# Speaking to the audience of the present



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Quote from the recent "Philadelphia file for Bankruptcy" article....



rdefazio said:


> Mozart certainly would not have endorsed the modern concert mannerisms. When he visited Paris before the city undertook to chop off the heads of people it didn't like, he wrote his music to provoke applause in the midst of it being played. In a letter to his father from that city he bragged, "To hear and to applaud were the same." It would seem that the sentiments of Mozart would be more in line with modern culture than those of Wagner, Mahler, and Stokowski who have essentially told audiences to shut up until the conductor says he is done. It is like putting out the *Not Welcome *mat.
> 
> Life changes, and music changes with it. In the 1970's Leonard Bernstein said, "Whence is new music?" Where is new music to come from? Modern concerts specialize in the performance of pieces written by dead people. The music is melodic, the harmonies are predictable, and like a piece of apple pie they remind us of the good old days when things were not so stressful. Unfortunately, for those who feel that way, there are many more people who would like their music to reflect the times, who look forward to the future with the belief that it has to be better than today, and whose manners are less gentile - they clap their hands over their heads, they whoop and shout, and they stomp their feet. "How base, how crass, how undignified," some might say, but this is the audience of the present and the future, and unless symphony orchestras learn to speak its emotional language, the only place we will hear classical music in 50 years will be through a set of headphones in a music museum.
> 
> Orchestras try to make themselves relevant by playing modern songs using symphonic arrangements. It makes them sound like the U.S. Marine Corp band trying to play acid rock. It makes them look a bit foolish because it is so far afield from their artistic comfort zone. To survive and to thrive, orchestras need to start acknowledging the changing demographics of our country. The aged well heeled folks with gray hair, wrinkles, and canes or walkers who have been the financial lifeblood of orchestras are dying faster than they are being replaced. There are more Latinos in our population today, and playing music that fails to reflect their own life experiences has the effect of shutting them out of the loop even further.


As usual this sort of article (and there have been many in recent times) tells us what is wrong and what in the opinion of the writer needs to change. That is, he usually tells us what we should get rid of, but seldom (if ever) what we should get in it's place.

It's like, for example, ok, not enough Latinos attend concerts, but exactly WHAT music would fill concert halls today with Latinos?

Todays audiences who were brought up on rock and pop may be less gentile than those of the past. Well, exactly how should that in the writer's opinion be reflected in a classical music concert? Headbanging during the third movement of Tchaikovsky No.6? An audience singalong for the final movement of Beethoven No.9? A psychedelic light show for Le Sacre du Printemps? Pole dancing cuties for the orchestral excerpts of Carmen? Stage diving when they play a Bruckner scherzo?....

All completely absurd of course, but I wonder what all these writers have in mind when they say things need to change. HOW do they need to change? How do they visualize that change? Ok, applause between movements (already a controversial issue) or getting rid of the suits may be less extreme, but I seriously doubt that these would be measures that would significantly change the demographic of concert goers.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Actually, I think Le Sacre du Printemps with a light show would not be too absurd as an artistic experiment. That wouldn't rescue the plight of orchestras though.

Maybe we need a modern day equivalent of Bernstein's Young People's Concerts, but have no idea who could fill that role.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There are several threads where this issue has arisen, and the call for change has gone out. I have also read a number of articles discussing the demise of symphony orchestras. As jhar26 pointed out, sometimes no remedy is given. There have, however, been a number of posts and articles that have suggested changes in order to increase audiences, increase funding, or decrease spending. Examples are:

Better marketing (with higher budgets)
Musician outreach
Much more modern classical music 
Reduction in the number of symphony orchestras
Adding classical music to grade school curricula

Marketing budgets seem rather low, and I agree these could be increased. Adding classical music to curricula would be fine although I'm not sure how much could be included since there's so much competition in the curricula as it is. Reducing the number of orchestras could help costs in the same way that companies close stores that lose money. Obviously this is not a desired solution. Also if orchestras in large metropolitan areas like Philadelphia are in trouble, the problem is likely systemic not just overgrowth. 

I think musician outreach is an excellent idea. I know most musicians would prefer not to take extra time to do events like these, but a concerted effort could help grow awareness. I realize the situation is slightly different, but major sports in the US (i.e. US football and basketball) require the athletes to do significant community service. These sports are extremely popular, and still they extensively market their product and push outreach.

The most interesting issue listed above, I think, is adding more modern music to the programs. There are potential benefits and drawbacks. The concern, of course, is that modern music might drive away a significant portion of the audience. Most are older (the last concert I attended I guessed the median age to be over 65) and perhaps more rigid in their musical tastes. Almost all classical music lovers enjoy Romantic and Classical era music; whereas, many fewer like modern music. The "safe" programming is then pre-20th century with a few exceptions. In addition the very few who make significant donations are almost certainly older and perhaps also more conservative musically.

There are several potential benefits to adding much more modern music. It makes the field more vibrant. Having contemporary composers mostly detached from their audiences (or having their audience essentially be a small number of music professionals) simply can't be good for classical music. The BIG question is whether modern music would increase listenership. I see 3 possibilities: 1) the experiment would fail and audiences would shrink significantly, 2) audiences would slowly rise, and 3) audiences would shrink, but after some (hopefully relatively modest) period, they would rise to or above previous levels. I really have no good sense of what to expect, but my guess is that (3) is most likely. 

As in most fields, corporations are conservative. Getting most orchestras to play modern music right away sounds very unlikely. I think the best way to proceed would be to have a few forward thinking orchestras to experiment with more modern music (and other ideas - marketing, outreach, etc.). Hopefully the experiment goes well and others will follow. Of course, in saying this, I may be subjecting myself to a future of less enjoyment at live performances because I am one of those who have yet to really embrace modern music.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Before we can say whether Philadelphia's recent plight is instructive, we first need to consider whether or not it's a near-unique case of dire fiscal trouble and probable mismanagement, or whether they're a "canary-in-a-coal-mine" phenomenon that presages other declared bankruptcies in the future. If the former, then widespread calls for major change are less credible, since the first instinct would be to look at a nearby solvent ensemble and ask "what did they do right that we did wrong?" and take it from there.

A minor point- and it's sort of a carp, as well-- but (as I've posted elsewhere... too lazy to look it up) Stokowski DID actually prefer applause between movements.

I wonder if the bigger problem isn't not-so-good old-fashioned Leo Strauss "Crisis of Our Time" stuff. Or possibly, as Dorothy Parker said, "you can lead a (»sounds like 'horse,' but with one less consonant«) to culture, but you can't make 'er think."


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

mmsbls said:


> The most interesting issue listed above, I think, is adding more modern music to the programs. There are potential benefits and drawbacks. The concern, of course, is that modern music might drive away a significant portion of the audience. Most are older (the last concert I attended I guessed the median age to be over 65) and perhaps more rigid in their musical tastes. Almost all classical music lovers enjoy Romantic and Classical era music; whereas, many fewer like modern music. The "safe" programming is then pre-20th century with a few exceptions. In addition the very few who make significant donations are almost certainly older and perhaps also more conservative musically.
> 
> There are several potential benefits to adding much more modern music. It makes the field more vibrant. Having contemporary composers mostly detached from their audiences (or having their audience essentially be a small number of music professionals) simply can't be good for classical music. The BIG question is whether modern music would increase listenership. I see 3 possibilities: 1) the experiment would fail and audiences would shrink significantly, 2) audiences would slowly rise, and 3) audiences would shrink, but after some (hopefully relatively modest) period, they would rise to or above previous levels. I really have no good sense of what to expect, but my guess is that (3) is most likely.


Much would depend on which contemporary music would be programmed. Not all work from contemporary composers is avant-garde. For example that Carl Vine piano concerto you posted in another thread would be appreciated by people who like, say, the Ravel or Prokofiev concertos. The works from composers like Golijov, Daugherty and Corigliano (to name but a few) would fit in perfectly with those of the oldies. That doesn't mean that the avant-garde should be completely ignored, but if audiences first develop a habit of actually listening to music from living composers that is at odds with the prejudice they may have towards it they may also become more open to check out the 'challenging' stuff as well.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> Better marketing (with higher budgets)
> *Musician outreach*
> Much more modern classical music
> Reduction in the number of symphony orchestras
> Adding classical music to grade school curricula


Musical Outreach... I like that name  Music Evangelism: that's what I participate in much of the time. Telling people about the Good News of Classical Music to the Ends of the Earth... well, mostly a few friends at school, and at church. 

Although I don't like that reduction of # of symphony orchestras idea, perhaps that's what's necessary. Then again... it will make it even more difficult for common people to hear live music when it's only done in certain big cities. Small cities need them too.

As for putting it in the school curriculum, we do have a mandatory arts credit in high school, so students can take music classes if they like. We even have a Music Theory class at my school, which I've been in for 2 years.

I got another idea! RADIO! It's really what hooked me to classical music. There needs to be more radio stations that play classical music (preferably non-commercial), so that people may stumble upon it in their daily lives. It's even better when it's listener supported, that way government pensions and stuff don't get in the way in case they were to withdraw funding.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

jhar26 said:


> Much would depend on which contemporary music would be programmed. Not all work from contemporary composers is avant-garde. For example that Carl Vine piano concerto you posted in another thread would be appreciated by people who like, say, the Ravel or Prokofiev concertos. The works from composers like Golijov, Daugherty and Corigliano (to name but a few) would fit in perfectly with those of the oldies. That doesn't mean that the avant-garde should be completely ignored, but if audiences first develop a habit of actually listening to music from living composers that is at odds with the prejudice they may have towards it they may also become more open to check out the 'challenging' stuff as well.


I agree. A year ago I would have said that I like extremely few modern works. Even a week ago when I posted in the thread _Poll: Do you like modern music?_, I voted "I'm still learning/trying." But in a sense that's not correct. I do like much modern music, but when I think of atonal, serial, and certain other styles, I do not like them. There are many works that I'd be very happy to hear in concert. I suspect that many others would as well, but they just don't know many modern composers and might be wary of something that look new.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

> A psychedelic light show for Le Sacre du Printemps?


Would attend.

Besides, Scriabin intended it for some of his works.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I imagine a lot of people would more easily engage with classical music if they had contemporary composers with whom they identified _and_ who wrote 'accessible' music (which, of course, is a whole other argument besides!). Of course, the problem there is with maintaining some artistic standards without falling prey to marketing the composer rather than his/her works, or becoming a simplistic cross-over act.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

What will be, will be. At the moment, society deems the culling of orchestras to be valid. Without musicians, there is no music. The rest is noise.


----------



## dmg (Sep 13, 2009)

I headbang to Beethoven's Symphony No. 9, 2nd movement. I even mildly do something similar when I see it live.


----------

