# Making Classical Music More Accessible



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

The percentage of the population in the United States that actually listens to classical music is not high. There are many reasons for this, but among them surely must be the cost of concerts; even 'cheap' tickets can be fifteen or twenty dollars, which, multiplied by four (for a family) and with parking thrown in, can easily bring the cost of attending a single concert to close to a hundred dollars. Where the interest in music does not already exist, even families which can afford this will not be likely to spend it; those without such extra money won't even consider attending said concert. Yet live performances are among the most surefire ways to engage people, with many a music lover testifying to the impact of a concert heard when they were young.

So here's an idea for addressing this problem: the creation and permanent funding of regional touring orchestras (as my first sentence should suggest, this is aimed primarily at the situation in the U.S., but it could be adapted for other countries as well, if necessary). These would be fully professional orchestras which would give two _free_ concerts a weekend (Saturday night and Sunday afternoon), performing in a different location within their region (the regions being defined by population so as to be roughly equal) each weekend.

How much would this cost? Well, that would depend, but let's assume that each orchestra has 70 permanent members (12 first/ 12 second violins, 10 violas, 8 violoncellos, 5 basses; 2 each of flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon; 3 trumpets, 4 horns, 3 trombones, tuba; harp; timpani & 2 percussion). Each player receives 40,000.00/year in salary and benefits (not as good as the top orchestras, but better than many smaller but fully professional ones). And let's assume that there are fifty such orchestras, one for each state (obviously this is more than the regional scenario requires, but it's always better to aim high when considering expenses), for a total of 3,500 players. The salary/benefit cost would thus come to 140 million dollars a year for players, and probably another 4 million for support staff. Add travel, food, and lodging: assuming 200.00/night for 52 nights a year, which is a very high rate indeed, you arrive at about 37 million dollars (though over time you could also construct lodging for the players in the various locations). With a conductor's salary (call that 200,000.00/year), and commissioning fees for a number of new works each year, and rounding up very generously, the total annual cost of fifty (50!) touring orchestras would be 200 million dollars. That is not very much, and--

-- the benefits would be incalculable; literally millions of people, many of whom will never have heard a live orchestra in their entire lives, would be able to attend excellent concerts for free. There would be economic benefits as well. Young musicians would suddenly have real opportunities to perform (the very first thing this project would do would be to create thousands of jobs), and they would, of course, be spending money in many of the locations visited, creating a financial ripple effect. The increased interest in good music among audience members would lead to increased CD sales, and so on. There are no downsides to this idea, so far as I can see.

The only thing I can't see in this picture is the political will. Unfortunately, among those least interested in serious music (or the arts in general) are far too many of our elected representatives. Changing that, though, may be the most difficult aspect of this whole plan....


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

This idea is riddled with many potential problems. The following came quickly to mind:

Are you sure that attendance at classical concerts is low because of price rather than general lack of interest? If the latter, which seems more likely, then offering a free service won’t make much if any difference to uptake. 

Don’t your calculations exclude the cost of hiring a venue?

What if that venue would otherwise be utilised by some other kind of event? This means you would be displacing some other entertainment activity which people are prepared to pay for. How would you quantify that cost?

How would you ration the supply of tickets if demand exceeded supply? If no system existed, what’s to stop the events being wrecked by over-attendance? How would you prevent a secondary market developing by ticket touts?

What kind of folk might be interested in going to a free classical concert? Are you sure they are people who might like classical music if only they could hear it for free, rather than all the local dossers, dropouts, and glassy-eyed layabouts?

Wouldn’t the whole ethos of going to a concert be spoiled if one had to sit next to some rough ******* character who didn’t know his Mozart from his Xenakis? 

What effect might the introduction of a free service have on the established fee-paying sector? Wouldn't the latter be claiming unfair treatment and demanding subsidy too?

How would you limit this kind of support to classical music only? Quite apart from other minority interest musical genres, wouldn’t many other fringe arts interests be clamouring for similar public subsidy too?

Where would money come from to pay all the expenses you list? Insofar that it comes from general taxation, doesn’t this have harmful effects?

If the salaries of the musicians are paid for out of general taxation, not by those attending the concerts, wouldn’t this damage the incentive to provide a high quality service? Usually when the link is broken between service and fees, the general quality drops to whatever the suppliers can get away with.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I think that connecting low interest in classical music with ticket prices is ridiculous. In my city you can buy reservation for complete season (about 70 symphonic concerts) for price of one ticket to Madonna concert. Classical music is the most accessible genre in the world.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

I think if anyone is remotely interested in classical music it's because they're musically curious. They are people who are thinking "outside of the box." I think the issue isn't about making classical more accessible, anyone can purchase a ticket to see a symphony anytime they want and there continues to be concerts, but the real issue is why aren't people listening to classical music.

In any case, I could really careless if people like classical or don't like it. The music is there for those want to discover it. It just takes somebody who is musically-oriented, passionate, and curious about music.

People can start whatever kind of program they want to about classical, I think people who do these kind of promotions should realize that classical music isn't popular and the same goes with jazz. These two genres only attract so many people.

By the way, slashing ticket prices isn't going to help...lol, because like I said people are either interested in classical or they're not. More chances than not, you're still going to end up with the same people that attend concerts anyway.


----------



## ozradio (Oct 23, 2008)

Aramis said:


> I think that connecting low interest in classical music with ticket prices is ridiculous. In my city you can buy reservation for complete season (about 70 symphonic concerts) for price of one ticket to Madonna concert. Classical music is the most accessible genre in the world.


Spot on. Classical concerts are no more costly that pop concerts. Classical cds are no more expensive - and much cheaper if you figure cost-per-disc on a big box set - than any mainstream cd. IMO, you can't make the genre any more affordable. It's lack of interest. And why are there so many threads seeking ways to make classical a mainstream genre? What's wrong with classical being a niche market?


----------



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

Toccata said:


> Are you sure that attendance at classical concerts is low because of price rather than general lack of interest? If the latter, which seems more likely, then offering a free service won't make much if any difference to uptake.


As I noted, there are many reasons (absence of serious music education in primary schools, for example), but price is among them. Free things attract people; while not all would stay or be moved to investigate further, some would.


> Don't your calculations exclude the cost of hiring a venue?
> What if that venue would otherwise be utilised by some other kind of event? This means you would be displacing some other entertainment activity which people are prepared to pay for. How would you quantify that cost?


I should have have mentioned this explicitly, but it is included in my guesstimate. In many cases, the venue would, of necessity, be the auditorium at a local school, there being no other suitable facility in many towns, so the problem of conflicting schedules would be minimal; in all cases, though, the concert schedule would be planned a year and more i advance, so potential conflicts would be avoided through careful scheduling. Ideally, there would be a companion process of constructing concert halls/theatres, but as this would be a rather greater undertaking I have left it for a different discussion.


> How would you ration the supply of tickets if demand exceeded supply? If no system existed, what's to stop the events being wrecked by over-attendance? How would you prevent a secondary market developing by ticket touts?


These concerts are free, so admission would be on a first come-first served basis at the time of performance; there would thus be no tickets for scalpers to get their hands on. Actual attendance would be limited in the usual manner in accordance with the fire department regulations regarding maximum occupancy. If, in a particular location, the imbalance was great enough, this would be a good sign that additional performances would be needed the next time around. This is a process, and modifications would occur as necessary from time to time.


> What kind of folk might be interested in going to a free classical concert? Are you sure they are people who might like classical music if only they could hear it for free, rather than all the local dossers, dropouts, and glassy-eyed layabouts?


There would be many attendees of various sorts, I'm sure, just as there are at the free concerts given, usually in larger metropolitan areas, by smaller amateur or semi-professional ensembles. As a general rule, I observe few or no examples of the sort you mention; after all, for many people, classical music is something to be avoided (this is why, in some places where youths are known to congregate, municipalities have arranged to have classical music playing 24 hours a day). But if a homeless person should derive a couple of hours of peace and succor from a concert, so much the better.


> Wouldn't the whole ethos of going to a concert be spoiled if one had to sit next to some rough ******* character who didn't know his Mozart from his Xenakis?


Only if they misbehaved-- and that's possible even in a high-priced setting; I once had to summon an usher to deal with a drunk next to me who, at least if his clothes were any indication, was no 'rough *******'. The people at these concerts will mostly be people who want to be there, and they will behave appropriately, apart, perhaps, from the comparatively minor sin of applauding between movements-- something which many a composer would welcome anyway. Further, it should be noted that many of these performances will be taking place in areas without access to live concerts, so the vast majority of the audience will be people who aren't hung up on particular behaviors. The usual announcements about turning off cell phones and the like should suffice.


> What effect might the introduction of a free service have on the established fee-paying sector? Wouldn't the latter be claiming unfair treatment and demanding subsidy too?


All orchestras ought to be subsidized, and all concerts ought to be free, or much less than they are now. But absent this, I doubt there would be much of a conflict, as many of the concerts I'm suggesting would be in places where there is little or no live music, at least of any quality.


> How would you limit this kind of support to classical music only? Quite apart from other minority interest musical genres, wouldn't many other fringe arts interests be clamouring for similar public subsidy too?


Limitations can be set however the legislature would desire to set them. But I completely agree that we should do the same sort of thing with chamber music, live theatre and dance. It would be more difficult to do with great art, though, if the will, and therefore the money, were there it would certainly not be impossible.


> Where would money come from to pay all the expenses you list? Insofar that it comes from general taxation, doesn't this have harmful effects?


I can't see any harmful effects. As for the funding, cancelling _one_ F-22 airplane would pay for the entire program for almost two years, thus removing the need for any additional taxation at all. Or a small tax on pop CD sales could be imposed (Hungary used to do this; they called it the "trash tax"  ).


> If the salaries of the musicians are paid for out of general taxation, not by those attending the concerts, wouldn't this damage the incentive to provide a high quality service? Usually when the link is broken between service and fees, the general quality drops to whatever the suppliers can get away with.


Do you know any professional musicians who would give less than their best because of the source of their pay? It's almost the definition of a professional that they always give their best. In any case, ticket sales currently pay only about a third of what it costs to present a full professional orchestral concert; subventions of some sort are, and always have been, vital, and this plan simply regularizes them in a predictable way, allowing for more careful planning and removing the fear that performing an unfamiliar work (not even necessarily a new one!) will somehow harm the bottom line. Art should be above commercial concerns, though it all too rarely can be (in the U.S.; European nations are far better at supporting the arts).


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Classical is as accessible as any other genre of music. It's internationally distributed, you can see a classical concert regularly in almost any major city, recordings are available to purchase worldwide, etc.


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

I think it's a safe bet to assume that such a program won't help to popularize classical music at all. It might bring a couple of new listeners, but in a long run it won't do anything. Classical music is already very accessible - cd's are widely sold and widely "pirated" for free downloading, there are sites and forums dedicated to cm and there are lots of concerts virtually everywhere (hell, even in Israel in January 2010 there will be a performance of Shostakovich's 10th symphony with Mehta, IPO, something I'll probably visit). Anyways, if you're so enthusiastic about popularizing classical, here's what people should do: a) throw away their tv b) stop listening to crap c) start thinking on their own, and so forth in the same vein...


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

The reason why classical music is a minority interest is not because of some evil Capitalist plot to deny the masses the benefit of "good" music at concerts based on affordable prices (with the implication that this alleged "market failure" can only be rectified by some system of State subsidy to provide a free or highly subsidised concert ervice) but because the majority of the masses simply don't like classical music. That's the way things have been in in the past and no doubt will remain so in the future. 

In any event, accessibility to classical music is not measured solely by access to concerts at low prices. There are several other ways that the masses can enjoy classical music at virtually zero price, e.g. simply by tuning into a radio. Many people may even prefer this medium. I know I do. I can't stand all the extraneous noises and irritations one normally has to put up with at concerts. In fact, if I were given a ticket to a free concert I would make a point of not going to it, as the inevitable distractions from all the additional uninformed ignoramuses out for a cheap night at the taxpayers' expense would no doubt be even worse than usual.


----------



## LvB (Nov 21, 2008)

Toccata said:


> In any event, accessibility to classical music is not measured solely by access to concerts at low prices. There are several other ways that the masses can enjoy classical music at virtually zero price, e.g. simply by tuning into a radio. Many people may even prefer this medium. I know I do. I can't stand all the extraneous noises and irritations one normally has to put up with at concerts. In fact, if I were given a ticket to a free concert I would make a point of not going to it, as the inevitable distractions from all the additional uninformed ignoramuses out for a cheap night at the taxpayers' expense would no doubt be even worse than usual.


I had hoped for a continuation of what seemed to me to be an interesting and thoughtful discussion rather than the automatic naysaying indulged in by so many others, but we don't always get what we hope for. Rather than repeating a bunch of points as yet unrefuted, I'll just note that, a) I never said that live concerts were the sole means of access to classical music; b) I've never been a fan of the 'I've got what I want and don't care about anybody else' approach to life; and, c) you, unlike many others nationwide, are lucky to have a commercial classical station where you live-- at least I assume that's what you listen to, as NPR was created with, and would not exist without, considerable taxpayer money, and I wouldn't want to think you guilty of, shall we say, an inconsistency  .


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

LvB said:


> I had hoped for a continuation of what seemed to me to be an interesting and thoughtful discussion rather than the automatic naysaying indulged in by so many others, but we don't always get what we hope for. Rather than repeating a bunch of points as yet unrefuted, I'll just note that, a) I never said that live concerts were the sole means of access to classical music; b) I've never been a fan of the 'I've got what I want and don't care about anybody else' approach to life; and, c) you, unlike many others nationwide, are lucky to have a commercial classical station where you live-- at least I assume that's what you listen to, as NPR was created with, and would not exist without, considerable taxpayer money, and I wouldn't want to think you guilty of, shall we say, an inconsistency  .


You're clearly beating a dead horse. If somebody is interested in classical music, then they'll discover it on their own. You're ideas don't add up to much. Sorry, but *you are wrong*.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Ok. I'm thinking there are two things pertaining to accessibility here. One refers (under the usual definition) to classical music being more suited to people's musical tastes or preferences and the other is availability, or local outlets for classical music (recordings to purchase, radio stations, local venues, concerts, events, etc...). Referring to the latter, when it comes to concerts and events and even radio stations, there is obviously a disparity for many. Some areas have a more prominent culture for classical music than other areas. Secondly, when it comes to purchasing music _online_ it is limitless...as long as you have _access_ to the internet and a credit card or checking account. Local stores may only carry a good selection of the type(s) of music they believe will sell well, and in many areas this doesn't include classical. From my experience, and all of the stores I have been to (chains and locally-owned) I can honestly say that if the size of the shelves storing the classical music were as large as those storing rock, rap or country I probably wouldn't rely on Amazon quite as much. Not everyone has the "luxury" of living within a fair drive of a large classical music superstore. So, it's fair to say there may also be a disparity for many of those who would be looking for what to purchase. *But*, assuming first availability was not such a big issue, then sure, I believe it can be accessible to many people who listen soley to other genres.


----------



## handlebar (Mar 19, 2009)

The interest in classical music has waned due to many things: prices,the media and education.

It requires work and effort to "enjoy" classical music. And that goes contrary to the masses. A quick and instant fix by a pop star and most are happy. It requires no thought nor effort. The media push the latest "American Idol" and pop act so that millions of records sell. Then that artists disappear with his/her millions and that's that. On to the next one.

The stimulation of the musical mind has been done with the WPA and the governments help with access to composers works. Read Tawa's book on The Great American Symphony or Serenading the reluctant eagle and one will read of how the country stood up and took notice of our own composers such as Copland,Creston,Bernstein et al.

I want to post more on this but am at work and don't have time. Drats.

Jim


----------



## Cortision (Aug 4, 2009)

I have a solution. Include Andre Rieu in your definition of classical music, and it has become popular and mainstream overnight!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't buy the notion that "classical music" is inaccessible as a result of cost. Outside of the matinee a movie can run $12-15 per ticket with $5 colas and $6 popcorn thrown in. A ticket to a concert by Britney Spears or Celine Dion is probably twice the cost of the symphony... or more. And one need not even mention what joe-six-pack shells out for seats to the football game. The reality is that the greatest art is often demanding and few people are willing to put forth the effort. Shakespeare is demanding. T.S. Eliot is demanding. Fra Angelico is demanding. J.S. Bach is demanding. Few people wish to put forth such effort. They'll listen to the classical "greatest hits"... those well known tunes that are immediately hummable... but sitting through _Tristan und Isolde_ demands much more effort... effort that is more than repaid to those of us who are willing to put forth the effort and discover the wonders to be found.

Or perhaps it all just comes down to sex (doesn't everything?) and all we need is more classical stars who look like this:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well I think that putting on free chamber music concerts is a better idea due to the reduced cost. They can still play many good things from the repertoire. I say this because here in Sydney before (American?) economic rationalism reared it's ugly head inthe '90's, there was a studio at the Sydney Opera House dedicated to this sort of things, they would have free chamber music concerts on weekends which were broadcast on radio. I also remember when free concerts were given at the Town Hall, particularly for schools to attend on an excursion, during the week.

I agree free concerts can be a good thing, but this culture of equality was wiped out by the rise of corporatism & economic rationalism. Now many public entities, universities for one, survive by raising funds from private sources rather than solely relying on public funds. This is now the (sad?) reality, we have to get used to it...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Of course with the issue of free chamber music concerts (or free concerts in general) how do you go about compensating the performers? We don't expect to hear of the Rolling Stones performing gratis. Surely I support something of a greater effort in education the public to music... and the arts in general. I believe that children are particularly susceptible to the seductions of popular culture because they are desirous to learn and if they are not given something challenging and worthy... they will devour whatever is thrown at them. On the other side... I don't think that the challenges of "serious" music (or art, or literature) are something that more than a minority of the population will ever embrace. Few people are willing to put forth the effort... or even see the worth of doing such, imagining that all the arts are but entertainment... decoration... a means of relaxation or background noise to a party or dance.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Or perhaps it all just comes down to sex (doesn't everything?) and all we need is more classical stars who look like this:


Well, thank God - the days when every classical singer or musician had to be fat, bald or ugly before we were allowed to take them seriously are long gone.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Beauty and God-given musical talent weren't necessarily mutually exclusive 'back in the day', either.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Ah! Elizabeth!

And what of...


----------



## nickgray (Sep 28, 2008)

Nah, those are the real heroes


----------



## jcsd (Aug 2, 2009)

I'm working on a disco version of Chopin's Op.10 Etude 1 which could be the answer.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

nickgray said:


> Nah, those are the real heroes
> 
> (...)


None of them was really ugly. Maybe except the old Stravinsky, but the rest? Everyone has bad photos. Many composers were well known for their love affairs before they became rich and famous. Liszt is a good example. I could become gay for him.


----------



## Fergus (Aug 25, 2009)

I have attended very few classical concerts and didn't think that much of any of them. As a child, what helped me get into classical music was being able to hear it on the radio. If we want to make classical music more popular, the most important thing is to reach children. Adults are free to explore whatever they have an interest in, but children don't even know what it out there unless they get some exposure to it. We might take the original idea and offer free children's concerts, but I don't think this is the way to go. One of the worst ways to get children to appreciate some new kind of music is to make them listen to it while being forced to sit in uncomfortable seats. To this day, I hate barbershop music, because my father used to sing barbershop and make us go to his concerts. It helps more for children to hear classical music in contexts that they enjoy. Using it in cartoons, such as has been done with "What's Opera, Doc?" or "The Rabbit of Seville", is one way to go. Using it in movies is another way. For example, hearing orchestral music in Star Wars, minimalist piano playing in The Piano, or Schubert in Trop Belle Pour Toi helped increase my interest in certain types of music. These days, it might help to include classical music in video games. For adults, free concerts are unnecessary when there are streaming music services that will stream nearly any music of someone's choosing. Of late, I have been using Napster to listen to different versions of symphonies by Sibelius and Mahler in an attempt to choose the recordings I want to buy. Others could just as easily use Napster or some similar service to try out countless classical music albums. For those who don't want to pay, classiccat.com and other services lead people to free MP3s of classical music. Many people can also find CDs of classical music in their local library. Accessibility doesn't seem to be much of a problem these days. The main problem is in generating interest.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't buy the notion that "classical music" is inaccessible as a result of cost. Outside of the matinee a movie can run $12-15 per ticket with $5 colas and $6 popcorn thrown in. A ticket to a concert by Britney Spears or Celine Dion is probably twice the cost of the symphony... or more. And one need not even mention what joe-six-pack shells out for seats to the football game. The reality is that the greatest art is often demanding and few people are willing to put forth the effort. Shakespeare is demanding. T.S. Eliot is demanding. Fra Angelico is demanding. J.S. Bach is demanding. Few people wish to put forth such effort. They'll listen to the classical "greatest hits"... those well known tunes that are immediately hummable... but sitting through _Tristan und Isolde_ demands much more effort... effort that is more than repaid to those of us who are willing to put forth the effort and discover the wonders to be found.
> 
> Or perhaps it all just comes down to sex (doesn't everything?) and all we need is more classical stars who look like this:


Oh my goodness...she is certainly a babe.  I think she was one of my desert island picks many weeks ago.


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Fergus said:


> I have attended very few classical concerts and didn't think that much of any of them.
> 
> .... Many people can also find CDs of classical music in their local library. Accessibility doesn't seem to be much of a problem these days. The main problem is in generating interest.


The notion that the best way to increase the accessibility of classical music by the general public by creating new orchestras at general taxpayers' expense in order to provide free concerts seems economically very naive.

I agree with the above poster (and others) that accessibility is not a problem. There are plenty of opportunities to obtain access to classical music. Attending concerts is probably a minor aspect of their total listening activity even for the majority of classical music afficionados, and is not likely to provide powerful kick-start to anything long-lasting among classical newbies.

If accessibility is a problem in some localities, it doesn't follow that by creating new orchestras on a vast scale, as suggested, would solve it. Any remotely sensible procedure would start off by evaluating whether accessibility is actually a problem, and if it is would then be followed by cost-benefit studies of alternative methods to alleviate the problem.

As for the possible creation of new orchestras set up exclusively to provide free concerts, after an initial flurry of possible curiosity such orchestras would probably fall by the wayside through lack of interest. In the meantime their existence could threaten the survival of some existing orchestras which would find themselves be struggling to compete against a subsidised alternative.


----------



## Fergus (Aug 25, 2009)

For classical music to be more accessible, it should be promoted more like rock music. Rock music isn't popular because of free concerts of Beatles music, yet that is analogous to what the original poster is suggesting for classical music. What would be played at these free classical concerts? Would it be the latest music of living composers or the same old warhorses that have remained popular for years? One of the reasons classical music isn't more popular is that people perceive it as the dead music of dead men rather than as a living art form. People know who Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are, but few will know who Aho, Golijov, and Gorecki are. Rock is the opposite. Today's rock fans are more likely to know Fergie, Coldplay, or Linkin Park than the Association, Frankie Avalon, or Paul Revere & the Raiders. When music historians start saying that the three B's of rock are Bacharach, the Beatles, and the Beach Boys, then rock will be in the same boat as classical music. More needs to be done to make people aware of classical music as a living art form, then people might start paying more attention to it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Fergus said:


> ...More needs to be done to make people aware of classical music as a living art form, then people might start paying more attention to it.


That's very true, but for some conservative listeners, even the music of more recently dead composers like Varese, Messiaen & Ligeti are still challenging, let alone what composers are doing today...


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2009)

A point worth pondering, I would guess that Classical Music and perhaps all of the Arts are subsidised by the Government aka the 'tax payer' to what extent would vary case by case, there would be very few Orch or Music ens that could stand on their own feet [perhaps in the US there are one or two] the same applies to Classical Radio stations, its either subsidised and good quality or payed for by advertising and then you get adds between movements which is pretty grotty, the idea put forward of free concert is great but nothing is free 'someone pays' So lets face it unless there is a change in attitude the future will be up hill, IMHO of course


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

I will add that you can't market classical music. I mean sure you can put a pretty face of a mezzo-soprano on the front cover of a recording, but does this really help the music? Classical will always be there for people to discover. Sometimes it's by accident, sometimes it's by being exposed to it by a friend, or sometimes it's because you're interested in it. I think it's a ridiculous to try to make something that doesn't need any help more accessible. If somebody is passionate about music, then they will eventually be interested in classical. It's just a matter of time.

I think, in all honesty, that classical will never be "popular" again. It might reach a certain high interest-wise, but nothing more will become of it. True art cannot marketed.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Mirror Image said:


> I think, in all honesty, that classical will never be "popular" again. It might reach a certain high interest-wise, but nothing more will become of it. True art cannot marketed.


Unfortunately, a lot of it is. Aside from the spotty placements in tv ads for miscellaneous 'stuff', it may not be advertised as heavily as other types of music. But, many of the major orchestras and record companies which produce this music, do have their own marketing agendas.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Rondo said:


> Unfortunately, a lot of it is. Aside from the spotty placements in tv ads for miscellaneous 'stuff', it may not be advertised as heavily as other types of music. But, many of the major orchestras and record companies which produce this music, do have their own marketing agendas.


Every orchestra and record company has it's own marketing agenda. Are you going to see Bliss' "A Colour Symphony" tonight? I don't think so. I rest my case.


----------



## Fergus (Aug 25, 2009)

Marketing is inimical to true art, because it normally seeks to reduce its product to the lowest common denominator to appeal to the widest audience. For example, Fergie gets heavily promoted despite lacking great talent while a true artist like Vienna Teng gets very little promotion. But this doesn't mean that individuals can't do their part to promote contemporary classical composers. In my case, I learned of Aho because someone took the time to personally promote a Sharon Bezaly album in the message boards at emusic. And I learned of Golijov just the other day because someone posted an image of his Oceana album to a thread on these boards. I think exposure to contemporary composers is a good thing. When I was a child, my father was very much into Aaron Copland, who was still alive at the time, and when I saw Star Wars, I became aware of John Williams, who is still alive to this day. Knowing about Copland and Williams helped make me aware that classical music remains a living art form, which helped prepare me to take notice of other contemporary composers in later years. I agree that classical music will never supplant the popularity of pop music, but I think it is still worth doing our part to expose people to it, because it does make a difference to individuals even if it doesn't change the statistics very much.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Fergus said:


> Marketing is inimical to true art, because it normally seeks to reduce its product to the lowest common denominator to appeal to the widest audience. For example, Fergie gets heavily promoted despite lacking great talent while a true artist like Vienna Teng gets very little promotion.


Who are these bands?


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2009)

If music appreciation was taught in schools it would be a big help to get children interested l, I am referring to those that live in a home without classical.
If we could raise the "classical" lovers from about 10% of population to 25% it would help but I don't see that happening.
The age group that is so poorly represented at concerts (NZ) are the 15-25year old, I suppose they are busy doing other things.
Cost is also important:
For the industry in general a rosy future is possibly a wish list item.
Ticket price at concerts cover approx 50% of actual costs?? Makes you think.
The Recorded music sector has to get into gear also, maybe more self promotion by musicians and active web site.

This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99.

*1, $0.17 Musicians' unions
2, $0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
3, $0.82 Publishing royalties$0.80 Retail profit
4, $0.90 Distribution
5, $1.60 Artists' royalties
6, $1.70 Label profit
7, $2.40 Marketing/promotion
8, $2.91 Label overhead
9, $3.89 Retail overhead*

The above was lifted from the net and is one of many.
I think the CD market as we know it to day will disappear if some big changes are not made eg, if Internet purchases included FLAC as an option and priced accordingly say $2 each max, the above costs of #2,3,4,6,8,9 would be gone, #1 would be reduced as would #7, 
I just cannot see the commercial CD surviving without changes 
Even in the past composers and musicians had to look for "Patrons" 
I realise this may be controversial but it has to be faced and discussed at some time


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Here are some actual CD covers of _actual classical music albums_ (many of you may already be familiar with some of them). I wonder if these help to win any new listeners?  (I regretfully admit that I own one of these from back in the day.) I recall a TV commercial for the _Classical Thunder_ album. Strangely, they neglected to include Strauss' Thunder and Lightening Polka.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Rondo said:


>


 What pitiful excuses for CDs.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Go to GOOGLE image search and type in "The most Classical music in the universe" [missing variable adjective] and just look at you get. Has this become the way to make classical music more accessible: the packaging?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Rondo said:


> Go to GOOGLE image search and type in "The most Classical music in the universe" [missing variable adjective] and just look at you get. Has this become the way to make classical music more accessible: the packaging?


As I have said (many times now), classical music will never be assessible. Most people don't get past Beethoven or Mozart. That's the sad reality of it all. There's only few select few, the hardcore fans like you and I, who explore this music to the very depths.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Mirror Image said:


> As I have said (many times now), classical music will never be assessible. Most people don't get past Beethoven or Mozart. That's the sad reality of it all. There's only few select few, the hardcore fans like you and I, who explore this music to the very depths.


There are probably two main groups: those who buy classical music out of curiosity or passion or those who purchase classical music (or _any_ music) ad hoc; they have no passion, or curiosity--only a dinner party without any continuous repeating music to fill the air under everyone's conversations.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Rondo said:


> There are probably two main groups: those who buy classical music out of curiosity or passion or those who purchase classical music (or _any_ music) ad hoc; they have no passion, or curiosity--only a dinner party without any continuous repeating music to fill the air under everyone's conversations.


Guess what group people of this forum qualify for?


----------



## Fergus (Aug 25, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Who are these bands?


They're actually women, not bands. Fergie is a woman named Stacy Ferguson. She has some songs on the radio and MTV, though she actually came to my attention for having a name similar to my own. She has one album out called the Dutchess. Vienna Teng is a Chinese-American singer/songwriter who also plays the piano and has a few albums out now. Fergie sells mainly on sex appeal, even singing about how hot she is, while Vienna Teng depends on talent.


----------



## Fergus (Aug 25, 2009)

Rondo said:


> Here are some actual CD covers of _actual classical music albums_ (many of you may already be familiar with some of them). I wonder if these help to win any new listeners?  (I regretfully admit that I own one of these from back in the day.) I recall a TV commercial for the _Classical Thunder_ album. Strangely, they neglected to include Strauss' Thunder and Lightening Polka.


These are terrible covers combined with bad titles. With a title like Earquake, I expect something bad. Classical Thunder looks like a nature sounds album. "The Only Classical CD You'll Ever Need" suggests that most classical music is worthless. "Classical Music for People Who Hate Classical Music" panders to the idea that most classical music is worthless. Imagine if there were CDs like "The Only Rock CD You'll Ever Need" or "Rock Music for People Who Hate Rock Music." It's laughable.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2009)

Fergus said:


> They're actually women, not bands. Fergie is a woman named Stacy Ferguson. She has some songs on the radio and MTV, though she actually came to my attention for having a name similar to my own. She has one album out called the Dutchess. .


Not *the* Fergie, you know the one that was attached to the ROYALS


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Fergus said:


> "Classical Music for People Who Hate Classical Music" panders to the idea that most classical music is worthless. Imagine if there were CDs like "The Only Rock CD You'll Ever Need" or "Rock Music for People Who Hate Rock Music." It's laughable.


No it doesn't. There are very many people who do not like classical music generally, but may perhaps like a few pieces. What's wrong with that?


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> Guess what group people of this forum qualify for?


I give up, Mirror Image...what's the answer?

Which of the two groups mentioned by Rondo do the people of this forum "qualify for"? Those who are genuinely curious/passionate about classical music, or careless dilettantes who just need some dinner music?


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

chillowack said:


> I give up, Mirror Image...what's the answer?
> 
> Which of the two groups mentioned by Rondo do the people of this forum "qualify for"? Those who are genuinely curious/passionate about classical music, or careless dilettantes who just need some dinner music?


I would assume that we're all passionate about this music or else why would we be here?


----------



## Fergus (Aug 25, 2009)

Andante said:


> Not *the* Fergie, you know the one that was attached to the ROYALS


You're thinking of Sarah Ferguson. Stacy Ferguson is an American, though her album title does capitalize on the Duchess of York having the same nickname.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

Fergus said:


> They're actually women, not bands. Fergie is a woman named Stacy Ferguson. She has some songs on the radio and MTV, though she actually came to my attention for having a name similar to my own. She has one album out called the Dutchess. Vienna Teng is a Chinese-American singer/songwriter who also plays the piano and has a few albums out now. Fergie sells mainly on sex appeal, even singing about how hot she is, while Vienna Teng depends on talent.


You have to excuse my ignorance. I haven't listened to rock music in about 16 years, so I don't really know who's who anymore. Thank goodness....


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Mirror Image said:


> I would assume that we're all passionate about this music or else why would we be here?


Apparently this site is on the "troll sites you must visit". Kind of spooky isn't it. There again, there could be lots of aliens getting the lo-down on modern experimental music. Crikey, I've frightened myself already. Mama mia.


----------



## Fergus (Aug 25, 2009)

Very Senior Member said:


> There are very many people who do not like classical music generally, but may perhaps like a few pieces. What's wrong with that?


Let me start with what is good about liking classical music. Unlike much of pop music, which tends to appeal to our animal instincts of rest, movement, sex, and power, classical music tends to appeal to more distinctively human capacities, such as joy, majesty, and nobility. I am thinking of the overwhelming expression of joy in Beethoven's 9th symphony, the majesty of the sea in Debussy's La Mer, or the nobility of the human spirit in Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man, just to give a few examples. To be able to experience and appreciate such music allows us to get in better touch with what it is that makes us human. A failure to appreciate most classical music can be due to a failure to appreciate the higher capacities that distinguish humans from animals. When this is why someone dislikes most classical music, he is impoverishing himself. Furthermore, it is still possible for such a person to like some classical music, because classical music can appeal to our animals instincts as well as to our higher human capacities. Some people like classical music for being relaxing. Some people like classical music they can dance to. Some people like Ravel's Bolero for its eroticism. So, when someone likes only a few pieces but generally dislikes classical music, it may often, though perhaps not always, be due to a failure to appreciate the higher capacities that classical music, more than other forms of music, is able to evoke, and that is not so good.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Let me start with what is good about liking classical music. Unlike much of pop music, which tends to appeal to our animal instincts of rest, movement, sex, and power, classical music tends to appeal to more distinctively human capacities, such as joy, majesty, and nobility.

I'd be careful about such a generalization. Yeats proclaimed that "Sex and death are the only things that can interest a serious mind." I have joked (only partially) with artist friends about this very notion. The reality is that great art is full of sex and death... eros and morte... and attending qualities such as love, desire, passion, birth (on the side of eros) and mortality, violence, war, aging, illness, and questions of spirituality (on the side of death). Classical music is certainly full of sex... look at almost any opera... and death. I doubt that the themes are inherently superior to popular music... rather it is the realization.


----------



## Fergus (Aug 25, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Yeats proclaimed that "Sex and death are the only things that can interest a serious mind."


Yeats was a great poet who wrote about Fergus and inspired Bax, but I think I will trust my own experience over his proclamations. Sex and death are anchor points that help define and shape the human experience, but humans differ from animals, who also have sex and die, in how they approach sex and death. Many pop songs approach sex in an animalistic way, such as the Pussycat Dolls singing Dont cha wish your girlfriend was hot like me. But besides raw animalistic interest in sex, humans are capable of love. In the story of Tristan & Isolde, there is something far nobler than the humping that happens in porn films. It is rooted in the human interest in sex, but it also extends beyond it. While animals may fight for their lives, the prospect of death leads humans to dwell on the meaning of life and on their place in the universe, something animals seem incapable of. In facing the fear of death, humans can find courage, and courage can lead to nobility. Consider the inspiration to be found in the lives of people who managed to retain their humanity while living in Nazi concentration camps. While rooted in death, the nobility of spirit found in facing death also rises above it. It might be argued that joy and bliss are rooted in the enjoyment of sexual pleasure, but a human doesn't need to be having sex to know joy and bliss. It might be argued that awe is made possible by the awareness of our own limitations brought to us by the prospect of death. But even if these are rooted in sex and death, they also extend beyond them and give humans something animals can never know. Although it is natural to fear death and desire sex, just as the animals do, it is also possible for humans to know love, joy, courage, nobility, awe, bliss, serenity, majesty, etc., and classical music helps to remind us of these possibilities.


----------



## ozradio (Oct 23, 2008)

You seem to frown on porn film humping.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Fergus said:


> Yeats was a great poet who wrote about Fergus and inspired Bax, but I think I will trust my own experience over his proclamations. Sex and death are anchor points that help define and shape the human experience, but humans differ from animals, who also have sex and die, in how they approach sex and death. Many pop songs approach sex in an animalistic way, such as the Pussycat Dolls singing Dont cha wish your girlfriend was hot like me. But besides raw animalistic interest in sex, humans are capable of love. In the story of Tristan & Isolde, there is something far nobler than the humping that happens in porn films. It is rooted in the human interest in sex, but it also extends beyond it. While animals may fight for their lives, the prospect of death leads humans to dwell on the meaning of life and on their place in the universe, something animals seem incapable of. In facing the fear of death, humans can find courage, and courage can lead to nobility. Consider the inspiration to be found in the lives of people who managed to retain their humanity while living in Nazi concentration camps. While rooted in death, the nobility of spirit found in facing death also rises above it. It might be argued that joy and bliss are rooted in the enjoyment of sexual pleasure, but a human doesn't need to be having sex to know joy and bliss. It might be argued that awe is made possible by the awareness of our own limitations brought to us by the prospect of death. But even if these are rooted in sex and death, they also extend beyond them and give humans something animals can never know. Although it is natural to fear death and desire sex, just as the animals do, it is also possible for humans to know love, joy, courage, nobility, awe, bliss, serenity, majesty, etc., and classical music helps to remind us of these possibilities.


Very well said Fergus! I think you are onto something here and are close to discovering the meaning of existence.

Kevin


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Fergus said:


> Some people like classical music for being relaxing. Some people like classical music they can dance to. Some people like Ravel's Bolero for its eroticism. So, when someone likes only a few pieces but generally dislikes classical music, it may often, though perhaps not always, be due to a failure to appreciate the higher capacities that classical music, more than other forms of music, is able to evoke, and that is not so good.


I asked you what's wrong with the fact that some people may only like a small selection of classical pieces while disliking classical music generally, and your answer is that what's wrong about such people is that it probably indicates a failure among them to appreciate the higher emotions of which only humans as opposed to animals are capable.

You would be ridiculed to pieces if you seriously tried to put forward that kind of argument in any real-life situation. I know plenty of people who dislike classical music (in fact the vast majority of people I come into contact with), but who are perfectly well-adjusted individuals in all the senses to which you refer. Some of them enjoy a whole range of other types of music, and some aren't particularly interested in music at all.

What's clear is that using appreciation of classical music as the only major yardstick of a person's capacity to engage in the higher human emotions is about as ridiculous as can be imagined. You would be making all manner of errors in your judgement about other people if that's what you seriously think.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

when someone likes only a few pieces but generally dislikes classical music, it may often, though perhaps not always, be due to a failure to appreciate the higher capacities that classical music, more than other forms of music, is able to evoke, and that is not so good.

I agree to quite an extent with our Very Senior Member that is is dangerous to equate classical music (or perhaps the fine arts in general) with a persons ability to appreciate and revere the higher aspirations of humanity. The notion of equating art with such a capacity for the love, justice, fairness, nobility, compassion, courage, etc... for equating art with morality is something of a 19th century belief... and one that the last century (if not the examples of far earlier times) should have more than called into question. As the art critic, Robert Hughes wrote:

_Nobody has ever denied that Sigismondo Malatesta, the Lord of Rimini, had excellent taste. He hired the most refined of quattrocentro architects, Leon Battista Alerti, to design a memorial temple to his wife, and then got the sculptor Agostino di Duccio to decorate it, and retained Piero della Francesca to paint it. Yet Sigismondo was a man of such callousness and rapacity that he was known in his life as Il Lupo, the Wolf, and so execrated after his death that the Catholic church made him (for a time) the only man apart from Judas Iscariot officially listed as being in Hell-a distinction he earned by trussing up a papal emissary, the fifteen-year-old Bishop of Fano, in his own rochet and publicly sodomizing him before his applauding army in the main square of Rimini._

A similar challenge to the morality of art was presented by Graham Greene is his line from famous The Third Man... immortalized by Orson Welles:

_You must remember this: 'In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love; they had five hundred years of democracy and peace and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.'_

We all know that the Nazi's were great lovers of art and classical music. Wagner was der Fuhrer's favorite composer, Richard Strauss his favorite living composer, Wilhelm Furtwangler his conductor of choice, and Elizabeth Schwarzkopf his favorite singer. All quite marvelous artistic choices. And who did he employ to film his grandiose rise to power? Leni Riefenstahl... an unquestionably brilliant film-maker.

As an artist myself... albeit a visual artist (a painter to be exact)... I am always wary of any suggestion of an inherent connection between art and morality... or a presumed moral/ethical/human superiority of the artist or the art lover. Great art can express the highest and most noble aspirations of mankind... or not. Caravaggio, the artist who almost single-handedly brought about the birth of the Baroque era in art was able to convey such passion and gravitas...










... but he also pandered erotic images of young boys to high-ranking members of the clergy, and spent much of his career behind bars... and finally banished... for killing a man in a dispute over a tennis match. Gesualdo is a composer of an equally shady history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Gesualdo

To my mind, the dangers in equating art and morality are that such notions are undoubtedly naive... and also dangerous or limiting in that they can lead to shutting us off from the artistic expressions of those with whom we do not agree. I don't imagine the need for art to reinforce my own beliefs or even prejudices... but rather to honestly offer me a powerful and masterfully conceived expression of the artist's perceptions and thoughts... even if I find we do not concur.


----------

