# Problems with the 'canon' of repertoire



## Guest (Jan 12, 2019)

This is something that grew out of the 19th century, highly dependent on whether impresarios, publishers, conductors thought something was good enough to make a lot of money when publicly performed or published as sheet music. The unasked question seemed to always be 'how will this music compare to Beethoven's symphonic output?' due to his popularity and influence on composers in the early part of the century, and the fact that Beethoven's symphonies was originally seen as 'the canon' when it came to orchestral repertoire.

Because orchestral/operatic/large scale choral works were the public face of the most 'successful' composers in the 19th century (successful in inverted commas because I'm the 19th C implications of success artistically and financially) a lot of the times the only way to get there was based on _who you know_, the opportunities provided to you and what you were actually allowed to study based on what yer dad says is alright by him when you're young.

The world has changed a lot since then, but the main orchestral/operatic repertoire largely comprises of works created in these older circumstances in a world whose industry and values was hugely different to what it is now.

My questions: 
Do you think this is a good thing for music today or a bad thing? 
Is it better to have a few really good works of similar style outrank the majority in terms or repertoire or is it better for music fans to have easy access to a much wider range of styles when they see a concert by an orchestra or an opera?
Would you like to see a change in how we programme music these days or would you rather have more of the same?
Is it a problem to move beyond the 'canon' in mainstream repertoire, or is it more a problem to continue working with its ideals?
How does this affect composers living and working today?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

A few random thoughts:

_Do you think this is a good thing for music today or a bad thing?_

The basic canon still has value as a good thing for new listeners as a starting point, works that one is likely to want to hear live within a lifetime because there has been a lasting interest in them musically and historically, and it also includes some of the important 20th-century composers such as Stravinsky and Shostakovich. It could be argued that the canon is not without having a relatively wide scope.

_Is it better to have a few really good works of similar style outrank the majority in terms or repertoire or is it better for music fans to have easy access to a much wider range of styles when they see a concert by an orchestra or an opera?_

It's necessary to consider the interests of the listeners. Good or familiar works would likely have more appeal to new listeners, with of course notable exceptions depending on the work. Those who are seeking a wider range in performances are most likely already familiar with the basic repertoire. But the problem is how many concerts are given during the music season that one has access to? There are far more choices available if weekly concerts are given versus only perhaps once a month. The more exposure to the music overall, the more variety can be presented and the more works can be performed that are new, experimental and farther away from the basic repertoire. Cities where there are many performances and choices often have a more sophisticated or experienced audience who welcome works that are not warhorses from the basic canon, and I consider that an incredibly important determining factor in what the audience wants to hear. When new music is presented, there's always the chance that it will fail and there must be enough recitals and concerts presented where the failures can easily be absorbed or overcome as part of the experience of hearing something that is not part of the standard repertoire.

_Would you like to see a change in how we programme music these days or would you rather have more of the same?_

I do not see any major changes being made in what's presented. I think the best that most orchestras can do is offer a classic from the basic canon with something that will help promote more 20th or 21st-century music or new contemporary music and the composers who wrote it. The problem with some of the contemporary works is that when they fail they fail so badly that the audience can get turned off it for long periods of time or permanently. One famous example is a work presented by Birtwistle at a Proms concert and there were walkouts. People are paying a premium to go to such concerts and they don't want to be disappointed with works that might mostly be discords and perhaps too much of the dark side of human experience. But it seems that some type of balance between the standard more familiar works and works that reflect more of our contemporary world is practical way to appeal to a wider audience.

_Is it a problem to move beyond the 'canon' in the mainstream repertoire, or is it more a problem to continue working with its ideals?_

I think the greater familiarity of the new breeds greater interest and curiosity to move beyond the standard canon and hear what composers have to say that is a reflection of today. There's a great variety to choose from... but it's not possible to hear live what might be good because it's too expensive and not enough concerts and recitals are available.

_How does this affect composers living and working today._

I believe that the composers of today have to struggle to find their audience just like in the past. Sometimes they have to experience considerable failure or disappointment, including harsh criticism, until they are accepted. But they have a major advantage compared to the composers in the past because their music can be heard on recordings that can be heard online from virtually any place in the world and not just at live concerts. There's nothing that can now be prevented from having exposure and its day in the sun. In that sense, it doesn't necessarily matter what happens in the concert halls though there can still be great prestige and recognition from a work being performed live. Whether it's that apparent on this forum or not, I still see considerable interest in music that generally hasn't been played to death as part of the accepted canon.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I built my collection starting from NPR's Guide to Building a Classical CD collection, Classical.Net and Classical Music 50 greatest composers, which feature stuff from the Repertoire. They are usually 18th and 19th Century heavy, a bit from Baroque and 20th Century. I think for getting familiar with Classical music, it is a great guide, and you can't go wrong with the selections. In particular, Classical.Net goes way further than the others into lesser known composers into pre-Baroque and 20th Century music.

What I know of a few listeners is they treat the Repertoire as definitive (I was guilty of it myself), and give the same list of greatest works of music ever in order. It becomes a game of popularity. They basically align what they believe they hear from what people say. It becomes a hindrance to discovering their own taste, or dispelling certain myths about the music. More popular accessible music (great as it is) becomes objectively better than some other music less popular (usually less accessible, but just as well written, at least in my view). 

As to music today. It can become a hindrance. I think they should canonize a few works representative of certain styles, with acknowledged technique and influence, like say Boulez Marteau sans Maitre, like it or hate it. It was a groundbreaking work. But minimalistic works are not really groundbreaking technically, so I don't think it is appropriate. Others of course may disagree.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

*Do you think this is a good thing for music today or a bad thing?* It's terrible. It says to young composers that their music doesn't stand a chance. Too often the first performance is the last.

*Is it better to have a few really good works of similar style outrank the majority in terms or repertoire or is it better for music fans to have easy access to a much wider range of styles when they see a concert by an orchestra or an opera?* A much broader repertoire would be great, but the reality is that you have to sell tickets. Fortunately, the recording industry has filled that void spectacularly well. Anyone thinking that the unplayed works of Raff, Schmidt, Reinecke, Glazunov and others are suddenly going to go mainstream are fooling themselves.

*Would you like to see a change in how we programme music these days or would you rather have more of the same?* I pretty much avoid concerts that play the mainstream repertoire. I"ve heard it all, many times, and don't need to hear it again. When some orchestra takes on something really cool, really rare, I'll travel a long ways to hear it. Schmidt 2nd, Gliere 3rd and a lot more.
*
Is it a problem to move beyond the 'canon' in mainstream repertoire, or is it more a problem to continue working with its ideals?* It's a problem because patrons by and large like what they know. Supporters tend to be conservative in their tastes. Conductors are mostly lazy who don't really want to look down the dark, lost roads of music history. There are exceptions, but none of them are leaders of a major orchestra.

*How does this affect composers living and working today? * It makes them despondent and apathetic. I know a NY composer who has written 12 symphonies since 1970. How many has he heard performed? Zero. Orchestra time is incredibly expensive and having time to play through something unknown is difficult to get. Some composers don't do themselves any favors either. This same composer's last symphony - the only NOT in a serial mode - calls for a huge percussion section needing eight players, two sets of timpani, three harps, piano-four hands, winds in fours. And an off stage female chorus of four. Good luck getting anyone to read it.

One way a composer can get his music played is by taking up the baton and being his own advocate. Works for Esa Pekka Salonen, Markus Lindberg, John Adams, and others.

What's really interesting is learning how, when and why the fossilization of the repertoire got started. One theory is that is was in the early 30's when the Nazis came to power. They wanted to glorify the German past and pretty much banned new music. For 10 years the German orchestras played the old repertoire and the influence throughout the music world took root. Up until that time, most concerts had new music. The serialists that came after WWII didn't help matters one iota.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

_Do you think this is a good thing for music today or a bad thing? 
_For me, not a bad thing. In general I think the works that occupy the cannon and are peripheral to it are the right ones. It is good for listeners and audiences to have a "guide" as to where they can get the most immediate musical pleasure from. But I say this as someone who rarely goes to concerts these days - I don't live near a concert hall so concerts represent a significant expense (probably travel, parking, a meal out and a hotel as well as the ticket) - and happy with a situation where so much music (including the rare, the contemporary, the different) _is _available to me. And I also feel that the canon is a good way of orienting oneself to newer music (and indeed any CM that is not in the canon): the works act as sort of landmarks. And, finally, the canon (as I understand the term) is alive: it changes (works are added to it and works are relegated).

_Is it better to have a few really good works of similar style outrank the majority in terms or repertoire or is it better for music fans to have easy access to a much wider range of styles when they see a concert by an orchestra or an opera?
_By the wording I guess we are meant to say "no, it's bad". But is it what is happening? It is true that quite a lot of music is neglected in the concerto hall, that too many performers are not adventurous and so on. And all this is tedious. But there are notable and exciting exceptions. Maybe I would be more likely to make the effort and go to the expense of going to concerts if concerts were more interesting! But opera house programming, on the other hand, often does have a sense of adventure. Or that is how it seems in Britain. Interestingly, rather conservative audiences are enjoying very contemporary operas.

_Would you like to see a change in how we programme music these days or would you rather have more of the same?
_Yes. I suspect, though, that this might require subsidies, particularly for bigger works. Orchestras are already underpaid. I do think that when an orchestra hires a new principal conductor they could more often pay attention to what music they will introduce to their audiences.

_Is it a problem to move beyond the 'canon' in mainstream repertoire, or is it more a problem to continue working with its ideals?
_As I say, through recordings I think we have unprecedented access to a very wide range of music. I guess I would like to see a public that is more interested in exploring - and not just the lesser rarer pieces that were written alongside the works that have made the canon (I have generally found that they have been treated justly by history) - but that is the way our world is, isn't it? Educated people were perhaps more open to the new some 75 years ago but this probably followed fashion, anyway, so it was probably quite limited. What I think is that only a certain proportion of people are wired to really enjoy music but that many people who are so wired still get little access to CM (whether the canon or not) and this is to me a bigger "problem". Subsidising CM, making it easily available to everyone and not an expression of snobbism or social superiority, is the answer.

_How does this affect composers living and working today?_
I don't know. I guess the chance to show their music to live audiences can be a very meaningful experience for a composer. But isn't it the case that because of recordings new composers have more chance of being heard now than for 100 years?


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> It's a problem because patrons by and large like what they know. Supporters tend to be conservative in their tastes. Conductors are mostly lazy who don't really want to look down the dark, lost roads of music history. There are exceptions, but none of them are leaders of a major orchestra.


I don't think it's necessarily a question of being conservative or lazy. As I think has been said already on this thread, there is a huge canon of amazing music. Unless you've been avidly listening for many years you won't have heard it all. So relative newcomers or people who only listen occasionally will certainly want to hear the canon, and there's of course nothing wrong with that.

If the repertoire is a fossil, then a simple explanation is that there now so much high quality music that only a small proportion of the audience is knowledgable enough to desire untrodden dusty roads or modern avante garde. Don't forget that classical music now competes with a multitude of other musical forms, which perhaps might be better placed for experimentation.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

shirime said:


> This is something that grew out of the 19th century, highly dependent on whether impresarios, publishers, conductors thought something was good enough to make a lot of money when publicly performed or published as sheet music. The unasked question seemed to always be 'how will this music compare to Beethoven's symphonic output?' due to his popularity and influence on composers in the early part of the century, and the fact that Beethoven's symphonies was originally seen as 'the canon' when it came to orchestral repertoire.
> 
> Because orchestral/operatic/large scale choral works were the public face of the most 'successful' composers in the 19th century (successful in inverted commas because I'm the 19th C implications of success artistically and financially) a lot of the times the only way to get there was based on _who you know_, the opportunities provided to you and what you were actually allowed to study based on what yer dad says is alright by him when you're young.
> 
> ...


Not understanding these highlights. Typos?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I wrote my post before reading the others. I see that many feel a sort of oppression from the canon - mostly while recognising that newbies need to know where to start - but I am not exactly a newbie. We are free to go where we want with our love of music - of course we are - but I have often found a sort of critical consensus helpful to know where to persevere and where not to. I have of course tried going against the critical grain but have most often found that it is fairly reliable. I feel there are many CM fans who would do well to respect it more! There is so much music that I love but would have given up on were it not for a critical consensus that it is worthwhile. And there is music that I have almost wasted my time with, enjoying it briefly and then finding it rather empty. 

OK, this is not about the canon as such. But the critical consensus is the way the canon adapts to remain relevant.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> *Do you think this is a good thing for music today or a bad thing?* It's terrible. It says to young composers that their music doesn't stand a chance. Too often the first performance is the last.


It's also possible that audiences are not particularly liking what they are hearing. If not enough listeners spread the word about the latest contemporary piece they've heard performed live (or recorded) then it wont be played again I guess. The obvious example of where something new achieved success would be Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ - even despite the riot it caused at the first performance.

Perhaps we underestimate how incredibly difficult it is to compose music, whether it be tonal or not, that is good enough to impress enough listeners for it's survival.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

As has been mentioned on another thread, Arvo Part and others are achieving repeat performances.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Is what we need a Beethoven's 10 or a Sibelius 8th? Something that is new but is somewhat in that mould?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I do enjoy some modern music but I can't help be suspicious that what I am often being presented with is a series of non-sequiturs (musically speaking).


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> I wrote my post before reading the others. I see that many feel a sort of oppression from the canon - mostly while recognising that newbies need to know where to start


It's a start, but it's far more than that too. I began listening seriously to classical music four years ago and vast amounts of what I think is being referred to as the canon I've either not at all touched or am very unfamiliar with. For instance: there's _loads_ of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven that I still want to listen to and haven't touched. That by itself is probably years worth of stuff. I hardly know any of Italian baroque other than Vivaldi, who I love. Most of the 19th century is a blank for me: I've pretty much not touched Brahms, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Chopin, or Mahler, to name just a few. I like Shostakovich but of his symphonies the only one I know well is the 4th and I've not touched the string quartets.

Most of my life I've listened to contemporary popular music so _all_ of classical music is new and interesting to me and there's loads and loads of it.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I want to add something that I often forget about: In my 50+ years of attending concerts, playing in concerts, listening to radio and recordings, I have heard it all. But there are other people in the audience who haven't. Even though I may avoid a concert with the Tchaikovsky 5th, there are going to be some people for whom this is their first encounter with it. 

There are some newer works that audiences do enjoy. Look at the tremendous popularity of Danzon no. 2 by Marquez. Tonal, melodic, rhythmic...exciting. Esa Pekka Salonen has written some terrific new music: LA Variations is wonderful. And there are orchestras that are dedicated to playing forgotten music. The Bard Festival in New York takes on really rare repertoire. The Musica Nova Orchestra in Phoenix plays mostly very obscure, but very fine, music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> I do enjoy some modern music but I can't help be suspicious that what I am often being presented with is a series of non-sequiturs (musically speaking).


I didn't get this reference to musical "non sequiturs" and also what it means to say that you are being presented with them. Do you merely mean that the music doesn't make sense and seems random to you? Or is there more to it?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> I didn't get this reference to musical "non sequiturs" and also what it means to say that you are being presented with them. Do you merely mean that the music doesn't make sense and seems random to you? Or is there more to it?


Yes - much does seem rather random; but not all. If we are trying to explain the lack of success of atonal music then it a possible reason.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> It's also possible that audiences are not particularly liking what they are hearing. If not enough listeners spread the word about the latest contemporary piece they've heard performed live (or recorded) then it wont be played again I guess. The obvious example of where something new achieved success would be Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ - even despite the riot it caused at the first performance.
> 
> Perhaps we underestimate how incredibly difficult it is to compose music, whether it be tonal or not, that is good enough to impress enough listeners for it's survival.


Survival? Isn't it the case that those who don't much like the contemporary who are more pessimistic about its survival, and more prone to using mainstream statistics to demonstrate this, than those who enjoy it? I guess the normal audience of the main orchestras and the big halls probably don't want to listen to a lot of new music - especially if it uses a language that is unfamiliar to them - but this is not so new. The fact remains that new music is getting through and entering the big league repertoires. It takes time - perhaps more than it used to take - but it is happening. And much more gets played by smaller groups and in smaller venues. But the new thing is the ease with which we can access lots of new music by recordings. It seems very clear to me that contemporary music is thriving even if it is not reaching the big concern halls and opera houses in all countries. And at the same time there are many interesting but more populist composers (Part, Adams, Glass, MacMillan and more) who are not challenging anyone too much and are doing instantly good box office.

And none of them - not even Beethoven - do well if you compare them with today's big pop idols.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> What's really interesting is learning how, when and why the fossilization of the repertoire got started. *One theory is that is was in the early 30's when the Nazis came to power. They wanted to glorify the German past and pretty much banned new music.* For 10 years the German orchestras played the old repertoire and the influence throughout the music world took root. Up until that time, most concerts had new music. The serialists that came after WWII didn't help matters one iota.


I'm also familiar with these nonsensical 'conspiracy theories' (the music equivalent of the flat-earth theory) that Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner and other masters of the German tradition formed the core part of the 'canon repertoire' today thanks to the Nazis' propaganda. The truth is, countless musicians and composers throughout history (who had nothing to do with the Nazis whatsoever) paid respect and homage to them - that's how they 'rightfully' earned their places in music history. http://blogs.springeropen.com/sprin...ata-reveals-classical-music-creation-secrets/ there's even statistical research analysis conducted by academic institutes that reveals the immense influence they exercised on other, later composers through vast networks of connections.

I don't care if young composers today are faced with harsh reality and quit composition - we have absolutely no obligation to help them with their career in any way against our own interests. (There are still good number of them enjoying successful career in the film industry and other practical areas.) One thing I know for certain - blaming on the 'canon repertoire' and its fans for contemporary music composers not getting the attention they want is not the proper way to go about it. Rather, I think contemporary music composers themselves should think outside the box, think about ways to 'get converts' from the fandom of modern pop music, or electronic dance music industry, or other popular genres, which are vastly larger in scale and far more dominant over today's society than the classical music industry based around canon repertoire is. 
It seems to me that this sort of discussion is based around the hypothesis that 'conservative' Classical music fans are the only ones with music tastes refined enough to understand and support contemporary music. Even if we are, there's absolutely no reason for us to spend time or pay expenses for something we don't like.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Survival? Isn't it the case that those who don't much like the contemporary who are more pessimistic about its survival, and more prone to using mainstream statistics to demonstrate this, than those who enjoy it? I guess the normal audience of the main orchestras and the big halls probably don't want to listen to a lot of new music - especially if it uses a language that is unfamiliar to them - but this is not so new. The fact remains that new music is getting through and entering the big league repertoires. It takes time - perhaps more than it used to take - but it is happening. And much more gets played by smaller groups and in smaller venues. But the new thing is the ease with which we can access lots of new music by recordings. It seems very clear to me that contemporary music is thriving even if it is not reaching the big concern halls and opera houses in all countries. And at the same time there are many interesting but more populist composers (Part, Adams, Glass, MacMillan and more) who are not challenging anyone too much and are doing instantly good box office.
> 
> And none of them - not even Beethoven - do well if you compare them with today's big pop idols.


The Barbican and the Proms feature a lot of new challenging music, but I don't know of any that has become a staple - at least nothing that compares with a Beethoven symphony etc. Berg's violin concerto somewhat - or Bartok perhaps though he didn't write atonal music of course.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> ...composers today are faced with harsh reality and quit composition - we have absolutely no obligation to help them with their career in any way...


This is very true.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Survival? Isn't it the case that those who don't much like the contemporary who are more pessimistic about its survival, and more prone to using mainstream statistics to demonstrate this, than those who enjoy it? I guess the normal audience of the main orchestras and the big halls probably don't want to listen to a lot of new music - especially if it uses a language that is unfamiliar to them - but this is not so new. The fact remains that new music is getting through and entering the big league repertoires. It takes time - perhaps more than it used to take - but it is happening. And much more gets played by smaller groups and in smaller venues. But the new thing is the ease with which we can access lots of new music by recordings. It seems very clear to me that contemporary music is thriving even if it is not reaching the big concern halls and opera houses in all countries. And at the same time there are many interesting but more populist composers (Part, Adams, Glass, MacMillan and more) who are not challenging anyone too much and are doing instantly good box office.
> 
> And none of them - not even Beethoven - do well if you compare them with today's big pop idols.


Personally, I see great possibilities and potential in atonality but I think much of it has failed so far.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I have my own canon, but I do recognize that there is a general consensus canon that changes very slowly over time; that's probably a good thing.


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> And none of them - not even Beethoven - do well if you compare them with today's big pop idols.


In some sense this the most relevant point. Classical music is a niche interest right now and modern composers are a niche within that niche. If you want more interest in their output then I think you have to try to generate more interest in the genre in general. That's obviously difficult given the enormous choice and possibly short attention spans of today's listeners.

However, this is not really what bothers me. What I find most unfortunate is that the musical landscape as a whole isn't even, but a huge amount of publicity and air time is given to a relatively small number of performers--the aforementioned pop idols--and for the most part their output is bland. It's not even bad, it's too boring to bad. People complained on this thread that orchestras are conservative with their programming choices. The record labels pushing pop hits are far more conservative and the funny thing is that their audience hasn't noticed or doesn't care.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm also familiar with these nonsensical 'conspiracy theories' (the music equivalent of the flat-earth theory) that Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms, Wagner and other masters of the German tradition formed the core part of the 'canon repertoire' today thanks to the Nazis' propaganda. The truth is, countless musicians and composers throughout history (who had nothing to do with the Nazis whatsoever) paid respect and homage to them - that's how they 'rightfully' earned their places in music history. http://blogs.springeropen.com/sprin...ata-reveals-classical-music-creation-secrets/ there's even statistical research analysis conducted by academic institutes that reveals the immense influence they exercised on other, later composers through vast networks of connections.
> 
> I don't care if young composers today are faced with harsh reality and quit composition - we have absolutely no obligation to help them with their career in any way against our own interests. (There are still good number of them enjoying successful career in the film industry and other practical areas.) One thing I know for certain - blaming on the 'canon repertoire' and its fans for contemporary music composers not getting the attention they want is not the proper way to go about it. Rather, I think contemporary music composers themselves should think outside the box, think about ways to 'get converts' from the fandom of modern pop music, or electronic dance music industry, or other popular genres, which are vastly larger in scale and far more dominant over today's society than the classical music industry based around canon repertoire is.
> It seems to me that this sort of discussion is based around the hypothesis that 'conservative' Classical music fans are the only ones with music tastes refined enough to understand and support contemporary music. Even if we are, there's absolutely no reason for us to spend time or pay expenses for something we don't like.


I like much of what you wrote there. The robust defense of the canon against the suggestion that it is a product of Nazism is well put and called for. I don't disagree that composers either make a living from composing or they don't ... and that we have no obligation to like and pay for the ones who are failing. But I wonder if you are talking about "the failures" who I think of when I hear the term. Many challenging composers do not yet enjoy wide popularity but do make a good living, a living your would expect for a composer who gets his/her works played and recorded by eminent artists. Some of that may be down to public funding but is that a bad thing? Would any of our favourite composers have composed our favourite works without the patronage of the very few who had all the power and all the wealth. Now we have a somewhat fairer wealth distribution it seems right and appropriate that the state steps in to play the role that would once have been played by the great and powerful. The remaining question is how should the state choose what to fund? I prefer that this be done by experts than by popular votes and feel sure that this system serves us best.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> And none of them - not even Beethoven - do well if you compare them with today's big pop idols.


But there's a huge difference. Beethoven was a composer. Most of the pop idols are not: they are performers. Beethoven also performed his own music, in fact that's what most composers did early on. But it was also written down and performed by others in such a way that whoever plays the Moonlight Sonata, it sound pretty much the same. In pop music, where the performer takes priority, no two performances are even close, and some music is "owned" by some performers so much so that no one else can think of doing it. A lot of it has to do with arrangements of a work vs. a composed work we have in the classical arena.

In 200 years an orchestra (if there are still any) could perform the then 400 year old Beethoven 5th and it will still sound like it does today - I hope. In 200 years the insipid song Baby will hopefully be extinct because Justin Bieber isn't around. It isn't a strong enough composition for anyone else to want to do it. And this sort of thing did happen in the classical world. Mozart, Haydn, Liszt, Paganini, Wieniawski, and others wrote music for their own use to draw in the crowds, the idea of others performing it was secondary.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^ That sentence had a context and only meant anything even a little worthwhile in that context. _Of course_, they are different things!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

But so many times I hear the argument that if "Beethoven is so great, how come classical concerts only have 1000-2000 people going, but when Beyoncé gives a concert it's more like 50,000 - 60,000". The mass public (and my own family, sorry to say) confuse popularity with quality.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> But so many times I hear the argument that if "Beethoven is so great, how come classical concerts only have 1000-2000 people going, but when Beyoncé gives a concert it's more like 50,000 - 60,000". The mass public (and my own family, sorry to say) confuse popularity with quality.


Should we not be asking how a possible Beyoncé holographic performance might fare in two hundred years time?


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

shirime said:


> This is something that grew out of the 19th century, highly dependent on whether impresarios, publishers, conductors thought something was good enough to make a lot of money when publicly performed or published as sheet music. The unasked question seemed to always be 'how will this music compare to Beethoven's symphonic output?' due to his popularity and influence on composers in the early part of the century, *and the fact that Beethoven's symphonies was originally seen as 'the canon' when it came to orchestral repertoire.
> *
> Because orchestral/operatic/large scale choral works were the public face of the most 'successful' composers in the 19th century (successful in inverted commas because I'm the 19th C implications of success artistically and financially) a lot of the times the only way to get there was based on _who you know_, the opportunities provided to you and what you were actually allowed to study based on what yer dad says is alright by him when you're young.
> 
> ...


This is nothing in comparison what has happened with the Sonatas... After Beethoven, ONLY Schubert (and Schumann, but with some problems) succeeded to compose GOOD sonatas. Beethoven's influence was eminent to his successors in every aspect of music. In symphonic music (with his pure classical form), only Brahms (with his symphonies) was close to the GREATEST. Mahler and Bruckner approach greatly differs and any comparison with Beethoven is useless.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 29, 2018)

Putting on a performance with a full orchestra in a purpose built concert hall is expensive, and the organisers of the event understandably want to be fairly sure of selling tickets. This will inevitably result in a somewhat conservative approach to programming, particularly where the headline work is concerned.

Having said that, I do feel organisers are too conservative. There are lots of works which are fairly well known and would in all probability attract a good attendance - I'm thinking about the likes of Bruckner, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, so hardly obscure - but they are programmed infrequently (in the UK). A lot of people will attend a concert just for the experience of seeing a live performance, and may be happy even if they know just one of the works in the programme. Having said that, they probably still expect the remaining works to at least be 'musical' to their ears.

This last point may be what poses the problem for many modern composers. It sometimes seems that the determination to be fresh and different, to push at the boundaries as it were, leads to the creation of music that will be very alien to a concert going public used to the familiar repertoire. The reputation modern classical music has for being difficult, even downright incomprehensible, affects all new composers.

Modern composers have it good when it comes to being able to get their music heard, but definitely not when it comes to getting it performed in the concert hall.


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I'm thinking about the likes of Bruckner, Rachmaninov, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, so hardly obscure - but they are programmed infrequently (in the UK).


You probably aren't in London, then? There's a good deal of Shostakovich there.


----------



## vmartell (Feb 9, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Is what we need a Beethoven's 10 or a Sibelius 8th? Something that is new but is somewhat in that mould?


In my mind that is the big question when it comes to expanding the canon repertoire - do we go forward? or sidewys?

Should we add Boulez, John Adams (both) Glass, Max Richter, Elliot Carter and beyond? And play them often, until they are canon?

Or shall we go sideways - if people like Beethoven, how about adding some Ferdinand Ries, Vieuxtemps? If people like Sibelius, how about some Arnold Bax? if you like Richard Strauss, maybe some Schreker, Zemlinsky might work?

This has made me think - I am a "go sideways" guy, for the most part. Now, I am also a child of recordings. The combination of being a small town person and the availability of recordings, including the surge in availability of obscure "sideways" repertoire from CPO, Naxos (Orfeo), Chandos, Steinberg, DaCapo, Cappricio and others I forget were factors.

I will confess that I have trouble adjusting to the live sound of an orchestra... my point is that I truly never thought of that - the itch for new and/or different repertoire is pretty well served.

Never mind the concert halls; even as the majors kept reissuing the same repertoire, be it remasters of classic stuff or new recordings of the same stuff by the latest addition to the label, I was happily getting all the (for example) Weintgartner symphonies on CPO, Rued Lannggard on DaCapo and even the full Zemlinsky on EMI by Conlon..

But I imagine that if your preference is for the live experience, it might be excruciating to see the same pieces programmed over and over...

v


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

If I never hear the Pachelbel "canon" again, I won't miss it.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 29, 2018)

fliege said:


> You probably aren't in London, then? There's a good deal of Shostakovich there.


Thanks, I need to check it out then! London's an easy journey for me, and I'd love to see either the 5th or 10th symphonies performed (I saw the 7th, many years ago, somewhat oddly paired with Beethoven's 5th Piano Concerto).


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

A ‘canon' buried in flowers.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

All this talk about what "we" would or should do to modify the so-called canon -- in fact, the canon is determined by concert programmers' ideas of what will best fulfill the several and often-conflicting objectives of their bands' music strategies while, at the same time, putting bums in seats. Each of us has exactly the same vote as anybody else, washed or unwashed.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I just read an article by a conductor who says it bluntly: "99.9% of the standard orchestral repertoire consists of undisputed masterpieces. They are the greatest works ever written and that is why they are so popular. The fact that few works written in the last 60 years have entered that hallowed list isn't a blight on the audiences, orchestras or conductors. It says more about the ability - or lack thereof - of the composers who steadfastly refuse to write music people enjoy. Frankly, they're not as good as composers of eras gone by. There is no living composer who has the skill, inspiration or genius of the likes of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Dvorak, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Puccini, Rachmaninov, Mahler and many, many more..."


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

mbhaub said:


> I just read an article by a conductor who says it bluntly: "99.9% of the standard orchestral repertoire consists of undisputed masterpieces. They are the greatest works ever written and that is why they are so popular. The fact that few works written in the last 60 years have entered that hallowed list isn't a blight on the audiences, orchestras or conductors. It says more about the ability - or lack thereof - of the composers who steadfastly refuse to write music people enjoy. Frankly, they're not as good as composers of eras gone by. There is no living composer who has the skill, inspiration or genius of the likes of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Dvorak, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Puccini, Rachmaninov, Mahler and many, many more..."


Would you cite the article please?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mbhaub said:


> "99.9% of the standard orchestral repertoire consists of undisputed masterpieces. They are the greatest works ever written and that is why they are so popular."


A healthy antidote for those who claim classical music isn't a popularity contest. Of course it is. It's a slow contest, by Top-40 standards, but a contest it is. Works enter the standard repertoire based on their long-term popularity and leave it by the same measure. This is so blindingly obvious, IMO, as to be indisputable.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Something of the Standard Orchestra Repertoire (which is always subject to change over the years) with much left out of works dedicated to solo instruments and other works:

http://www.subitomusic.com/pdf/printed_parts.pdf

It's expected that this list be completed by the end of one's lifetime or within one's next lifetime if such a thing as reincarnation is proven to exist. A test of completion will be given or everyone must start the list all over again.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Larkenfield said:


> An idea of the Standard Repertoire (which is always subject to change over the years):
> http://www.subitomusic.com/pdf/printed_parts.pdf


Interesting - no Goldberg Variations, Art of Fugue or Musical Offering.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

janxharris said:


> Interesting - no Goldberg Variations, Art of Fugue or Musical Offering.


Jeremy Denk answers for the Goldbergs: "The best reason to hate Bach's Goldberg Variations-aside from the obvious reason that everyone asks you all the time which of the two Glenn Gould recordings you prefer-is that everybody loves them. Not a moment goes by when someone doesn't release a new recording, accompanied by breathless press. They're like a trendy bar that (infuriatingly) keeps staying trendy. Yes, I'm suspicious of the Goldbergs' popularity."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> I just read an article by a conductor who says it bluntly: "99.9% of the standard orchestral repertoire consists of undisputed masterpieces. They are the greatest works ever written and that is why they are so popular. The fact that few works written in the last 60 years have entered that hallowed list isn't a blight on the audiences, orchestras or conductors. It says more about the ability - or lack thereof - of the composers who steadfastly refuse to write music people enjoy. Frankly, they're not as good as composers of eras gone by. There is no living composer who has the skill, inspiration or genius of the likes of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Dvorak, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Puccini, Rachmaninov, Mahler and many, many more..."


I'd also like to know who said this and where. It doesn't make it correct or even reasonable that it was said by "a conductor", even a noted one. But it would be good to see the context ... in this case who it is who feels like this. Needless to say, there are many noted musicians who feel the opposite.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Jeremy Denk answers for the Goldbergs: "The best reason to hate Bach's Goldberg Variations-aside from the obvious reason that everyone asks you all the time which of the two Glenn Gould recordings you prefer-is that everybody loves them. Not a moment goes by when someone doesn't release a new recording, accompanied by breathless press. They're like a trendy bar that (infuriatingly) keeps staying trendy. Yes, I'm suspicious of the Goldbergs' popularity."


Just pleasant but unexceptional music for me.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I'd also like to know who said this and where. It doesn't make it correct or even reasonable that it was said by "a conductor", even a noted one. But it would be good to see the context ... in this case who it is who feels like this. Needless to say, there are many noted musicians who feel the opposite.


It reminds me of something that Bruno Walter may have said. He was pretty opinionated and could be quite disparaging about music he doesn't like.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ Well, if it was "a god" I will forgive him! If it was him I suppose he will have been aiming his barb at Stravinsky (the Firebird and the Rite onwards) and Bartok and, of course, those evil followers of Schoenberg. At the same time he might have been one of the relatively few who was pioneering Mahler.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

mbhaub said:


> I just read an article by a conductor who says it bluntly: "99.9% of the standard orchestral repertoire consists of undisputed masterpieces.


I doubt even most of the more conservative CM listeners agree with this.



mbhaub said:


> They are the greatest works ever written and that is why they are so popular.


Sure, the music generally has a lot to offer and therefore they are popular: this doesn't mean that less accessible music isn't also just as worthy for many people.



mbhaub said:


> It says more about the ability - or lack thereof - of the composers who steadfastly refuse to write music people enjoy.


Yes, I'm sure that's what composers are thinking: "Oh, I can't put this specific passage into my composition because people might enjoy it." All of these extreme arguments -and many posts in that piano thread- always show their de-humanising face. I'm fairly certain that all of the members on this forum (and elsewhere) who greatly enjoy contemporary music are, in fact, people.



mbhaub said:


> Frankly, they're not as good as composers of eras gone by. There is no living composer who has the skill, inspiration or genius of the likes of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Dvorak, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Puccini, Rachmaninov, Mahler and many, many more..."


This is unlikely, considering the fact that there are tens of thousands more people writing music than there was in that time, and they have, if they look for them, many more resources at their disposal than earlier composers did. They also generally live much longer. It's more likely that guys like this don't like what the composers do with their talent, and therefore don't consider them to have it at all.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

What I think _is _interesting is when noted performers tell us how they recognised the greatness of the contemporary composers who they value. An example I have in mind is a short part of the recent BBC documentary about (George) Benjamin in which Pierre-Laurent Aimard - a pianist who is a favourite of mine in a very wide range of repertoire - gives the reasons that led him to quickly recognise that Benjamin is a great (comments that echoed very similar ones that were ascribed to Messiaen earlier in the film). He is to the point and specific and leaves you in no doubt that the qualities he found are not common. Quite a contrast to those sneering "a cat running across the keyboard"; "the sort of noise I made as a child while playing at being a musician" comments. The thing that strikes me, though, is that it is sometimes apparently talented musicians who do the sneering as well as those who do the praising. As the claims made seem relatively objective I am left a little bemused.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

shirime said:


> This is something that grew out of the 19th century, highly dependent on whether impresarios, publishers, conductors thought something was good enough to make a lot of money when publicly performed or published as sheet music.
> 
> ...The world has changed a lot since then, but the main orchestral/operatic repertoire largely comprises of works created in these older circumstances in a world whose industry and values was hugely different to what it is now.
> 
> ...


There are many canons beyond the more restricted 19th century view. William Weber has posited three basic segments of the canon pie - scholarly, pedagogical and performance. These acknowledge the link between the study, teaching and performance of Western classical music. I think that this view of the canon is more up to date, and I view it as being similar to a business model. In a company that wants to progress and outperform its competitors, you will need research allied with handing down of expertise and accumulated knowledge. Then you have to deliver the goods and services to the customer. In other words, performance is like the public face of music, but there are many aspects which go on behind the scenes which all add up to make it possible.

Most of the two to three hundred pieces which make up the bulk of performance repertoire where accepted at the time of their premiere or shortly after. By acceptance I mean audiences or critics or both. With most of the warhorses coming from the years roughly between 1750 and 1950 it will obviously be hard to add to. The pressure on the canon has been impacted also by recordings and in the most practical sense the bottom line. Foremost on the minds of beancounters is the aging of audiences across the Western world, and also the huge overheads of performing groups (particularly orchestra and opera groups). In my neck of the woods, Opera Australia has been lucky to break even in recent decades, and recently has introduced musicals like My Fair Lady into its repertoire to get out of the red and into the black: https://www.afr.com/lifestyle/arts-and-entertainment/opera-australia-20180515-h1034b

If I had a solution to the problems faced by these large institutionalised groups, I wouldn't be earning a pittance as I do now. Perhaps we have to face the reality that apart from some landmark institutions across the globe - in terms of opera I'm thinking Covent Garden, La Scala and the Met - the museum view of the canon will slowly give way not only to commercial imperatives (such as Opera Australia) but also to local initiatives.

Many years ago I attended a piano recital by young graduates starting their careers which was organised by a local lover of arts. He advertised in local newspapers and opened up his home as a concert venue. This sort of grassroots reawakening of music is described by David Byrne in his book How Music Works. He does refer to classical in his book, but coming from a rock background he goes wider, and of course the problem doesn't only exist in the classical realm. As C. S. Lewis once said, going forward might meant going backwards. There are positive aspects of returning to a time when music was small and connecting people in their local communities. It doesn't solve everything but gives a glimpse of what can be done if solutions come from thinking outside the square.


----------

