# Music Business and Politics



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Just as there are aspects of Business and politics in any organization, it extends to Religion, Hollywood, and Music.

Not only popular music, but also Classical. Competing authorities in music, media darlings, etc. I think some of us know Raff was a great composer regardless of certain authorities that tend to exalt some and repress others, who made the mistake of getting caught in between the Wagner/Liszt and conservative schools, which is why his music is still relatively obscure. A believing public would accept the bias from some critics, which are just puppets for certain authorities. 

I read in an article somewhere, Thomas Ades was the media darling and promoted as the preeminent contempriary composer (aka latest Fad) for a while, against the author’s own feelings of the composer. I believe certain critics want to ride his coattails in promoting it, but the public hadn’t quite bought the idea. 

Haydn is seen as a goody-goody in a powder wig, since he didn’t have the more flamboyant personalities of. Mozart and Beethoven, but he was more original than either, and his music is technically as great (treading on thin ice here?)

What other stories do you have?


----------



## ericdxx (Jul 7, 2013)

My take is that the current landscape isn't much of a business. There are no viable commercial classical radio stations as far as I know. Orchestras are funded through charities, serious newspapers that cover classical music get tax breaks and subsidies...


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I seem to remember that Mahler was constantly embroiled in all manner of intrigues, partly because he was a Jew, and partly because he wasn't, um, too popular with the orchestras he conducted.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Norman Lebrecht, for all his faults and controversies, has fought the good fight when it comes to being honest and exposing the classical music industry as sometimes just as dirty and unsavoury as all industry. Just because it's a business that deals in works of great beauty, that doesn't mean it's not still just _business_. Recent piece by him in the Spectator talking about the great conductors and their sometimes more-than-improper sexual voracity, not to mention Karajan's well-documented absolutely rapacious appetite for money and power.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I think your premise is wrong from the start: Raff was not a great composer, and his music fell from favor for the best of reasons. Mind you, I thoroughly enjoy most of Raff's music. I wrote a thesis on him 40 years ago in a MM program. I've done recitals with some of his music, traveled long distances to hear a few symphonies played live. Collect practically every cd made of his music. Own scores...yes, I am a Raff fan. But there is nothing to be gained by claiming he was a great composer along the lines of Beethoven, Brahms, or Tchaikovsky. That all of his music has disappeared form programming maybe isn't fair, but it's understandable. I don't think there has been any active political or subversive plot to ban his music - it's just that over time audiences, performers, conductors, etc realized that there wasn't enough substance to warrant continued performances. Brahms said soon after Raff's death that if you're going to put up a statue for Raff, you'd better do it quickly before everyone forgot who he was. As an orchestral player myself, I've played the greatest of the great and then a lot of lesser music. When I play the Brahms 1st or Beethoven 5th, I feel it in my gut: this is great, great music. Playing things like Grand Canyon Suite...eh, it's got some nice tunes, but it's a chore to play and not all the great, really. I've played a lot of music from other forgotten composers: Atterberg, Gal, Korngold, Schreker, Raff and company. Interesting, professional to be sure, but "great"? Hardly.

But there is one composer who I think wrote three of the greatest symphonies, the finest chamber music, and the greatest oratorio of the 20th c: Franz Schmidt. He was the victim of Nazi propaganda and the fact that he did join the party didn't help his cause. Nonetheless, a great composer IMO and thankfully his music is finally getting the recognition it deserves.


----------



## Templeton (Dec 20, 2014)

mbhaub said:


> I think your premise is wrong from the start: Raff was not a great composer, and his music fell from favor for the best of reasons. Mind you, I thoroughly enjoy most of Raff's music. I wrote a thesis on him 40 years ago in a MM program. I've done recitals with some of his music, traveled long distances to hear a few symphonies played live. Collect practically every cd made of his music. Own scores...yes, I am a Raff fan. But there is nothing to be gained by claiming he was a great composer along the lines of Beethoven, Brahms, or Tchaikovsky. That all of his music has disappeared form programming maybe isn't fair, but it's understandable. I don't think there has been any active political or subversive plot to ban his music - it's just that over time audiences, performers, conductors, etc realized that there wasn't enough substance to warrant continued performances. Brahms said soon after Raff's death that if you're going to put up a statue for Raff, you'd better do it quickly before everyone forgot who he was. As an orchestral player myself, I've played the greatest of the great and then a lot of lesser music. When I play the Brahms 1st or Beethoven 5th, I feel it in my gut: this is great, great music. Playing things like Grand Canyon Suite...eh, it's got some nice tunes, but it's a chore to play and not all the great, really. I've played a lot of music from other forgotten composers: Atterberg, Gal, Korngold, Schreker, Raff and company. Interesting, professional to be sure, but "great"? Hardly.
> 
> But there is one composer who I think wrote three of the greatest symphonies, the finest chamber music, and the greatest oratorio of the 20th c: Franz Schmidt. He was the victim of Nazi propaganda and the fact that he did join the party didn't help his cause. Nonetheless, a great composer IMO and thankfully his music is finally getting the recognition it deserves.


Fantastic post, mbhaub. I am always fascinated to read the thoughts of musicians regarding the pieces that they play and you provide a fascinating insight. On top of that, you have highlighted my favourite composer, Franz Schmidt, who, as you say, is now beginning to receive more recognition outside of his native Austria.


----------



## ericdxx (Jul 7, 2013)

Tallisman said:


> Norman Lebrecht, for all his faults and controversies, has fought the good fight when it comes to being honest and exposing the classical music industry as sometimes just as dirty and unsavoury as all industry. Just because it's a business that deals in works of great beauty, that doesn't mean it's not still just _business_. Recent piece by him in the Spectator talking about the great conductors and their sometimes more-than-improper sexual voracity, not to mention Karajan's well-documented absolutely rapacious appetite for money and power.


I don't get what the two of you are talking about. It's not about business, it's not about money. These days classical music is the equivalent of the special Olympics. We accept it, but it's a joke. It's a charity. It's like taking care of dogs and cats or the homeless shelter.

In one hundred years, maybe these composers will be considered great composers, yes.... but is it a business? Hell no! It's a charity!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> I think your premise is wrong from the start: Raff was not a great composer, and his music fell from favor for the best of reasons. Mind you, I thoroughly enjoy most of Raff's music. I wrote a thesis on him 40 years ago in a MM program. I've done recitals with some of his music, traveled long distances to hear a few symphonies played live. Collect practically every cd made of his music. Own scores...yes, I am a Raff fan. But there is nothing to be gained by claiming he was a great composer along the lines of Beethoven, Brahms, or Tchaikovsky. That all of his music has disappeared form programming maybe isn't fair, but it's understandable. I don't think there has been any active political or subversive plot to ban his music - it's just that over time audiences, performers, conductors, etc realized that there wasn't enough substance to warrant continued performances. Brahms said soon after Raff's death that if you're going to put up a statue for Raff, you'd better do it quickly before everyone forgot who he was. As an orchestral player myself, I've played the greatest of the great and then a lot of lesser music. When I play the Brahms 1st or Beethoven 5th, I feel it in my gut: this is great, great music. Playing things like Grand Canyon Suite...eh, it's got some nice tunes, but it's a chore to play and not all the great, really. I've played a lot of music from other forgotten composers: Atterberg, Gal, Korngold, Schreker, Raff and company. Interesting, professional to be sure, but "great"? Hardly.
> 
> But there is one composer who I think wrote three of the greatest symphonies, the finest chamber music, and the greatest oratorio of the 20th c: Franz Schmidt. He was the victim of Nazi propaganda and the fact that he did join the party didn't help his cause. Nonetheless, a great composer IMO and thankfully his music is finally getting the recognition it deserves.


More accessible, yes, but not necessarily "greater". That is another idea I feel has been pushed on both fronts by certain agendas. More accessible is seen by some as greater, while others see less accessible as greater (some sort of elitism I suspect), which I think can't either be right.

I think everyone has a musical "base" or some central idea that forms their outlook on music. A lot of it has to do with musical weaning.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

ericdxx said:


> I don't get what the two of you are talking about. It's not about business, it's not about money. These days classical music is the equivalent of the special Olympics. We accept it, but it's a joke. It's a charity. It's like taking care of dogs and cats or the homeless shelter.
> 
> In one hundred years, maybe these composers will be considered great composers, yes.... but is it a business? Hell no! It's a charity!


Sorry, but this was one of the most funny and ridiculous posts I ever read. If you are not joking then you are the sillyest of the idiots in the world - Please note I'm not saying you indeed are, I don't know you and I hope it is not your case, of course!

Going to a classical music concert for doing a "charity" to the musicians is the same as going to McDonalds to help Easterbrook to earn money for his living. Nobody do it.

Have you ever read what means "charity"?
If people would really make "charities" for classical music as you suggest then there will be no need of making the concerts anymore, the classical musicians would be then just supposed to receive the charity money and go back home to study what they want in the way they want because there would be NO PUBLIC interested in classical music anymore.

On the other hand, if you are making comparison between the number of public for classical music and others like pop music, I agree the number is far smaller for classical music - anyway that means nothing and I have never heard about any kind of "charity" coming from different publics to classical music being myself a professional of classical music.

On the other hand, the comparison with special olympics is quite funny - Am I supposed to assume the ones who listen to Bach are people with disabilities while the "normal" ones are the listeners of Justin Bieber? Ohh... I think I heard about this in a movie, it is called "Idiocracy" - wow, they were right and that was indeed fast... :lol:

Best
Artur Cimirro


----------

