# What do you think of as good programming?



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*Or as balanced, engaging, stimulating, well thought out concert programming?* (as opposed to computer programming...)

I often think about this in light of debates on this forum & also in terms of the concerts I choose to attend. I must admit I don't envy the task of a concert programmer, it appears to be a difficult one, and in some ways a thankless one. Just like as in any leadership or managerial position, if things go good you get the glory, if they go bad your head may well be the first to roll.

An ancient book (by today's standards!) by Thomas Russell covers many of the ins and outs of running an orchestra. Russell was the chief administrator of the London Philharmonic Orchestra during the 1940's and '50's. He saw it through the difficult war years and also the quite lean immediate post-war austerity years.

In talking about what he thinks of as good programming, Russell's opinions can be boiled down to these points [my summary]:

-	Programming should include a mix of familiar and less familiar works

-	It should try cater to the widest possible range of listeners, from 'newbies' to seasoned/experienced ones

-	It should be financially viable and within the budget (eg. in terms of copyrights, works by a living composer will always be much more expensive to perform than a dead one, so too with new works more rehearsals are needed due to musicians unfamiliarity with them - & extra rehearsals of course cost extra money)

-	It should aim at both attracting new listeners and retaining existing ones

-	It should be suited to the context and overall culture of the place in which the orchestra is situated

-	The orchestra should have at its helm an able conductor, who should invite guest conductors and performers to play with it for added variety and interest

I think that what he writes is still relevant to us today, more than half a century later. Eg. look at the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and how it ravaged the American classical music scene. So now with budget restrictions, maybe we're not that far from post-war austerity era in some ways at least.

The big difference is that today we have more groups, not only symphony orchestras playing the core repertoire, but also groups specialized for example in certain eras or genres of music, some of them quite esoteric. But Russell's tips for good programming can be applied to more specialized classical performance groups as well, I think.

I thought to end this opening post, I would quote from Russell's chapter dealing with programming:

"In these days of extreme uncertainty, any sensible organization will have its eyes turned more to the future than upon the obsession of present quotidian details, and we can therefore afford to ignore material difficulties and concentrate upon the task of attracting large audiences by well-balanced programmes. The aesthetics of programme-building need not concern us unduly; that is a question for the specialist. What we must do and continue to do is to remember that every audience includes many of those to whom a symphony concert is a complete novelty, and who must not be allowed to go away unsatisfied and disappointed. Those whose experiences of concerts has given them a healthy curiosity for more advanced movements in music must not be forgotten, and the perfect programme will be one which achieves the impossibility of pleasing everybody." (p. 134)
*
Anyway, its over to you all for your thoughts on these issues…*

*Source:* Russell, Thomas (1953). _Philharmonic: The inside story of an orchestra, its personnel, organization, and administration_. London: Pelican Books.


----------



## Perotin (May 29, 2012)

I would say the main difference beetwen now and than is that these days music is widely accesible on cd's and internet, that's why people are less likley to attend live concerts. In order to attract the audience organizers have to rely upon celebrities, showmanship and excentric performances.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2013)

Good concert programming, eh?

Well, everything should be new, for the most part and, as much as is possible, unfamiliar.

There should be a variety of genres, but each piece should be fairly recent.

Otherwise, for older music, there could be special, retrospective concerts. Cage or Berio or Stockhausen. Stuff like that, although it's also interesting to hear an older piece in the context of newer ones. One danger, of course, is that if the more recent pieces on a concert aren't all that "new," then the older pieces can seem newer than the recent ones.

This happened to me recently in Ostrava, where the most recent sounding pieces were Ives' _The Unanswered Question_ and Varese's _Ameriques._ Ouch.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

some guy said:


> One danger, of course, is that if the more recent pieces on a concert aren't all that "new," then the older pieces can seem newer than the recent ones.


but that could be kind of fun.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

personally, I think a concert programmer should think like a composer in their work. One can think of a selection of various pieces for a program as a suite, and thus the programmer can arrange them in a manner that makes the most dramatic sense. I understand in some situations this may not be practical, as in a concert where different pieces require totally different performing forces, and sometimes the pieces that need to be put together into a program may not be particularly compatable with some sort of a dramatic program. Still, I think this can make a concert _that_ much better. If the conductor or whoever is choosing the music is wise from the get go, they can think of the concert, the combination of these different pieces, as a larger piece: the concert program as an artform. :3


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

some guy said:


> Good concert programming, eh?
> 
> Well, everything should be new, for the most part and, as much as is possible, unfamiliar.
> 
> ...


Whats wrong with sounding old? Just cause something sounds stereotypically like something you'd expect from a post-1945 composer doesn't make it superior to something that sounds kinda 19th Century.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Well, I was in classical radio for a number of years, and in that situation resposible programming consisted of being aware of and covering the gamut of: genres (orchestral, chamber, keyboard, vocal), eras (Renaissance to the present), nationalities (not just German or French or English); being willing to program music you didn't know; and having a good enough ear to recognize when a given piece wasn't very good and not worth repeating (frequently, or ever).


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Sid James said:


> *Or as balanced, engaging, stimulating, well thought out concert programming?* (as opposed to computer programming...)


Oh, darn...

I would be happy if symphonies made more of a priority of premiering new pieces.

One concert I attended recently featured the North American premier of this, followed by a couple of warhorses. It was fun.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> personally, I think a concert programmer should think like a composer in their work. One can think of a selection of various pieces for a program as a suite, and thus the programmer can arrange them in a manner that makes the most dramatic sense. I understand in some situations this may not be practical, as in a concert where different pieces require totally different performing forces, and sometimes the pieces that need to be put together into a program may not be particularly compatable with some sort of a dramatic program. Still, I think this can make a concert _that_ much better. If the conductor or whoever is choosing the music is wise from the get go, they can think of the concert, the combination of these different pieces, as a larger piece: the concert program as an artform. :3


I think that's what good programming is. Its balancing various factors and making it unified. Like curatorship of an art exhibition.

I find the best concerts I've gone to tend to do this. They make links between the past and present. It can be as simple as putting together in a program one work with another it influenced. They can be from different eras, in different styles, from composers of different nationalities. Eg. one was a Beethoven late quartet put together on the same bill with one of Bartok's string quartets influenced by him.

Indeed, its easier to do with chamber programs due to economies of scale. You can, with the same four players in a string quartet for example, perform something from the classical era (Mozart, Haydn), then from the Romantic era and then from the Modern/Contemporary era. Not necessarily in that order but you get the drift. & again, this kind of thing is common here.

Its why I am very critical of the lazy kind of bums on seats programming some of our flagship groups are moving towards. ITs more conservative, much more predictable, than it was 20 years ago. Maybe even than 10 years ago. Some programs are just 3 warhorses. Now I consider that lazy. Surely they can put in one or two warhorses - since granted a good number of concert goers wouldn't have heard them live (me included, I have not heard every single warhorse live, far from it!) - but at least put in one or two non warhorse things. Lesser known things by known composers or maybe even something by a living composer (even a new work?). I think that, as I said, programming is like a thankless juggling act. However, I think its about offering everyone something, not just one segment of the audience.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

I have been a programmer of concerts for over twenty years. In the past, my programmes with leading London orchestras have won praise and (presumably) admiration, due to the fact that many other orchestras subsequently copied my models. I am lucky in that I have a natural 'feel' for what will work and what might not. I have never subscribed to the policy of programming popular pot-boilers just to play safe and hopefully ensure a good audience. On the other hand, while there are quite a few 'popular' works that don't deserve the adulation and frequent programming they receive (in my opinion, of course), the fact that a work is 'popular' doesn't automatically preclude it from inclusion in one of my programmes. That would just be short-sighted and foolish (and bad artistic judgement). This being said, I would probably never go to (and would certainly never programme) a concert of old warhorses because, well, it holds no attraction or interest for me at all - I want every concert to offer me something new or challenging. The criteria I use for programming are very simple and include the following:

1) Pieces of music are judged on merit alone, irrespective of popularity (or lack of it), gender, race or religion of composer, country of origin or historical period (apart from themed series).
2) A healthy, but integrated mix of styles, musical periods and composers.
3) Artists engaged for their excellence in the appropriate repertoire, NOT just because they're a 'name'.

I will cite a programme I presented with the chamber orchestra I was then working with:

Mendelssohn - Overture: A Midsummer Night's Dream
Britten: Les Illuminations, for soprano and strings (not the tenor version!)
Ligeti: Melodien
Haydn: Symphony No 70 in D minor

It worked. Many people from the audience polled after the concert were pleasantly surprised at the eclectic mix of music and more pleasantly surprised that, in the context of the concert, they enjoyed a piece by Ligeti they would have never otherwise gone to a concert to hear.

I somewhat specialise in 'unsung' music; first-class music by composers who don't get the recognition they deserve or music by well-known composers which has somehow fallen by the wayside but which is worthy of exposure. A mixture of old and new, familiar and unfamiliar is what does it for me.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Delicious Manager said:


> A mixture of old and new, familiar and unfamiliar is what does it for me.


I've been thinking of what to write here as the issue intrigues me greatly, but having read D.M.'s post, you say just about what I was thinking!

Last year Stereophile (US HiFi magazine) columnist John Marks ran a reader "Quiz" on the subject "*create a seven concert season*", the main rule was, you can't include any music by the warhorses! (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Handel, Haydn, Mahler, Mendelssohn, Mozart, Schubert, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, or Wagner). I, BTW found TC whilst writing my entry... For a bunch of HiFi buffs, I think that there were many interesting entries for Mr Marks imaginary symphony to play! (I don't consider myself a HiFi Buff, but read such magazines now and then because I'm intrigued of how others think bout sound and how it should and is reproduced, anyway, The quote from M.G's post I kept above was very much my leit motif for constructing my entry, I was awarded joint second prize for my entry... )

I believe constructing a season for an imaginary symphony is very giving, it is an formidable task if You have to consider that what You suggest should be acceptable for a wide audience, not just yourself. (You can read up on Mr Marks "rules by click the link above), I have not checked the TC archives, but this might be a "game" that more TC'ers would like to play?

/ptr


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Concert programming is one of the most difficult and thankless jobs you could ever imagine . When it comes to deciding what to play in the course of an upcoming orchestral season, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't . 
No matter what you choose, someone will complain bitterly . If you program challenging and complex works by avant-garde contemporary composers, many subscribers would rather be water boarded !
They will write the music director angry letters threatening to cancel their subscriptions . (This is not uncommon ). 
If you program works by contemporary composers who are conservative and aim to write listener friendly works, critics will blast you for pandering to audiences with "easy listening". 
If you stick to the same old tried-and-true warhorses by Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninov etc in order to avoid alienating the conservative subscribers, , critics will blast you for failing to give new or recent works a chance to be heard (and this time, they're right!) . Your orchestra WILL be a "stodgy and hidebound institution .
If you program interesting rariities from the past , you risk lowering ticket sales, because too many concertgoers are wary about hearing something out of the ordinary . (one of the few conductors who is able to buck this unfortunate tendency successfully is the indefatigable Neeme Jarvi ). 
Critics will complain that you haven't programmed anything by women composers, or are too eurocentric and avoid American composers . It's a no-win situation .


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

superhorn said:


> Concert programming is one of the most difficult and thankless jobs you could ever imagine . When it comes to deciding what to play in the course of an upcoming orchestral season, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't .
> No matter what you choose, someone will complain bitterly . If you program challenging and complex works by avant-garde contemporary composers, many subscribers would rather be water boarded !
> They will write the music director angry letters threatening to cancel their subscriptions . (This is not uncommon ).
> If you program works by contemporary composers who are conservative and aim to write listener friendly works, critics will blast you for pandering to audiences with "easy listening".
> ...


Or how about you just program a variety of works. If you program some really adventurous modern works, that doesn't mean you can't program something really popular. If you program a rarity by Beethoven, that doesn't mean you can't program a traditional modern work by a woman or anything. I like a variety of music. I think most people do. I think alot of people are open to new experiences as well as enjoying old ones.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Burning desire, this SHOULD be the case , and many orchestras DO offer highly diversified programming .
But unfortunately, too many concertggoers, particularly the older ones, are set in their ways and just want to hear the same old familiar warhorses . They need them the way some small children need their security blankets . Itzhak perlman calls this "comfort music".
Take the New York Philharmonic, for example. This great orchestra has played more new or recent music in the past 40 years or so than most other orchestras in America, and worldwide . Yet critics are always accusing it of not doing enough . Under music directors Pierre Boulez, Zubn Mehta, Kurt Masur, Lorin Maazel and Alan Gilbert . And under guest conductors, too . Music by who knows how living or recently deceased composer of every and any nationality , compositional style , including women composers . 
Many other US orchestras, particularly the smaller ones , would never dare to do this much contemporary music . Why? Because they fear audiences voting with their feet .


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I think that's what good programming is. Its balancing various factors and making it unified. Like curatorship of an art exhibition.

I find the best concerts I've gone to tend to do this. They make links between the past and present.

Andre... let's think this through. You make an analogy with an art exhibition. But is this an apt analogy. If I attend an exhibition of Matisse I'm not going to get Pollock, Rothko, and Koons as well. If I attend a Bluegrass concert, I'm not apt to have Jazz, Hip-Hop, and a string quartet by Beethoven thrust upon me.

It seems to me that audiences have different tastes and should be able to pick and choose (and financially support) those venues and institutions that meet their wants. Someguy apparently would like to see all the major orchestras performing the sort of music that he likes... regardless of the fact that his likes are marginal at best. Personally I'd like to always get my way as well. I wish everyone would just stay out of my damn way during rush hour... but unfortunately we have to deal with other human beings.

Honestly I've found that there are ensembles, venues, and institutions that cater to a broad array of musical tastes. Here in Cleveland I can attend the Cleveland Orchestra and listen to Mozart, Beethoven, Strauss, Mahler, and Stravinsky. I can go to Baldwin Wallace's annual Bach Fest and listen to Bach choral works. I can attend various venues that cater to chamber music. I can attend a concert by the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra which will likely focus upon Baroque music. I have seen Jordi Savall perform Renaissance music, and concerts by living composers (with composer's talks) at the Cleveland Museum of Art.

I personally have a broad range of musical tastes... and I am often open to jarring contrasts. In my studio I might follow a disc of Haydn symphonies with the Louvin Brothers, then Wagner, then Johnny Cash, Miles Davis, Muddy Waters, Bizet, and the Rolling Stones. But many others don't like such musical leaps... and indeed there is something to be said for a continuity or unity within an artistic event.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks to all, its been great reading all the responses that have come in since I last posted here. Makes me think it was worth my effort to set up this thread.

I was just reading an interview with one of Australia's eminent conductors, the late Stuart Challender, who was at the helm of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra from the late 1980's to the early 1990's. He was the first Australian born conductor to take on that role. I have a fond memory of attending one of his concerts, and also have his cd of Peter Sculthorpe's music, but sadly Challender died only in his forties. I was re-reading this interview and in this bit (in blue) he talks about his view of programming concerts:

Selecting the Sydney Symphony Orchestra's concert program is, in some ways, like working on a giant, complicated puzzle in which the ideal result is a solution that pleases both audience and orchestra. That's hard to achieve. "When you come down to planning orchestra repertoire, you come down to about 200 works that are bread-and-butter items. When you can, you stick in a bit of spice. The other most important thing is the juxtaposition of the pieces. How the program is made makes an enormous difference to the enjoyment of it.

"It is not just a matter of having a theme to the concert. This is not necessarily going to make a satisfying whole. I want to hear variety. I want to hear a number of styles that don't clash, but can be wildly contrasting. One piece can put the other into relief."

This interview appeared in the _Symphony Australia 1987 Concert Yearbook. _Apart from interviews with musicians, it lists the programs of all Australian flagship orchestras for that year. One concert that Challender conducted would be highly unlikely to be done with the same orchestra, the Sydney SO, today. Its more conservative now in terms of programming, way more. This concert was done in June 1987, the pianist was Anthony Fogg (who had premiered the Sculthorpe concerto) :

Ravel _Mother Goose - Suite_
Peter Sculthorpe _Piano Concerto_
Gabrieli _Canzona septimi toni ; Sonata pian e forte ; Canzona duodecimi toni_
Tchaikovsky _Romeo and Juliet_

Today, you'd be more likely to get the Ravel and Tchaikovsky, plus a warhorse or two more. But luckily, we have choice in Australia. There are other groups doing classical, not only the flagship big State/city orchestras. There are other groups (like the Australian Chamber Orchestra) that still do such more eclectic and imaginative programming. They're much more in line with what Delicious Manager was talking about. I think though that Challender would agree with what I'm saying, the Sydney SO has gone backwards since. Vision there is lacking. In any case, its not the only group in town, so people who want other than what they're offering can 'vote with their feet.' Its kind of telling when the youth and community-based orchestras are doing more interesting programming than the 'representative' city orchestra that gets way more funding. Again, it comes down to developing the orchestra and offering the different types of listeners a variety of things. Looking at things long term, not only short term. I guess some outfits are fulfilling that type of requirement, others aren't. Having said that, of course I am talking hypothetically, I don't envy any programmers job - the SSO's included!


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

superhorn said:


> Concert programming is one of the most difficult and thankless jobs you could ever imagine . When it comes to deciding what to play in the course of an upcoming orchestral season, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't .
> No matter what you choose, someone will complain bitterly . If you program challenging and complex works by avant-garde contemporary composers, many subscribers would rather be water boarded !
> They will write the music director angry letters threatening to cancel their subscriptions . (This is not uncommon ).
> If you program works by contemporary composers who are conservative and aim to write listener friendly works, critics will blast you for pandering to audiences with "easy listening".
> ...


I don't find it thankless at all. In fact, I have reaped huge rewards for my efforts through the satisfaction of a programme gelling and being appreciated by audience and musicians alike. You can't please all the people all of the time. You have to accept this and create a well though-out artistic policy for your orchestra that you can sell to audience members, sponsors, media, etc. If you try to please everyone, you will just land up with a watery, flabby repetition of hundreds of concerts before it all over the world. Plenty of orchestras have taken their audiences with them on a journey of musical discovery. If you build a trust with your audience, they will come with you. Not every member of the audience will like everything (that would be an impossibility), but they will know that they have been exposed to fine music brilliantly performed.

Of course you will get the whiners and moaners, but that's what some of these people exist for. One has to learn to ignore then and stick to the path you have formulated as your artistic vision.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

superhorn said:


> Critics will complain that you haven't programmed anything by women composers, or are too eurocentric and avoid American composers . It's a no-win situation .


This is an area that really bugs me. I programme works by women composers. But I programme the music because it is GOOD, deserves to be heard and enhances the programme around it. I do NOT programme the music because it was written by a woman composer (how patronising would THAT be?). I abhor tokenism. A few years ago there was quite a lot of whining that the London Proms season (the biggest music festival in the world) did not have enough music by women composers in it. I retorted publicly in a British music journal that sometimes it will work out that music by 'minority' composers (eg women, black composers, composers from Asia, etc, etc - name who you will) is not particularly well represented and at other times it will be well represented. There was a suggestion that a certain minimum number of slots in the Proms should be set aside for music by various 'minority' composers. This is nonsense. If the only reason a piece is performed is because if the gender, religion or ethnic background of the composer, everyone loses. We might (but might not, of course) get inferior music that, if judged on its merits alone, would not have been included. We also undermine the composer and his/her 'minority' group by being seen to pat them on the head and say "Look, we know you're not good enough to cut it on an even playing field, so we've made some allowances for you." The group is immediately patronised and undermined. In addition, if inferior music results, it does nothing for the inclusion of music in the future by that composer or other composers from that 'group'.

Any kind of tokenism or ghettoisation is a bad thing. In London there was once a European Women's Orchestra which comprised entirely of women musicians and played only the music of women composers. I found myself, almost by accident, managing a concert by that orchestra. Now, there was nothing wrong with the orchestra; it comprised some of the best female session players in London and I can assure you that they're among the best anywhere in the world. Some of the music was interesting, but some of it was, quite frankly, second rate (or worse). I had a conversation with the artistic director after the concert, asking what the point of the exercise was. She said it was to further the cause of women musicians and composers. I pointed out that female orchestral players didn't need any help in London or the UK as they often held the most senior positions in their principal orchestras. There is no disadvantage to being a women musician in the UK. So, that cause was immediately lost (or, at least made irrelevant). Then I pointed out that, by building a programme around second-rate music that would not have made it into any other programme and appealing only to an already-converted niche audience (not many men were present!), the cause was almost pointless, probably counter-productive and not reaching new people anyway. She disbanded the orchestra a week later (it was a freelance orchestra that did only a couple of concerts per year, so no-one really lost out very much).

If one looks at the proportion of women composer to men, it is still a very small percentage. Better than it was, but still quite low. Look back beyond the 20th century and it is miniscule. Therefore, I would expect the proportion of performances of music by female composers (or any of the other 'minority groups') to mirror something close to the same proportion.

The music by the best women composers is doing pretty well (eg Sally Beamish, Sofia Gubaidulina, Kaija Saariaho, Joan Tower, just to name four living composers off the top of my head). Let the music speak for itself and keep the characteristics of the composer out of the equation.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I personally have a broad range of musical tastes... and I am often open to jarring contrasts. In my studio I might follow a disc of Haydn symphonies with the Louvin Brothers, then Wagner, then Johnny Cash, Miles Davis, Muddy Waters, Bizet, and the Rolling Stones. But many others don't like such musical leaps... and indeed there is something to be said for a continuity or unity within an artistic event.


I also like those types of contrasts in my listening at home. But continuity and balance of contrasts in a concert program is important. That's what I've been talking about, and other contributors as well. Its not a matter, of course, of having no contrast, but a question of how much contrast and what type of works.

One of the oldest of programmer's tricks is what I call "the thorn between two roses" gambit. Its the type of contrast that is the wrong type, imo. I think many of you know this 'trick.' First you play a warhorse, then put in a new/newer work, then you have interval, and then you finish with another (longer) warhorse. Of course the problem is that if its done without context and the Modern work is just plonked in the middle of two warhorses, the trick can badly backfire. This is what the following anecdote (in blue) from the memoir by former oboist Blair Tindall suggests. On this occasion, she was playing as a casual with the New York Philharmonic, sometime in the 1980's (btw this book was a great read for me, exposing some of the underbelly of the classical music industry from an insider's perspective, warts and all, from the horses mouth so to speak) :

…It was nothing like Anton von Webern's Concerto for Nine Instruments that I performed here years ago. Though my conservatory professors venerated that 1930 work for its twelve-note serialism, I secretly filed it under H for honk-beep-squeak…Still, I had been nervous about doing a good job on the Webern, especially in placing my delicate entrances precisely. The sparsely orchestrated piece was transparent and challenging, and Avery Fisher's unforgiving acoustics would emphasize any flaws in my tone and articulation. The hall's properties also amplified the sounds of a fidgeting audience, and before long I could barely hear the other eight musicians over the coughing in the house. The cacophony had grown. At last, conductor Zubin Mehta was straining to hear as well. We finished the first movement, and the audience applauded prematurely, then cleared their throats en masse. Reddening with anger, Zubin waited for silence before starting the next movement. Someone giggled loudly. A nose trumpeted.

We waited for nearly a minute - which felt like an eternity onstage with audience and orchestra staring at each other - and began again, to the accompaniment of another wave of coughing. Now enraged, Zubin signaled a mid-movement cutoff. I was shocked. Conductors stopped concerts rarely, and then only if the musicians were irretrievably lost. Zubin swiveled toward the audience, steaming with fury.

"The orchestra has played only five measures when nobody coughed." He spoke deliberately, as if lecturing a room full of toddlers. "The last movement is a minute long. Would it be possible to get through it without interruption?"

A few days later, a concertgoer from Hoboken had written to the New York Times in defense of the audience's behavior:
_
Perhaps Mr. Mehta should have realized he was inflicting on the audience not one but several compositions by Anton von Webern. Since many concertgoers regard performances of Webern as the musical equivalent of a visit to the dentist, audience unrest should not have been a surprise.
*It is no accident that selections by Webern are generally programmed before, not after, intermission. Otherwise, few would return for the second half.*_


To avoid this sort of bad result one needs to think holistically about a program (& I'm assuming the Webern was put between two warhorses in that program, that's the implication of what the letter writer says, as well as Tindall's writing around it).

For example, a great concert I attended years ago was done by the Australian Youth Orchestra conducted by a Brit, Sir Mark Elder. There where many first timers at this concert and also young couples and families. & judging from the response, it was successful, people liked it.

Brett Dean - Ampitheatre for large orch.
Mahler - Selections from Das Knaben Wunderhorn song cycle
(interval)
Shostakovich Symphony #10
(Encore: Tune from the County Derry - or 'Danny Boy' - arr. by Percy Grainger)

The reason I say its succesful is the links between these composers. First you got contemporary Australian composer Dean whose big influences go back the the early 20th century, the Second Viennese School (particularly Berg). Then you got Mahler who was of influence and a supporter of those guys, incl. on Berg. Then you got Shostakovich who was influenced (no surprise) by Berg and Mahler. & the encore I thought was apt, esp. coming after Sir Mark's reminiscences about his colleague and friend, Sir Charles Mackerras, who'd died that week and who also liked that particular symphony. Not a dry eye in the house at the end, I can tell you. It was very moving.

So that's an example of these links in action. But putting the Dean, say, in between a Rossini Overture and a Tchaikovsky symphony would make no sense at all. Even a newbie can get an sense that something hangs together well, and something that simply doesn't. & I like how they opened with the Dean work. So that's what I'm saying, it wasn't using that tired old trick. I hope its clear to all who read this.

& incidentally, the Australian Youth Orchestra took that concert program on tour with them throughout South East Asia that year, 2010. & they also played it in Europe a couple of times. The reviews I read where positive, as far as my memory tells me!
*
Source:* Tindall, Blair (2005). _Mozart in the Jungle: Sex, Drugs and Classical Music._ New York: Atlantic Monthly Press (above extract is pages is 211-212).


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Good concert programme should be based on some kind of theme. This theme can be musical ones for example, which can then draw in music from different periods and composers. This is what I tend to encourage. Or it can be historical themes to show how it has changed over time, again drawing in different periods and composers.


----------

