# Concert programming conversation



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Care to talk about it?! 
More than a few years ago, I attended one of those "pre-concert conversations" on this topic. The most memorable (and I'm _not_ saying good or bad, just memorable) part of it was where the presenter stated that it was her experience that conductors were, by and large, spirited epicureans, who could talk with knowledge and enthusiasm concerning what foods ideally complemented others (to the point where she found it surprising if a conductor _couldn't_ discourse on this topic).
Anyway, to complete the "barrel-head" metaphor, she said that same sense of complement and juxtaposition could be applied to the planning of most programs.

Since home audio programming technology is greater than ever, is there anyone who's ever thought to program a "virtual concert" rather than just playing recordings from beginning to end? I do so sometimes, but I'm afraid I do the latter a lot more. I thought about it recently, as one of my latest purchases was the Beethoven complete overtures. Now, I'm a very big Beethoven fan, but I have to admit that it wasn't entirely satisfying to listen to Leonore 1, Leonore 2, AND Leonore 3 inside of 90 minutes


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

I admit that I am a fan of the tried and tested (if somewhat uninspiring) formula of *Overture *- *Concerto *- *Symphony*.

The reason this formula is used so very often is _*not*_ because it may or may not seem to create a good flow to the program... the reason is much simpler than that.

It begins with the idea that most concerts feature a soloist, and therefore a *concerto*.

Secondly, it is widely accepted that most composers reserved their best ideas and put their most concentrated spiritual effort into *symphonies*.

So if for these reasons your programs contain a concerto and a symphony, the evenings program is therefore 90% given. The only question that remains is what else do you put in... overture, some dances, or if the concerto or symphony are short (i.e. 20 minutes or less), perhaps a tone poem.

That said, there are of course attractive and necessary variants to this formula. What I find important for conductors to consider is that these variants should be based on the *quality* of non-symphonies pieces and their necessary place in the symphonic repertoire. Examples of pieces like this would be Strauss' (and other) Tone Poems, and Tchaikovsky's or Stravinsky's (and other) Ballet Suites.

When I stress the word *Quality*, what I mean to say is that when a conductor chooses to stray from the *concerto*-*symphony *concert model, it should be because there is a *great *non-concerto / non-symphony piece he wants to present. Unfortunately, many conductors invent programs and program concepts / formats that exist purely for their own sake, perhaps to show how clever they are in their "Combinations and juxtapotisions."

This of course alludes to what *Chi_town* was discussing in terms of "what piece fits with what piece". I think some conductors overestimate the potentially generated interest that this may have on an audience. I've seen countless program concepts like "An Evening in Spain" or "Europe through the Ages" that looks fine and well on paper, but the concert experience is then stuffed full of "fillers" that "fit the mold" but don't necessarily say much in terms of the intrinsic musical quality of the concert experience itself.

In conclusion, I'm not saying that these program concept are inherently evil, but when these concepts begin to over-populate a concert season, too much great music that doesn't fit a pre-conceived programmatic concept goes by the wayside.
____________________________________
Good topic, Chi_town.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Kurkikohtaus said:


> I admit that I am a fan of the tried and tested (if somewhat uninspiring) formula of *Overture *- *Concerto *- *Symphony*.


Back when I did my thumbnail taxonomy of such things (based on the programming of >>guess which<< two major American orchestras), I discovered that this formula was the plurality, but not necessarily the majority choice. Perhaps there was a time when it was the majority option, but the ascendency of the "macro-symphonies" of Mahler & Bruckner, for instance. Furthermore, I suppose the point of juxtapositive comparison is rendered moot by those "all-(place composer's name here)" programs



Kurkikotaus said:


> I've seen countless program concepts like "An Evening in Spain" or "Europe through the Ages" that looks fine and well on paper, but the concert experience is then stuffed full of "fillers" that "fit the mold" but don't necessarily say much in terms of the intrinsic musical quality of the concert experience itself.


I'll add a big "me, too" to that observation. Still, you're more likely to see that kind of program at Tanglewood than at Symphony Hall, if you know what I mean Please don't get the idea that I'm snobbish about Tanglewood (or Ravinia, or Saratoga, or Wolf Trap)... but in those instances we have advance warning, we know what we're getting.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> ... I discovered that this formula was the plurality, but not necessarily the majority choice.


I will gladly admit my ignorance here in order to learn something. Although I grew up in Toronto and went to an english school, I don't know what the difference is between these two words.

_Come to think of it, maybe it's because I grew up in Toronto that I don't know the difference between those two words._


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Plurality is the most frequent occurring option, but (by inference) likely not more than all the others combined. The old saw "50%+1" consitutes majority. The statistical parallel term for "plurality" is "mode." (Mode=most common result measured.)


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Thanks for that, I think my IQ just went up a point.


----------



## tutto (Apr 11, 2007)

40 minutes of music will do. Or one piece.


----------

