historicist-that is, geared
> towards inclusion in these museums. . . "


We honestly do the same for fine art. It hangs in actual museums, and is, in effect, "historicist". There might be a room, or even a small wing dedicated to current works.

There will be smaller galleries that display ONLY new works as well.



Portamento said:


> "Clearly, Brahms' music can be an "allusory game," but you need to be an experience[d] listener to play. In other words, Brahms succeeded in writing music for an audience who was intimately familiar with the Western canon."


I like this. I've started a thread of entry-level Classical Music for novices titled *Beginner's Guide to Classical Music*, and *Brahms* gets short shrift, as his music is quite complex, and not easily accessible to those not familiar with Classical Music. In fact, he has only one entry in the Top 100 (the *Eroica piano trio*, at #58).

Ergo, one of history's greatest composer's is not really suitable bait to 'sell' Classical Music to the uninitiated.

I'm amused by the quote from *Schoenberg*, where he predicts he will be remembered, and placed alongside the 'Greats' of yesteryear. Pretty ballsy.

But, as you pointed out, *Schoenberg* and *Brahms* share a tradition of composing music based on the foundations of the past while blasting into brand new musical territory. Hence, Schoenberg doesn't even make my Top 200. No, he doesn't even show up until his *"Verklarte Nacht" for String Sextet, Op. 4* debuts him at #309. Wholly inaccessible.

My list purposefully generic. I cannot make separate lists for all of the different musical backgrounds and demographics of potential Classical listeners. There may be a small cross-section of the uninitiated for which *Schoenberg* is the perfect composer to attract them. But I'm going to stereotype his music as that which would repel listeners. Hell, a great many people that DO listen to Classical Music don't bother with *Schoenberg*.

:tiphat:

I was hesitant to download your pdf - that sort of thing is usually a sign of trouble. But your thoughts are insightful and illuminating.


----------



## pianozach

mikeh375 said:


> In my post, I didn't for one minute consider any supposed agendas from composition depts. because I didn't experience any and believe composing is fundamentally autodidactic. No matter how much a particular way of doing things may be encouraged, if it goes against the grain of a composer's natural aesthetic instincts, they wont be swayed. In my time at a conservatory, there was no agenda whatsoever, just emphasis on finding individual ways. This included exposure to new ways of doing things but that was all, there was no pressure to conform. A lot of the time we were left to our own devices.
> 
> The need for a 'consensus' on what is essential (to composing) apart from the obvious basics, seems to me to be not important given the plethora of styles being utilised today and the many methods of composing available. As you know, anything goes stylistically, from tonality, artificial modes, advanced common practice, atonality, aleatoric techniques, advanced instrument techniques, avant garde etc, as well as serialism. I would just add that as an organising principle, be that loosely, strictly, or in a more idiosyncratic way, 12 tone technique is still a valuable tool for a composer to learn imv because it can exert varying degrees of control and justification over dissonance and choice.
> 
> I'm also pretty sure that composers and students in formative years can benefit greatly from study of earlier masters and the 3 you mentioned can teach a lot. If I ruled the world, Bach especially would be compulsory..... I do agree that perhaps an ancillary course on music beyond the West would also be beneficial to younger composers and instrumentalists, opening their ears to the possibilities beyond CP and the Western canon. Perhaps such courses do exist in some institutions. In my time, we were exposed to Indian music and ragas amongst other styles and there was a Jazz course.


I did my time at a CSU studying piano.

At the time, if it wasn't "Classical", then it wasn't really "music". They would not let music majors play in the pit for musicals by the Theatre Department. At the time they barely tolerated Jazz: Although they had four Jazz bands, they also had NO classes in Jazz (neither history, nor theory). To be IN one of the Jazz bands (they ranked them A, B, C, and D) one had to audition, yet the college had no mechanism to TEACH Jazz performance - one had to have ALREADY been versed in Jazz. Popular music, on the other hand, wasn't even mentioned.


----------



## pianozach

Fabulin said:


> The curiosity got the better of me and I have jotted down the results into a chart. This was the top 30 (each had at least 3 works on the list):
> View attachment 152767


Amusing.

The _*"Big Five"*_: Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Bach, and Williams.


----------



## pianozach

fbjim said:


> a more healthy attitude is not to "cancel" the work of the beatles et al, but instead "cancel" the culture and institutions which enabled predominantly white artists to profit off the works of uncredited black ones.
> 
> and then there's just junky stuff where "ethnic" music and melodies is used specifically for "foreign flavor" without regard to the culture around it, but that kind of thing is inherently going to be less important than what is baked into the institutions of the music recording industry
> 
> e) also this stuff is far less widespread than people think because of the dynamics of social media (where controversial posts people hate are boosted) and news, where a single naive college student getting mad at indian food being served in the cafeteria can become a three week news cycle if enough pundits decide it. i promise you that beyond a few random pundits and posts on Twitter, *there is no risk of people running around pulling the Beatles off the shelves.*


1966.

Well, at least they didn't rip up a photo of the Pope on national television . . . .


----------



## Fabulin

Classic FM list for 2021 is out.

The total number of composers on the list hasn't changed much (2020 - 103; 2021 - 104) However, the top composers sans Mozart - Bach, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Williams, Haendel, and Chopin were significantly hit, each ending up with fewer pieces on the list. Instead, other famous composers experienced modest gains in representation.

A - changes in positions
green / yellow / red - changes in the number of pieces on the list
Only composers with at least 3 pieces represented on the list are shown, ranked first by the number of works on the list, then by the top position achieved.










Previous year, for reference:


----------



## ArtMusic

^ I concur indeed with the top 6;namely, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky and John Williams. This consistency is hardly coincidental.


----------



## arpeggio

^^^^^^
Is the above for American or European audiences?

Or is it for both?


----------



## Fabulin

arpeggio said:


> ^^^^^^
> Is the above for American or European audiences?
> 
> Or is it for both?


Neither! It's the British :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic

Fabulin said:


> Neither! It's the British :lol:


The British listen very well, indeed!


----------



## AliceChong

Hard to say...all peaceful and with depth music..


----------



## AliceChong

From medieval or before medieval drums percussion mostly and tilll 20th or 21st? Some contemporaries too


----------



## arpeggio

Fabulin said:


> Neither! It's the British :lol:


Thanks..................


----------



## SanAntone

*What music do classical music audiences wish to hear*? This is just a guess, but maybe, classical music?


----------



## ArtMusic

SanAntone said:


> *What music do classical music audiences wish to hear*? This is just a guess, but maybe, classical music?


What type of classical music? It's the broadest umbrella there is when it comes to any music.


----------



## arpeggio

^^^^^
The man is making a joke.


----------



## Enthalpy

Maybe more people would go to the concert if they could *bring their children and leave them at a playground*. Soundproof and supervised, right.

I feel absolutely acceptable and enjoyable if, at the concert hall, I can *buy postcards, books, CD, T-shirts... related with the orchestra, the instruments, the hall, the programme*. That won't bring more people, but more money. The programme in a frame ready to nail at the wall, the T-shirt "I was there" with the programme, the picture book of the orchestra's instruments, the book with the orchestra's or the hall's history, the postcard of the building, of the hall's vast interior, of the orchestra, of each instrument.


----------



## pianozach

Re: the FM Classical List:

Elgar? Really?


----------



## mbhaub

Why not? It's a British study. His cello concerto, violin concerto, serenade for strings, Pomp and circumstance, the symphonies, Dream of Gerontious...he really did write a lot of fine music that people enjoy.


----------



## MrMeatScience

As it turns out, British composers get a lot of attention in Britain. I'm not originally British but I live in England, so I see it with an outsider's eyes -- I've never seen people get so excited about Bax, Arnold, Delius, etc. But I've come to appreciate some lesser-known British composers a bit more through immersion. One would be forgiven for having the impression that Elgar was comfortably a top ten composer if the British musical environment was your only point of reference.


----------



## mikeh375

mbhaub said:


> Why not? It's a British study. His cello concerto, violin concerto, serenade for strings, Pomp and circumstance, the symphonies, Dream of Gerontious...he really did write a lot of fine music that people enjoy.


He was also a fabulous top rate orchestrator as you'll doubtless be aware mbhaub.


----------



## Enthusiast

mbhaub said:


> Why not? It's a British study. His cello concerto, violin concerto, serenade for strings, Pomp and circumstance, the symphonies, Dream of Gerontious...he really did write a lot of fine music that people enjoy.


And even then you undersell it. The marches aside the pieces you mention are masterpieces that easily hold their own in the repertoire. And, yes, many people do enjoy it. But it is too serious and often too long for some.


----------



## Enthusiast

MrMeatScience said:


> As it turns out, British composers get a lot of attention in Britain. I'm not originally British but I live in England, so I see it with an outsider's eyes -- I've never seen people get so excited about Bax, Arnold, Delius, etc. But I've come to appreciate some lesser-known British composers a bit more through immersion. One would be forgiven for having the impression that Elgar was comfortably a top ten composer if the British musical environment was your only point of reference.


I don't know what a top 10 composer is but I think many non-British performers, conductors and critics would be comfortable with seeing him as being the equal (or more) of, say, Faure and Schmidt and greater than Saint-Saens and Rimsky-Korsakov. Many would place his finest works in the same bracket as most Bruckner symphonies! Elgar was recognised in Germany before he was recognised in Britain. I am British but have spent most of my life very allergic to the British composer fandom that afflicts our music scene. I always preferred the "international" Britten who those enthusiasts tend to dislike. But I have mellowed and now have quite a lot of time for Bax and many lesser British composers.


----------



## Strange Magic

The Classic FM listings show strange eccentricities of taste: No sign of Prokofiev or Bartok or Stravinsky, and Debussy and Ravel cling to the lower rungs of the ladder. No Respighi at all, though a more tuneful composer would be difficult to name.

Thanks for posting it; it filled my day with wonder.


----------



## SanAntone

What is a classical music audience?


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> What is a classical music audience?


I'll give you the answer I gave earlier in the thread:



mmsbls said:


> First, you asked how to define a classical music audience. Specifically, I am interested in _orchestral_ classical music audiences. There are many ways to define that term, but I am asking a very practical question and so define the term in a practical manner. The simplest definition to help with my question is _all those who have attended an orchestral classical music performance in, say, the past 5 years_. In theory, one might wish to vary the time period or perhaps weight each audience member by the number of performances they have attended in the past 5 years, but a simple "anyone who has attended an orchestral concert in the past 5 years" likely would suffice. Of course audiences are not uniform and will have differing desires, but I'm trying to get a sense of what the majority or plurality would like.


----------



## SanAntone

I don't go to orchestral concerts, in fact I rarely listen to orchestral music. Right now I'm listening to piano sonatas by Chopin, Brahms and Schumann. 

This is what I was getting at. Those who listen to classical music are hard to stereotype, IMO.


----------



## mmsbls

SanAntone said:


> This is what I was getting at. Those who listen to classical music are hard to stereotype, IMO.


I agree classical music listeners are quite varied in their habits both in terms of what they listen to and how they listen. This particular thread question was asked specifically to understand what those who attend orchestral concerts wish to hear, and I described the audience in a manner that would be well defined.

On TC there have been many discussions about the relative numbers of classical music listeners who listen to modern/contemporary music relative to earlier music. Several members have noted that many who listen to modern/contemporary music may do so primarily in less-conventional ways such as streaming, small venues, and festivals. Looking simply at orchestral concerts or record/CD sales may undercount the modern/contemporary audience. I would be quite interested in knowing what percentage of classical music listeners listen to at least a modest amount of modern/contemporary classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast

In Britain I think that there is a fairly substantial audience of adventurous operas but the audience for the less usual in concerts seems to be smaller. I'm not sure why. It could be that corporate purchase of tickets for their guests is more important for concerts and they assume (probably often correctly) their guests will want the very familiar.


----------



## Portamento

mmsbls said:


> On TC there have been many discussions about the relative numbers of classical music listeners who listen to modern/contemporary music relative to earlier music. *Several members have noted that many who listen to modern/contemporary music may do so primarily in less-conventional ways such as streaming, small venues, and festivals.* Looking simply at orchestral concerts or record/CD sales may undercount the modern/contemporary audience. I would be quite interested in knowing what percentage of classical music listeners listen to at least a modest amount of modern/contemporary classical music.


Good point. Naturally, people looking to hear music not welcome in the concert-hall "museum" look outside it.


----------



## science

I suspect there is a kind of tautology at work in the world: there is no music for which there is no audience. So any time we find music, we can assume there is apparently some audience for it. And since there are a lot more people in the world than any of us can visualize, there are probably more potential audiences than most of us can imagine.


----------



## SanAntone

science said:


> I suspect there is a kind of tautology at work in the world: there is no music for which there is no audience. So any time we find music, we can assume there is apparently some audience for it. And since there are a lot more people in the world than any of us can visualize, there are probably more potential audiences than most of us can imagine.


This has been my view as well. I often read on TC by those opposed to experimental new music say that they don't like it and nor do most people. However, the concerts of new music I've been to there has always been an audience, maybe medium to smallish, but there are definitely people who are interested and supportive of new music.


----------



## Nereffid

One of the more interesting discoveries I made in my composer poll series a few years ago was that even on a forum dedicated to classical music, most classical music isn't especially popular. There weren't even 70 composers that were liked by more than half of the poll participants, and the great majority of those were born in the 19th century.

But once you look further down the list, there's a wide range of composers with a small but significant set of listeners. There were about 200 composers liked by at least a quarter of participants, ranging chronologically (and I suppose you could also say stylistically) from Hildegard von Bingen to Kaija Saariaho.

Too many people (on TC and elsewhere) have the bad habit of equating the first set of composers with "classical music", and dismissing the rest.


----------



## ArtMusic

mmsbls said:


> I agree classical music listeners are quite varied in their habits both in terms of what they listen to and how they listen. This particular thread question was asked specifically to understand what those who attend orchestral concerts wish to hear, and I described the audience in a manner that would be well defined.
> 
> On TC there have been many discussions about the relative numbers of classical music listeners who listen to modern/contemporary music relative to earlier music. Several members have noted that many who listen to modern/contemporary music may do so primarily in less-conventional ways such as streaming, small venues, and festivals. Looking simply at orchestral concerts or record/CD sales may undercount the modern/contemporary audience. I would be quite interested in knowing what percentage of classical music listeners listen to at least a modest amount of modern/contemporary classical music.


There is a thread here at TC on an online store based in the UK (PrestoClassical). If you don't know the store, then take a browse. Today, I think they are simply inundated with sheer volume of recordings of all periods of music ever than before since the mid-1950s when the recording industry took place on a mass production scale. I think we are more lucky today than ever to enjoy the abundance of CM recordings and performances. It ain't dead.


----------



## mbhaub

ArtMusic said:


> I think we are more lucky today than ever to enjoy the abundance of CM recordings and performances. It ain't dead.


You've got that right! 50 years ago who ever could have imagined that we'd be able to own recordings all the symphonies by Raff, Bax, Myaskovsky, Schmidt, Weinberger? That we could actually hear all of the Korngold operas and film scores? You can buy huge boxes with the complete works of Bach, Beethoven, Sibelius? We do indeed have a lot to be grateful for. And best of all, there's more to come!


----------



## science

mbhaub said:


> You've got that right! 50 years ago who ever could have imagined that we'd be able to own recordings all the symphonies by Raff, Bax, Myaskovsky, Schmidt, Weinberger? That we could actually hear all of the Korngold operas and film scores? You can buy huge boxes with the complete works of Bach, Beethoven, Sibelius? We do indeed have a lot to be grateful for. And best of all, there's more to come!


What's happened with the availability of Renaissance music just in the past 20 years has been amazing.


----------



## Enthalpy

Again not an answer about the repertoire, but:

If CD could be burned with the *life record of a concert, snappily enough to be ready to sell when the public leaves the building*, some listeners would be happy to buy them, as a memory of the concert or for their friends and relatives.

Memory sticks would be faster than CD, but they don't read in a Hi-Fi, and are too easy to duplicate.


----------



## Enthalpy

I suggested to sell the concert programme in a frame ready to nail at the wall: it could be *"signed" by all the musicians who played on that day* (all copies signed at once, in print). Possibly with some message like "Happy to see you".

Sell a *photograph of the public present at a concert*? It's meaningful for a few events after the Covid restrictions are eased, as these events matter a lot to the musicians and the public: "I was there in this rare occasion". The picture needs some organisation since not everyone wants to be on it. Maybe at the break, telling people to stay in place to be on the picture.


----------



## advokat

Enthalpy said:


> Again not an answer about the repertoire, but:
> 
> If CD could be burned with the *life record of a concert, snappily enough to be ready to sell when the public leaves the building*, some listeners would be happy to buy them, as a memory of the concert or for their friends and relatives.
> 
> Memory sticks would be faster than CD, but they don't read in a Hi-Fi, and are too easy to duplicate.


Very good idea. You can sell flac or even dsd files on a stick, or even better include a download of the live concert (flac or dsd) into the price of attendance, and it may be ready for downloading in a day or two. You might be able to buy a ticket with a download included, or without one. As for duplication, I do not think that should be more of a problem than for the sites such as Presto that sell hi-res files for downloading.


----------



## fbjim

Orchestras, even smaller ones, are getting more and more into self publishing, though I don't think they simply make every recording available. This is almost certainly a good thing, since it allows people in a community to support an orchestra directly, and also allows the orchestra to play and record new and unusual repertoire, such as premieres, which might otherwise be a hard sell for a record label.


----------

