# Why Do Certain Music Become Standard Repertorie And Others Don't?



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Beethoven's symphonies are "standard" repertoire. Richard Strauss' _Symphony in F minor_, op.12 is less mentioned but gets a performance or so. Contemporary composer Lowell Liebermann's symphonies never get more performances beyond the first few performances and also symphonies of the past centuries that have been forgotten or at least waiting to be rediscovered again.

Is it because listeners over time ultimately have the biggest say who wins?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A simple "yes" answer. Standard repertoire is made up of those pieces that are most in demand and most programmed. The standard repertoire changes over time, of course. Also there are different standard repertoires for various generes -- orchestras, piano, string quartets, other chamber music, operas...

And the standard repertoire is different from place to place. Both of Kalinnikov's symphonies are included in Russia, but neither is in the USA.


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

KenOC said:


> And the standard repertoire is different from place to place. Both of Kalinnikov's symphonies are included in Russia, but neither is in the USA.


A very interesting observation, which I believe to be true (never heard of Kalinnikov, but then there are so many I have not heard of).

KenOC, don't you think that musicians also have a very big say in this? I have a feeling these days they pretty much decide what the audiance *should* hear.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

xuantu said:


> KenOC, don't you think that musicians also have a very big say in this? I have a feeling these days they pretty much decide what the audiance *should* hear.


Don't think so. With orchestral finances being in the pit they are, the first order of the day is to fill those seats. Generally speaking (and there are exceptions) that means less adventurous programming, not more.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2012)

I doubt it's so simple as Ken suggests. His "changes over time" might seem to give him an out, but I don't think so.

Why was there no standard repertoire for so many hundreds of years of Western music making? When did the idea start and why? How long after it was first thought of did it take to really establish itself? How has getting into the standard repertoire changed over time and why?

And what about xuantu's perceptive question? How gets to decide and how do decisions become set? "Most in demand" raises more questions than it answers, and "most programmed" doesn't so much explain the situation as simply restate it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Why was there no standard repertoire for so many hundreds of years of Western music making? When did the idea start and why?


IMO there was no "standard repertoire" for a long time because concerts (such as they were) were largely or entirely dedicated to new music. Who cared about the old stuff? The standard repertoire idea started during or after Beethoven's time. It was probably pretty well-established by the mid-1800s. All this is on thin evidence, so feel free to disagree!

As for "who gets to decide," it's like Adam Smith's invisible hand. Guess right, your orchestra thrives. Guess wrong, not so much! That part's pretty straightforward. Darwin in action.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

The standard repertoire is simply the warhorses in the classical music canon. They stood the test of time and are favorite of the classical listening public.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Beethoven symphonies are standard repertory because audience demands quality music, and you can always count on the fact that most people who come to see the concert enjoy the performance.


----------



## palJacky (Nov 27, 2010)

<<<<Why was there no standard repertoire for so many hundreds of years of Western music making? When did the idea start and why? How long after it was first thought of did it take to really establish itself? How has getting into the standard repertoire changed over time and why?>>>>
I think the availability of recordings has a lot to do with this.
there was a time when people could only hear music at concerts and didn't have much choice at all.

when people started being able to choose what they listen to at home, they then wanted to pretty much hear the favorites when they go out.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

palJacky said:


> [...]
> when people started being able to choose what they listen to at home, they then wanted to pretty much hear the favorites when they go out.


I have no argument with that statement, being even more ignorant than usual on the subject... but I don't understand the 'why' of it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

jani said:


> Beethoven symphonies are standard repertory because audience demands quality music, and you can always count on the fact that most people who come to see the concert enjoy the performance.


I can think of a hundred other pieces I'd pay to hear performed live than Beethoven symphonies. The warhorses are not the only standard of excellence.

Economics and rehearsal time are huge factors, and it's probably not worth spending the time or money to perform unfamiliar or difficult works if they don't sell tickets.

But I suppose it all varies depending on the city or country you live in. Generally speaking, Americans will pay big money for famous stuff. They worship celebrity. But there are thousands of low budget chamber music recitals of new music happening under the radar of the general public. Just check the schedules of the local colleges, libraries, art galleries, and museums in your area. Yeah, it's ironic to attend a new music recital in a museum, but I've done it.


----------



## palJacky (Nov 27, 2010)

<<I have no argument with that statement, being even more ignorant than usual on the subject... but I don't understand the 'why' of it. >>>
maybe I was coming off as a bit too universal.
but I think there is something being said that there will a bigger audience for 'favorites' than works that are unknown to the public.
one has played the phonograph record over and over and one wants to hear it live.

A bump in attendance on the shows where the 'hits' are played results in more of those shows.
after a while a 'standard repertoire' is established.

I personally think the existance of recordings and being able to hear music outside the concert hall has had a much bigger effect on how music has being performed and composed over the last 100 than almost anything else.

and that is my answer to this question:
""Why was there no standard repertoire for so many hundreds of years of Western music making? When did the idea start and why? How long after it was first thought of did it take to really establish itself? "


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> Why was there no standard repertoire for so many hundreds of years of Western music making? When did the idea start and why? How long after it was first thought of did it take to really establish itself? How has getting into the standard repertoire changed over time and why?


Last fifty years for example a standard repertoire exists. Last one hundred yers or so, standard repertoire also existed. I don't know what you meant eaxctly or you are denying history to suit your argument.

The "why" part I think is easiest. Listeners over time decided, and listeners today are also still deciding. So good luck to those composers today who do not care at all about the listener, as the listeners ultimately win.


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

Rapide said:


> The "why" part I think is easiest. Listeners over time decided, and listeners today are also still deciding. So good luck to those composers today who do not care at all about the listener, as the listeners ultimately win.


It's often hard to discern one's tone by reading what he/she wrote. But judging from your OP, you were not being sarcastic toward those composers for not being listener-friendly, were you?  You know I realize that Beethoven frequently challenged the listeners of his time (in fact, some of his works still sounds challenging to me). Pursuing personal visions and artistic freedom seems always more important for some composers than catering listeners' tastes, who only later turn out to be great. I suppose this is what some would call the bitter truth of doing art.


----------



## xuantu (Jul 23, 2009)

There is also the question of why some composers who do not sound very much ahead of his time get washed away in the competition for public attention. (Am I right in putting Hummel in this category?) I think the quality of the music (how good it sounds, how innovative it is...) does play a role there.

After reading all the posts above, me thinks that it may be a complex process how some music makes into the standard repertoire while other fails. The concert-goers can have many different mentalities themselves: some (like my cousin) do not really care what they hear -- going to concerts for them is a life-style thing; some listen to their own gut-feelings or intelligence; while still others may resort to the critics' opinions to decide what they want to hear... The push and pull between musician's decision making and the music-buying public's feedback is also likely to be dynamic. I guess one could create a mathematical model to study it.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

It's all about precedents.

There's a reason Russian music isn't as popular in the US beyond Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff. For one thing, both came here, and Rachmaninoff lived, composed, and remained here til his death. Tchaikovsky's music is associated with the American holiday of 4th of July, besides Christmas. Also, liking too much Russian music back 50 years ago in the Cold War may have been viewed as Pro-Soviet, and anti-patriotic. _Hence, where music isn't performed, music doesn't have the chance to be loved._ It takes a chance, a single moment in time where a musician says, "I want to share this piece, even though no one knows it," and that can set the whole fate of the work. It's not just about quality; it's about opportunity.

Let me give an example. Glazunov is barely known here in the US. But how is he still known even a little? 1) His violin concerto was "exported" here by _exiled _violinists 2) The saxophone concerto was dedicated to a non-Russian, and viewed as cosmopolitan enough to be taken into European and eventually American repertoire (it became shunned by the USSR for a time) 3) Georges Barerre, French-American flutist and Chamber Music Specialist/Manager programmed Glazunov's reverie for horn and piano often when he went on tour in US (as he also did in France), which is now a popular piece among french horn players (I heard it performed just this past week in a recital). Glazunov may have very similar qualities to Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, but would that buy with Americans? Did he make anything that matters to us? He didn't even want to live in America although he toured here, but lived in France instead after he was exiled. His complaint: America is just too foreign to him.

So, if even a Russian had trouble wanting to be in the US, why wouldn't Americans have trouble hearing and appreciating completely foreign music to themselves? People like to hear the "classics" i.e. things that matter to them by tradition, which were set by precedents way back. Nowadays we are becoming a more global society, but back 50-100 years ago, that wasn't the case, and the effects are still felt today. Russian music, which I mean composers other than Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Rimsky-Korsakov, might never get to have that high standard which German and French composers achieved in the US, simply because of lost opportunity to set a precedent long ago. Gliere's 3rd symphony will never be the key feature of a NYPO concert, unless Beethoven's 6 is next to it in the program, but the Beethoven 6 by itself would do just fine.

But just imagine... a brave soul stepping up and saying, "I'm gonna do something different. The one who will start a precedent for this work is going to be _me_." Now that is an honorable musician.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Re: Musicians 'dictating' what gets performed.

Initially, at least, this is more than true. 

An unknown composer must first gain the sympathy and support of both players and conductors to get their works performed. Usually, that is first chamber works, and the composer finding the players interested in performing those works. 
Later, for the chamber orchestral or larger pieces, the work must be submitted to or made known to a conductor, and / or music director of an established ensemble: it is those musicians first who make the decision to perform it or not.

Musicians, then, are the first-in-line make or break jury for the new on the scene composer.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Could it simply be that the vast majority of pieces are mediocre relative to the masterpieces of the great composers? The latters' were just such outstanding pieces, for whatever reasons, that listeners have ultimately stayed with over time?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Rapide said:


> Could it simply be that the vast majority of pieces are mediocre relative to the masterpieces of the great composers? The latters' were just such outstanding pieces, for whatever reasons, that listeners have ultimately stayed with over time?


There's plenty in the repertoire that I find to be mediocre. There are brilliant pieces that aren't for many reasons (sometimes great music is really hard to play). Personally I think it is good that old music is still performed. I like it that we preserve it and that we can hear all this wonderful music from hundreds of years of musical history, but it is foolish for classical performers and listeners to basically be locked in time. You do not really see this with any other art form.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Also Beethoven symphonyes aren't standard repertoire here.
I have googled "Beethoven symphony performances in Helsinki/vantaa" and checked out the concert halls and i don't see a Beethoven symphony in a repertory. I CHECKED ALL WAY TO THE JUNE!
I did same with Sibelius and only found few performances.


----------



## Renaissance (Jul 10, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> You do not really see this sort of necrophiliac circle-jerk with any other art form.


Because music is among the few arts which require both the artist and the performer. In visual arts you need only the artist, because the art stands for itself on a piece of canvas, while with music is another story...music is recreated anytime you hear it, so performers must follow some priorities ...you sure know these things.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Renaissance said:


> Because music is among the few arts which require both the artist and the performer. In visual arts you need only the artist, because the art stands for itself on a piece of canvas, while with music is another story...music is recreated anytime you hear it, so performers must follow some priorities ...you sure know these things.


But there's other artforms, such as theater, which aren't stuck primarily in performing works from an exclusive set. These works also rely on interpreters and producers, but there are more people open-minded to seeing new plays than hearing new music compositions.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There's another factor that is tending to ossify the "standard repertoire." Orchestras are on *very* tight budgets these days, and rehearsals are a major cost. I'm sure there is a tendency to program works that are familiar to the players and need fewer rehearsals.

Note that more and more orchestras are paying on a "per session" basis, and there is no difference in cost between a rehearsal and the actual performance.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

KenOC said:


> There's another factor that is tending to ossify the "standard repertoire." Orchestras are on *very* tight budgets these days, and rehearsals are a major cost. I'm sure there is a tendency to program works that are familiar to the players and need fewer rehearsals.


I'm guessing this also means that works that require something substantially different from a standard contemporary orchestra won't be played as often. What does a chorus do to costs?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

GreenMamba said:


> I'm guessing this also means that works that require something substantially different from a standard contemporary orchestra won't be played as often. What does a chorus do to costs?


If it's an orchestra with full-time players, all are paid whether they play or not. Any instruments that have to be brought in from "outside" will get paid for the gig, so that adds to costs. If the chorus is on a paid basis, then that too.

In a few days we're having local performances (two concerts) of Beethoven's Missa and 9th Symphony by Gardiner and the ORR. This requires bringing the orchestra (don't know about the chorus) here from Europe, putting them up in hotels, and so forth. This is not an area with a demonstrated love of classical music -- our own local orchestra is pretty much limping along with annual losses and undistinguished programming. How are these two concerts going to be paid for? I have no idea.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

jani said:


> Also Beethoven symphonyes aren't standard repertoire here.
> I have googled "Beethoven symphony performances in Helsinki/vantaa" and checked out the concert halls and i don't see a Beethoven symphony in a repertory. I CHECKED ALL WAY TO THE JUNE!
> I did same with Sibelius and only found few performances.


Jani would you happen to know the state of Glazunov's music in Finland? Played a lot or no? Any symphonies, concertos?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Pieces become standard repetoire because people like them and want to hear them. It's pretty simple, actually.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Jani would you happen to know the state of Glazunov's music in Finland? Played a lot or no? Any symphonies, concertos?


Well i googled and didn't find any performances.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> You do not really see this sort of necrophiliac circle-jerk with any other art form.


Actually, you see this sort of thing for virtually every sort of art form there is. Philosophy PhDs are still writing their dissertations on Plato and Hegel. The Princeton Dante project is the definition of a necrophiliac circle jerk. This is a classical music forum, not a music forum in general. I listen to plenty of music from the 50s onward, and plenty of contemporary music too, much of which came out this year, but you know what I mean. If this was a forum dedicated to Italian poetry you'd see discussions of Dante, Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, and more Dante. You see this with the novel too. 

Stephen King: And then I say to myself, I bet they do.* Some of these guys, the college professors-the guy, say, whose idea of literature really stopped with Henry James,* but he'll get kind of a frozen smile on his face if you talk about Faulkner or Steinbeck-they're stupid about American fiction and they've turned their stupidity into a virtue. They don't know who Calder Willingham was. They don't know who Sloan Wilson was. They don't know who Grace Metalious was. They don't know who any of these people are, and they're ******* proud of it. And when they open their medicine cabinet door, I think maybe they do see generic bottles, and that's a failure of observation. And I think one of the things that I'm supposed to do is to say, It's a Pepsi, OK? It's not a soda. It's a Pepsi. It's a specific thing. Say what you mean. Say what you see. Make a photograph, if you can, for the reader.

And what of contemporary Greek Tragedy?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

jani said:


> Well i googled and didn't find any performances.


Aw that's too bad.

In Russia I know they perform him a ton though.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Here's why they don't






Here's why they do. Pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Here's why they don't
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cool story bro.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

One of my great frustrations over my years in music management has been the laziness of listeners. I want to brandish a shotgun whenever I hear those hateful wors "I know what I like and I like what I know." So, dear 'lazy listener', where you born knowing the pieces you 'like'? No, of course you weren't - you heard them ALL for the first time once. So, what made you stop listening to new pieces? Was your brain full? Did you think "That's enough now; I shan't bother listening to anything else I don't already know." This is the root of my frustration.

There are even pieces by such established 'favourite' composers such as Bach, Handel and Mozart that aren't heard. Are they inferior pieces? No, they are not, they just haven't been as 'lucky'. Luck plays a large part in what is or is not 'popular' Things like geography, success of first performance(s), political circumstances all play a part. Or the music might simply become lost through war or natural disaster or stored in a library, forgotten for hundreds of years.

There are plenty of works which are the most 'popular' by this composer or that which most certainly don't show the composer at his best or are not among the finest examples of the genre. This adds to my frustration. Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony is one of his most 'famous' and often-played pieces, yet it is neither one of his best symphonies nor one of his stronger pieces in general. _Manfred_ gets all but ignored, yet is a far superior piece of music. Tchaikovsky himself recognised the shortcoming of the 5th Symphony, comparing unfavourably with the 4th. Yet, there it is, time after time in concert programmes.

I have been trying to work this out for years. What makes people like this? Why do they like discovering new books, films, theatre and visual art, yet want to listen to the same few pieces of music over and over again?


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

It is, as has been said, a complex process. One factor -- perhaps the biggest -- is quality. As with all the arts, only a percentage of all the music written deserves repeated hearings. There's a lot of mediocre, and a lot of bad classical music out there -- and if you're paying musicians, and have only two hours to fill (and music, above all, requires time), you have every reason to be picky about how you fill it. Ensembles spend a lot of time picking out and playing new works -- even though they surround them with standards -- but quality is hard to perceive except to the most perceptive listeners. And face it, think about all the "new music" we keep saying eighteenth and nineteenth century concerts were filled with that we don't hear today -- primarily because time has filtered out the mediocre and bad. Economics plays a part -- seats need to be filled. There are also works of lesser quality that are nevertheless popular for obscure reasons, that get programmed because of they are box office. 

Remember fully half of Beethoven doesn't get played much, because by his standards it isn't very good -- and his average was better than most. There's a lot of Mozart for which one listening in one's lifetime is fine. I have read that since Monteverdi's "L'Orfeo" in the early 1600s, there have been roughly 30,000 operas and operettas composed. Today, if we stretch things, there are maybe 200 in the repertoires of the world's opera houses. The "standard repertoire" is what survives. 

I spent a lot of time in my youth -- both in concerts, and in record libraries -- plowing through, and being open to, a lot of music I didn't know. But I also learned to trust my ear about what was worth listening to again -- and as I've aged, I find there's a lot of music I don't need to, or don't feel like, listening to for a lot of reasons -- both good and bad. Some of it is hardening arteries and creeping old fogeyism; some of it is just life is too short to spend time with something that doesn't seem to mean much to me (this even applies to some Beethoven symphonies). 

cheers --
george


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

GGluek said:


> It is, as has been said, a complex process. One factor -- perhaps the biggest -- is quality.


As I suggested in my post above, 'quality' is often NOT a factor in 'popularity'. In fact, some composers' most popular works are among their weakest or not great examples of the form generally.

A 'good tune' doesn't go amiss, as don't fiery virtuosic fireworks or lots of noise (eg Tchaikovsky's _1812 Overture_ - a truly dreadful piece - again a fact recognised by the composer).

I am also intrigued (and perplexed) by this odd thing 'fashion'. How can people like different things and composers at different times? Surely a good composer or great piece of music remain that way forever, yet we see composers drifting in and out of fashion (Rakhmaninov is a good example). How come?


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

As I said, there are some things that remain popular for obscure reasons -- and often it's a quality that appeals to people who are not normally classical music listeners. The 1812 Overture is one such. The Four Seasons. The Pachelbel Canon. They are a separate issue.

Fashion is also peculiar. In my lifetime I've seen three separate revivals of interest in Janacek, each one more lasting that the previous. Now, he's pretty much recognized as a repertoire composer, but it took 40 years to do it.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

GGluek said:


> As I said, there are some things that remain popular for obscure reasons -- and often it's a quality that appeals to people who are not normally classical music listeners. The 1812 Overture is one such. The Four Seasons. The Pachelbel Canon. They are a separate issue.


While we are of one mind on the _1812 Overture_ and Pachelbel's Canon (an excellent case in point as this annoying trifle of a piece overshadows Pachelbel's importance as a composer of organ music and a musician who was a significant positive influence on the young JS Bach). However, _The Four Seasons_ suffers from a different kind of over-exposure - one that suggests it's not a good piece. In fact, I consider _The Four Seasons_ a masterpiece of late Baroque repertoire and it's a shame its being overplayed has reduced its impact as an important work.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Yes, my dislike of the Vivaldi is a personal predilection, and I admit it, although that doesn't make me a bad person. 

Similarly, a good friend has tried for 35 years to get me to like the Manfred Symphony -- but try as I might, it still doesn't speak to me (nor, for that matter, does Francesca di Rimini). No accounting for taste.

cheers --


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Delicious Manager said:


> As I suggested in my post above, 'quality' is often NOT a factor in 'popularity'. In fact, some composers' most popular works are among their weakest or not great examples of the form generally.
> 
> A 'good tune' doesn't go amiss, as don't fiery virtuosic fireworks or lots of noise (eg Tchaikovsky's _1812 Overture_ - a truly dreadful piece - again a fact recognised by the composer).
> 
> I am also intrigued (and perplexed) by this odd thing 'fashion'. How can people like different things and composers at different times? Surely a good composer or great piece of music remain that way forever, yet we see composers drifting in and out of fashion (Rakhmaninov is a good example). How come?


Whats so bad about the 1812 Overture? I mean, I don't think its his best work, but it is beautiful, and exemplifies Tchaikovsky's brilliant use of color and drama. Also, a composer thinking something they wrote sucks, especially a composer like Tchaikovsky, doesn't mean it is objectively bad. I don't think he thought very highly of his ballets, and those are some of the best pieces ever written.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Delicious Manager said:


> Luck plays a large part in what is or is not 'popular' Things like geography, success of first performance(s), political circumstances all play a part.


Cool nicknames help, too. [Most ready example that comes to mind- some Haydn symphonies.]


Delicious Manager said:


> Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony is one of his most 'famous' and often-played pieces, yet it is neither one of his best symphonies nor one of his stronger pieces in general. _Manfred_ gets all but ignored, yet is a far superior piece of music. Tchaikovsky himself recognised the shortcoming of the 5th Symphony, comparing unfavourably with the 4th. Yet, there it is, time after time in concert programmes.


I don't think Tchaikovsky is a particularly reliable self-critic. I'm with B. D. on this one. Most famously, he was unhappy with The Nutcracker. (O.K.: it compares unfavorably with "Swan Lake," but what ballet _doesn't?_) It's still one of the foremost repertory ballets- rightfully so.

A similar example can be found in Beethoven. Beethoven pointedly declared his 8th symphony to be superior to the 7th. Even though he's Beethoven, I feel no obligation to share his peculiar (in this instance) viewpoint.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> A similar example can be found in Beethoven. Beethoven pointedly declared his 8th symphony to be superior to the 7th. Even though he's Beethoven, I feel no obligation to share his peculiar (in this instance) viewpoint.


Beethoven had some odd opinions of his own music. On hearing his wonderful C-minor piano variations (his only chaconne) played, he said "Did I really write that crud?" And in 1825, he read a very critical review of his _Wellington's Victory_, not highly regarded today, and scrawled across the review "O du elender Schuft! Was ich scheisse, ist besser als du je gedacht!" Which I won't translate here, but I have the T-shirt! :lol:

Added: Google will translate this just fine.


----------

