# "Admit it, you're as bored as I am"



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Saw this posted on another site (thanks, Critical): A rather broad attack on much contemporary classical music, by Joe Queenan in the Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/jul/09/classicalmusicandopera.culture


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, in the interest of fairness, here's another Guardian writer's response.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2008/jul/09/nowerenotasboredasyouar


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, in the interest of fairness, here's another Guardian writer's response.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2008/jul/09/nowerenotasboredasyouar


*Why Joe Queenan is wrong about new classical music* Very interesting, but does this not just smack of the Guardian trying to generate a topic of conversation for their readers...............


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian, a fine response, thanks! Looks like a familiar argument going on here, and with the same lines being spoken.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Well even reading the first line its obvious why he's bored. After 1500 concerts, I'd be bored. I was reading in one of the classical mags that music critics tend to get this jaded attitude. Its not that of an average classical music listener. They've listened to so much that virtually anything becomes boring for them. Maybe time to get a new career for this guy? Or get a life outside music? Seriously, sometimes too much is just...too much. The innocence of new discoveries is lost at one stage. Things become tired and stale. The way I deal with this is incorporate as much variety as possible into my listening (although I am unlikely to clock up 1500 gigs in my lifetime, nor do I have this kind of cushy job that jets me all over the world to its elite concert halls). Lately I've been rediscovering R&B & its been good.

What do we call this malady? 'Music critics overkillitis?' its symptoms being jadedness, boredom, cynicism, etc.

& nut I'm not as bored as you Mr Queenan, cos I know how to limit my intake of classical music. If it becomes like pure ear candy, that might be a problem. Too much candy aint good for ya, but a little is enjoyable each day. Get it? Its not rocket science by any means...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

That article was discussed in the famous What is the point of Atonal music? thread (starting page 89). Made for a somewhat contentious few pages. I've always liked Joe Queenan in the many books of his I've read. I do suspect that he wrote the article deliberately in a trolling manner. I think one can say that many people agree with him, and many disagree. And I think he's perfectly fine with that.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

_"A certain market for demanding new music can always be found among brash young urbanites, but this audience is not large, nor well-heeled. Moreover, it is by no means certain that the affection for new work survives one's youth, when sonically grating music is mostly a way of antagonising older people."_

:lol:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _"A certain market for demanding new music can always be found among brash young urbanites, but this audience is not large, nor well-heeled. Moreover, it is by no means certain that the affection for new work survives one's youth, when sonically grating music is mostly a way of antagonising older people."_
> 
> :lol:


I think that this is true only when the whole reason it appealed to you as a youngster was that it was "sonically grating". Listening to "extreme" music for the sake of its being "extreme" appeals to a certain brand of listener, sure, but that is not the primary nor the only audience for contemporary classical music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, in the interest of fairness, here's another Guardian writer's response.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2008/jul/09/nowerenotasboredasyouar


Epic pwnage.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _"A certain market for demanding new music can always be found among brash young urbanites, but this audience is not large, nor well-heeled. Moreover, it is by no means certain that the affection for new work survives one's youth, when sonically grating music is mostly a way of antagonising older people."_
> 
> :lol:


Well I never,can hardly believe that with our sweet little retiring young urbanites and their waltzes and polkas---must be Hilltroll that the man's thinking of.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

Sid James said:


> What do we call this malady? 'Music critics overkillitis?' its symptoms being jadedness, boredom, cynicism, etc.


As someone who used to review music and own their own site for a while, I can elaborate as to what exactly this is (or how it was bad for me; eventually I shut everything down, despite having a nice practice of being sent free CDs from labels etc.).

I think that for me it had to do with having to know something then and there. A lot of reviewing sites (and people giving you music to review) want an opinion as soon as possible. The world also wants to know, considering that you probably have the copy before it is released. This unfortunately lends itself to hyping releases to the point where their quality wears off after a few weeks or the opposite, in which something is trashed and eventually rises to greatness.

Even then, with this insane amount of pressure on offering an accurate opinion for listeners, the reviewer eventually will reach a point where they just say things to have their own opinion. People read their articles because they want somebody to connect with them and tell them what to do, and eventually people will realize how much power that contains and want to spice things up. This isn't something that happens on a conscious level, either; I believe that this sort of nature is cynicism on a subconscious level, and is particularly apparent in the reviewing industry.

Another thing about the reviewing industry is the necessity to (quantify and) put music into words. There are some things that simply can't be explained in a review, and they will reveal themselves over a lifetime. Even then, there may not even be words in any language to describe certain things! Being a reviewer requires you to have an opinion about _something_; there is no passive listening allowed. You have to find something to talk about, and this eventually leads to people picking things out of music in tasteless ways. Although even the word "tasteless" is subjective, what I mean is that people are trying too hard to find a cause-and-effect to write about; things can't just "be".

This type of need to say something original, relevant, and informative also causes people to put themselves on pedestals. There are many, many reviewers (most of them non-classical, but I digress) who feel the need to use the most complex vocabulary, the most radical opinions, etc. to have an opinion that people will read and maybe enjoy.

...and, of course, despite all of the free music, the reviewer also has to keep up this lifestyle for a prolonged period of time. Looking at music from a completely dehumanizing perspective really does go hand in hand with boredom, cynicism, and jadedness. It's a tiring life to follow, and eventually wears out the passionate music fan within someone.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thanks for giving us an insight into the reviewing industry. I didn't know it was your former job. Its probably not strictly the subject of this thread, but I as I said in my response, I got those negative vibes from that article from the first sentence. So even if this issue derails this thread so be it, I think. We've had enough tonal versus atonal or old versus new/newer music debates here already. More than enough.



oogabooha said:


> ...
> Another thing about the reviewing industry is the necessity to (quantify and) put music into words. There are some things that simply can't be explained in a review, and they will reveal themselves over a lifetime. Even then, there may not even be words in any language to describe certain things! Being a reviewer requires you to have an opinion about _something_; there is no passive listening allowed. You have to find something to talk about, and this eventually leads to people picking things out of music in tasteless ways. Although even the word "tasteless" is subjective, what I mean is that people are trying too hard to find a cause-and-effect to write about; things can't just "be".
> 
> This type of need to say something original, relevant, and informative also causes people to put themselves on pedestals. There are many, many reviewers (most of them non-classical, but I digress) who feel the need to use the most complex vocabulary, the most radical opinions, etc. to have an opinion that people will read and maybe enjoy....


I know its hard to boil things down in music into words. Sometimes seems futile. Music itself is communication, so talking about music is like talking about talking. So inevitably will involve waffle, jargon, high falutin stuff, putting things out to get a reaction, etc.

But as you say its not strictly related to classical. I listen to non classical radio and they do reviews of the latest albums. Its wierd listening to their categorisation or 'boxing' of the styles of new albums. I'll just make one up from memory. 'This album is a fusion of post-grunge lyrics with strong metal guitar riffs and retro beach feel combined with a lounge vibe perfect for chilling out on a saturday afternoon.' Dunno if that makes sense but seriously thats how they box things in non classical. So how would he describe a classical composer like that? May be an idea for one of those not so serious threads.

But yeah quantifying art like this seems like its more about the words than the music in the first place. Basically pretentious drivel. Very easy to slip into though, even on a forum like this when one is not being paid to write such commentary.



> ...
> ...and, of course, despite all of the free music, the reviewer also has to keep up this lifestyle for a prolonged period of time. Looking at music from a completely dehumanizing perspective really does go hand in hand with boredom, cynicism, and jadedness. It's a tiring life to follow, and eventually wears out the passionate music fan within someone.


Well it doesn't sound as 'fun' as its cracked up to be. In terms of dehumanising, reminds me of doing an autopsy, cutting up a cadaver. Nice! (NOT).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I found that article in BBC music magazine I was talking about in my first post. The gist of it accords with what oogabooha is saying. Its by Richard Morrison from his monthly column, this one talking about whether opera companies should stage warhorses (guaranteed to put bums on seats) versus less known or new/newer stuff. Here is the quote, put in green italics. From Nov. 2012 issue:

_I don't think music critics are much help in this debate. We review hundreds of symphonies, concertos and operas each year, most of which we have heard dozens of times. The trick is to stay enthusiastic. Well, actually the trick is to stay awake. But inevitably the pulse doesn't race when another Marriage of Figaro looms, even if it is being staged by some hotshot teenager who's had the brilliant notion of setting it in a Taliban training camp. So we write shrill denouncements of 'timid' programmes, and constantly demand novelty to refresh our jaded sensibilities.* But we aren't typical musiclovers.* We see everything and pay for nothing. We should be banished from the chamber while programming is debated._

& by extension, are those people who are 'experts' or claim to be on online forums/discussions/sites typical musiclovers? Dunno, I think its lame if they do it to put themselves on a pedestal, but ok if they use their knowledge for good, to offer advice/help when needed or asked, or give some special insight. On another website there where some posters who claimed to have had over a dozen cycles of some composer's symphonies. I mean I don't think that's a typical musiclover, honestly. I'm trying not to judge it, I just judge the attitude of hubris that can so easily come along with it. Its a conversation killer, its toxic. But anyway another digression, just giving my thoughts straight there.

I'd add that boredom is also a state of mind. Anyone can have it, doesn't have to be a certain group. A person can be excited by one single concert they go to a year. Another person (reviewers?) might be bored senseless by the umpteenth concert they go to for a season. One is doing it for pleasure, the other for a job. Again, this is not a hard concept to fathom, I think.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> _"A certain market for demanding new music can always be found among brash young urbanites, but this audience is not large, nor well-heeled. Moreover, it is by no means certain that the affection for new work survives one's youth, when sonically grating music is mostly a way of antagonising older people."_
> 
> :lol:


That's true, isn't it? Only older people have a dozen Beethoven symphony cycles and lots of other "wig music", while the "young urbanites" know what they like, even before they listen to it, so long as it ccomes from a composer who takes on a larger than life view about music and philosophies associated with it today. That said, I'm about to take on a third complete JS Bach cantata cycle BWV1 to 200 (on period instruments, too by the way).


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

KenOC said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/jul/09/classicalmusicandopera.culture "Birtwistleites might dismiss me as a Luddite who despises new music, but the truth is, I find nothing new in The Minotaur's dreary, brutish score; it's the same funereal caterwauling that bourgeoisie-loathing composers have been churning out since the 1930s"


that is the point.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2008/jul/09/nowerenotasboredasyouar "if you put new music imaginatively in the context of the past, you create connections that audiences understand, appreciate, and you start a love affair with contemporary music"


why new music[SUP](TM)[/SUP] is unable to stay afloat and attract audiences without being sandwitched between some Mozart's then?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I'm entirely bored of reading the same old bullheaded masturbatory rhetoric from jaded old codgers, yes.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I'm not as bored as you Mr Queenan, cos I know how to limit my intake of classical music


but he spoke not of classical music, he said he is bored by 'contemporary music'. Bach is what never stops to excite him whereas 'new music' sends him to sleep because honestly speaking *how new is this 'new' actually?* - that is the point of his article.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> the same old bullheaded masturbatory rhetoric from jaded old codgers


unfortunately it is not, had this been written in the 20th century then, yes, but there are already no 'jaded old codgers' these days where everyone is trendy and up to date.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I haven't read much of Joe Queenan's writing, but what I have read suggests to me that, at bottom, he's a self-absorbed whiner who believes that only those things he likes should be allowed to exist.

From his Guardian article:


> I consider myself to be the kind of listener contemporary composers would need to reach if they had any hope of achieving a breakthrough. So far, this has not happened, and I doubt that it will.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"When I was 18, I bought a record called The New Music. It featured Kontra-Punkte by Karlheinz Stockhausen and Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima by Krzysztof Penderecki. I was incredibly proud of myself for giving this music a try, even though the Stockhausen sounded like a cat running up and down the piano, and the Penderecki was that reliable old post-Schoenberg standby: belligerent bees buzzing in the basement. I did not really like these pieces..."

I have that record, too. Bruno Maderna conducted, and it has the best "Threnody" I've ever heard; and for years, this was the only recording of "Punkte." I wish they'd release it on CD.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

'Threnody' always sounds more to me like the buzz of American B-52s, preparing to drop the A bomb on innocent civilians (I guess that's what "victims" means). If there were any "bees in the basement," they might have survived the initial blast, but probably died of radiation exposure later. Too bad that the 1950 assassination attempt on Harry "Give 'em Hell" Truman was unsuccessful. 
Using concert halls as gauges for popularity of music is old hat. "Audiences" are the people who buy the recordings. Concert hall music is an unnatural setting, anyway. This is the main aspect of "The Western Classical Tradition" that I wish could be modernized. Like art galleries, people shouldn't feel obligated to dress up.

Whoever wrote this article is not a very perceptive listener. If he can't hear "Punkte" for the great music it is, I suspect he has an inferior ear, in terms of hearing pitch.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

sharik said:


> why new music[SUP](TM)[/SUP] is unable to stay afloat and attract audiences without being sandwitched between some Mozart's then?


Why is Mozart without new music[SUP](TM)[/SUP] not able to keep afloat and attract audiences?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Interesting that nobody is trying to refute Queenan's underlying point, which is that the broad concert-going audience, in general, just doesn't like the music described and has never liked it. Is he wrong?


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Why is Mozart without new music[SUP](TM)[/SUP] not able to keep afloat and attract audiences?


nah, Mozart does perfectly well and packs halls without any supporting acts.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

From the original article: "In a discussion that preceded the show, a woman in the audience reminded us that Haydn's work was first thought of as 'radical', but had long since entered the mainstream." She evidently didn't mention that, despite the fire breathing modernity of Haydn's music, he was the most popular composer of his time, at least until Mozart came along. Unfortunately, a far cry from today's situation.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Interesting that nobody is trying to refute Queenan's underlying point, which is that the broad concert-going audience, in general, just doesn't like the music described and has never liked it. Is he wrong?


His underlying point is "I don't like it, therefore no one else likes it." There should be a line beyond which a statement becomes so stupid that it need not be refuted. Regardless, it amounts to nothing more than the flogging of a dead horse.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> His underlying point is "I don't like it, therefore no one else likes it." There should be a line beyond which a statement becomes so stupid that it need not be refuted. Regardless, it amounts to nothing more than the flogging of a dead horse.


Well, if you don't like a question, answer a different one. Hey, it works for politicians, right?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

It is apparent that Mr Queenan is an musical Ostrich a with his head in a dark hole in the ground,; the comfort of an all to familiar environment will always appeal more to the general public, but it has complained about modernisms and the avant-garde throughout history and given a few generations, what is terrifyingly modern today, will be mainstream tomorrow!

History will always be on the side of those who live on the avant-garde edge of the cultural museum that the Concert hall is today!

/ptr


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Well even reading the first line its obvious why he's bored. After 1500 concerts, I'd be bored. I was reading in one of the classical mags that music critics tend to get this jaded attitude. Its not that of an average classical music listener. They've listened to so much that virtually anything becomes boring for them. Maybe time to get a new career for this guy? Or get a life outside music? Seriously, sometimes too much is just...too much. The innocence of new discoveries is lost at one stage. Things become tired and stale....


Sportswriters are often inflicted. Some work it into their column as continual rant...until their editor says, "That's enough, you're scaring the readers."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Interesting that nobody is trying to refute Queenan's underlying point, which is that the broad concert-going audience, in general, just doesn't like the music described and has never liked it. Is he wrong?





sharik said:


> but he spoke not of classical music, he said he is bored by 'contemporary music'. Bach is what never stops to excite him whereas 'new music' sends him to sleep because honestly speaking *how new is this 'new' actually?* - that is the point of his article.


Well okay, great. But we've had these discussions umpteen times on this forum. Almost as many as the 1500 concerts Mr. Queenan attended. I agree with some of his points. Eg. that audiences for classical are as a whole getting older (here they are, anyway). That post-1945 music is not as popular as the older stuff (but it still has some place in the repertoire). I can validate his cynicism about the industry to some degree, especially about how various academic cliques have tended to push various agendas and ideologies. Admittedly I think this became worse with Modernism (and yeah all that Marxist stuff obsessed with the bourgeois etc, I've heard plenty of that before). But that happened in the past too.

But I find it odd that he's kinda biting the hand that feeds him. Its funny how these critics and various other hangers on of the music industry have a need to do this. Its the same as Modernist theorists who chastise the bourgeois yet they themselves are...wait for it...bourgeois! But the worse thing is when they kinda put themselves on a pedestal and assume things about us dumb plebs who aren't part of the 'inner sanctum' the high preisthood of classical music. Some of the generalisations he makes are a bit too much. I mean in terms of attitude this guy is a bit of a tool imo. As I said, maybe needs to do something other than what he's been doing. Too much of a good thing can eventually become a not so good thing.

The other thing is, as a whole, a lot of the population who doesn't listen to classical finds it boring full stop. Then there's the thing about the core repertoire being between 1750 and 1950 roughly. Not many people like Renaissance music for example, but it doesn't mean it is of no value or has no place in the repertoire. Indeed it has its own repertoire, its own canon, its own bunch of experts who specialise in its performance and study, etc. Just like post 1945 stuff. So?

Anyway, better to discuss the limitations of critics, of how they impose their values like this and claim to be 'one of us.' Well they are not, and thats fine, as long as they somehow admit and work with that bias. Not just take this high moral ground over the majority of listeners, whether conservative or radical or in between ('the mainstream') we all pay for our cd's and concert tickets, they don't.

And if I need back up on this, oogabooha who says he was in the industry validated what I said in my first post. Critics cynicism - gotta love it!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Crudblud said:


> I'm entirely bored of reading the same old bullheaded masturbatory rhetoric from jaded old codgers, yes.


So was Sibelius, most likely, who said this:

"Pay no attention to what critics say. No statue has ever been put up to a critic."

Its not only the likes of post 1945 composers who had to battle these critics. Or if I'm being more extreme, parasites?

That famous quote is on wikipedia for those who wanna reference. Hint hint.



Vaneyes said:


> Sportswriters are often inflicted. Some work it into their column as continual rant...until their editor says, "That's enough, you're scaring the readers."


Yeah well sportswriters or sports journalists here often come from a background of being sportsmen/women. In one case I know, a guy who is now a prominent radio reporter ('serious' journalist or whatever) was a sports commentator. I wonder if music critics are similar, using the industry as a leg up to grander things? DUnno just conjecture on my part. Certainly it goes together, there where many composers who where critics. No problem with that. But Adorno who famously trashed Sibelius composed music himself (Sibby's quote above may well have been ironic, given his decades long silence just as serialism was taking off, which Adorno was a big fan of). Anyway I'd guess not many people have heard Adorno's music, more have heard Sibelius' music. Are some music critics composer wannabes???


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> But I find it odd that he's kinda biting the hand that feeds him. Its funny how these critics and various other hangers on of the music industry have a need to do this.


BTW Mr. Queenan is not a critic but a humorist (self-described). He seems to have nothing to do with the music industry.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Yeah well sportswriters or sports journalists here often come from a background of being sportsmen/women. In one case I know, a guy who is now a prominent radio reporter ('serious' journalist or whatever) was a sports commentator. I wonder if music critics are similar, using the industry as a leg up to grander things? DUnno just conjecture on my part. Certainly it goes together, there where many composers who where critics. No problem with that. But Adorno who famously trashed Sibelius composed music himself (Sibby's quote above may well have been ironic, given his decades long silence just as serialism was taking off, which Adorno was a big fan of). Anyway I'd guess not many people have heard Adorno's music, more have heard Sibelius' music. Are some music critics composer wannabes???


I'm not sure that Adorno was a fan of serialism. He believed most in Berg and Schoenberg, rather than Webern, who was the Darmstadt school's idol.

Anyway, the only music I've heard by Adorno is this:





It's decent but workmanlike Schoenberg/Berg imitation (in other words, I don't hear an individual voice in it). Intriguingly, it sounds not unlike Schoenberg's Third Quartet in spots, which was composed over a year later.

Edit: And it's a great improvement on this rather simpleminded piano piece from a few years earlier.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> BTW Mr. Queenan is not a critic but a humorist (self-described). He seems to have nothing to do with the music industry.


Well on that guardian website his profile below say he's "a cultural critic and movie reviewer."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/joequeenan

Maybe not a music critic as I thought, but being a cultural critic encompasses many things, music included. So my guess is he got a few or more than a few 'freebies' for at least some of those 1500 gigs he attended, from mates in the industry. They're all the same basically, they're all one big (happy?) family.

He describes music critics as lauding a concert where he saw the greys go to sleep. Honestly, so what? Quite a few cd's I buy are poo pooed on a website I won't name. They seem to hate anything outside the big international labels. I wonder if there's a conflict of interest there? Are they getting freebies from their mates too? Is it like the "cash for comment" scandal that rocked the Australian commercial radio broadcasting industry about a decade ago? So i don't think anyone said critics will always reflect reality, be impartial, be reliable, be untainted by various agendas and so on. The best critics imo are the ones who uncover their biases and assumptions. I always said this.

& why does Queenan say things like "Renaissance muzak?" Why is Renaissance music described in such a derogatory way by him? I just don't get it. He's kinda making a dichotomy to serve his own ends. So Renaissance music is "muzak" while cutting edge contemporary is "harsh and ugly." Why would you compare these two things? Maybe to say that most listeners like repertoire coming after Renaissance until roughly mid 20th century? So between (late?) Baroque and Modernism before things like electronics became part of the picture. Again, so what? Isn't this obvious? What does this mean? Who cares?

But whatever the case, I'm trying hard not to shoot the messenger here. But I did & conflated him with the people I've read and had misfortune to interact with online who got such inflated egos, its not funny. In any case, I could do a thread about this topic seperately, about the so called 'cultural elites' but I think I've said enough on this thread. Don't want to bruise those inflated egos, though thankfully on this forum there is not many people I'd describe as like that. Most are down to earth and can have a converstation without their egos getting too much in the way.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> His underlying point is "I don't like it, therefore no one else likes it." There should be a line beyond which a statement becomes so stupid that it need not be refuted. Regardless, it amounts to nothing more than the flogging of a dead horse.


I think you may be extrapolating too far from what he actually said. I read the article several times and never saw that underlying point. The "therefore" and the "no one" are simply not there. I would paraphrase his statement as "I have not been able to enjoy much modern music, *and* based on my experience, the significant majority of classical concert goers do not enjoy it either." That statement might be wrong, but it is not stupid.

Tom Service in his response emphatically denied that Queenan's view of modern/contemporary music's popularity is correct. Service says that concerts by many modern composers pack concert halls. Of course, that could be true, and Queenan could be correct. Some modern composers could occasionally pack concert halls, *and* those same composers could be rather unpopular with the vast majority of classical musical audiences. I suspect that Service and Queenan are talking about two separate types of popularity - number of classical music listeners and percentage of classical music listeners. The absolute number can be sizable with a very small percentage of people.

Personally, I don't know how popular modern composers are. Concert attendance is probably not the best metric since CD purchases or MP3 downloads could tell a different story. If a small percentage of classical music listeners like modern composers (say the composers Queenan mentions), then I'd say Queenan is correct in his assessment. Of course the relative popularity says very little about the quality of the compositions or whether those compositions and composers will be viewed differently by future listeners.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> Concert attendance is probably not the best metric since CD purchases or MP3 downloads could tell a different story.


One interesting metric is classical FM radio programming. In areas with a mass-market classical station (like mine) programming is probably more conservative than might be found in concert halls. Our station is KUSC.

Programming is solidly 19th century and earlier. Well, plenty of Debussy and Ravel, but even Prokofiev and Shostakovich are rare. Bartok is even rarer, with maybe the Concerto for Orchestra occasionally. Schoenberg? I've heard Transfigured night once or twice in the past decade, but nothing else. Berg? Webern? Nothing. Britten? Well, the Simple Symphony, the Young Person's Guide, and once the War Requiem. There's a wee-hour program of modern music, but it's in the desperate hours and I've seldom heard it. Adams gets a play occasionally, but he's a kind of local hero.

I think one issue is what politicians call the "negatives." Anything that might cause listeners to change the station is a no-no (this is true of all radio stations). Also, overall readership is crucial, because this determines the level support during pledge drives -- when you have plenty of opportunity to hear Andrea Bocelli.

I often suggest pieces for the noon requests program. If they are conservative, they're usually played. If not, forget it.

My take is that the programmers are aiming for maximum audience and want to avoid risk. This is probably wise economically. People who program concerts may be a bit more adventurous, but not by much. They have jobs to keep too.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

My local station (Boston area) has programmed Berg's Violin Concerto a few times from concert rebroadcasts (not counting their mirroring the BSO's programs, which they do as a matter of course, so it doesn't count there). They're more adventurous than they were a few years back, and play more variety, which is nice. Do you hear lots of 20th century music? No. They do generally stick to warhorses and popular works. But it's nice to hear something different once in a while.

Edit: I also recall hearing some early tonal Webern pieces (unpublished) for cello and piano once, and the early Bagatelles by Ligeti.

Here's a sample afternoon program, March 14 2013, 2-7:
Paul Dukas
La Peri, with opening fanfare

Nikolai Medtner
Skazki (Fairy Tales): Op. 26

Percy Grainger
Lincolnshire Posy

Frank Bridge
Cherry Ripe

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Symphony No. 34 in C Major, K. 338

Ravel
Oiseaux Tristes

Sergei Prokofiev / arr. Kent Kennan
Sonata, op. 94
Richard Stoltzman (clarinet); Warsaw Philharmonic Orchestra; Lawrence Leighton Smith (conductor)

Frederic Chopin
Variations in B-flat Major, Op. 2 'La ci darem la mano'

Corelli
Sonata in G Major for two violins, op. 4, No. 10

Vaughan Williams
Concerto Grosso

Medtner
Skazka, Op. 35 No. 3

Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach
Grand Symphony for Orchestra in F, Wq 183/3

George Whitefield Chadwick
Rip Van Winkle Overture

J.S. Bach, transcribed by Leopold Stokowski
Arioso (largo from the f minor harpsichord concerto, BWV 1056; Wachet auf (Sleepers, wake!), Charle prelude, BWV 645; Preludio in E (from Partita No. 3 in E, BWV 1006)

Johannes Brahms
Intermezzo No. 1 in E-flat Major, Op. 117

Francois Gossec
Tambourin

Grieg
Sonata for violin and piano Op. 45 in C minor

Robert Fuchs
Serenade No. 5 Op. 53 in D major

Alfred Grunfeld/Strauss
Soirees de Vienne, concert paraphrase from Strauss's Waltzes from Die Fledermaus and others, Op. 56

Hardly pushing any boundaries here, but at least it's not the same thing repeatedly.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian, I was probably being a bit unfair. Jim Svejda's show (7:00 PM weekdays) has interesting programming on occasion, and a lot of chats with contermporary composers (and playing their music, of course). But most of the works and composers are both tonally conservative and little-known. Some seem quite good, so they are welcome.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Mahlerian, I was probably being a bit unfair. Jim Svejda's show (7:00 PM weekdays) has interesting programming on occasion, and a lot of chats with contermporary composers (and playing their music, of course). But most of the works and composers are both tonally conservative and little-known. Some seem quite good, so they are welcome.


Our station invites performers into their studio to play for broadcast, some famous, some less so.

Anyway, as I said, they also rebroadcast the BSO's concerts every week, so hardcore modernist music still gets air time occasionally. I know this isn't because they programmed it intentionally for the radio, though.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Our station invites performers into their studio to play for broadcast, some famous, some less so.
> 
> Anyway, as I said, they also rebroadcast the BSO's concerts every week, so hardcore modernist music still gets air time occasionally. I know this isn't because they programmed it intentionally for the radio, though.


Actually KUSC also rebroadcasts and streams LA Phil concerts as well as concerts from the Colburn School of Music. Both are far more adventurous that the station's normal programming. I'm beginning to think my original post was unfair!


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Joe Queenan is just right. Maybe moderate modernism like Mahler, Prokovief or Shostakovich is the solution.


----------



## sharik (Jan 23, 2013)

ptr said:


> It is apparent that Mr Queenan is an musical Ostrich a with his head in a dark hole in the ground


that applies to most of the human race whatever their calling is and modernists are not an exclusion here.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

> I think you may be extrapolating too far from what he actually said. I read the article several times and never saw that underlying point. The "therefore" and the "no one" are simply not there. I would paraphrase his statement as "I have not been able to enjoy much modern music, and based on my experience, the significant majority of classical concert goers do not enjoy it either." That statement might be wrong, but it is not stupid.


I suppose I agree with your interpretation of his words in a narrow sense, but Queenan's tone is I think highly significant here and there's an awful lot of contempt in there, for both modern composers and music and modern audiences and even things that aren't particularly relevant to his point (e.g. "Renaissance muzak", as Sid James pointed out). Perhaps if he had adopted a more dispassionate tone (which I can't imagine he would, from my admittedly limited experience of his writing) then people might be more interested in his argument. But again his argument - even as you've framed it, mmsbls - is


> *I* have not been able to enjoy much modern music, and based on *my* experience, the significant majority of classical concert goers do not enjoy it either.


which ultimately is just one guy's opinion backed up by little other than his own opinions. Sid James said "I'm trying hard not to shoot the messenger here" but I would say, why not shoot the messenger when he makes himself the target?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> I suppose I agree with your interpretation of his words in a narrow sense, but Queenan's tone is I think highly significant here and there's an awful lot of contempt in there, for both modern composers and music and modern audiences and even things that aren't particularly relevant to his point (e.g. "Renaissance muzak", as Sid James pointed out). Perhaps if he had adopted a more dispassionate tone (which I can't imagine he would, from my admittedly limited experience of his writing) then people might be more interested in his argument.


I have not read many of Queenan's articles in Rolling Stone or The Gaurdian, but I have read many of his books. His tone is generally the same, and he does come off as pompous with contempt for much of the world. Most of the time I think he can be extremely funny, but I also recognize that people who enjoy what he is criticizing can easily view his tone as unpleasant to downright mean.

What's interesting about his article is that he does not really draw major conclusions based on his observations. He does not advocate doing anything about the situation or suggest changes in composers' output. Mostly, he seems to be responding to those who can't understand why many people do not enjoy modern music (e.g. the famous singer in the first sentence). He actually says more negative things about listeners who _don't_ enjoy modern music than he does about those who do.

"There is no denying that the people filling the great concert halls of the world are conservative, and in many cases reactionary: reluctant to take a flyer on music that wasn't recorded at least once by Toscanini."

"There is a childish, fairytale quality to their infatuation with the classics..."

" I no longer believe that fans of classical music are especially knowledgeable - certainly not in the way jazz fans are. American audiences, even those that fancy themselves quite in the know, roll over and drool like trained seals in the presence of charismatic hacks phoning in yet another performance of the Emperor Concerto."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Actually KUSC also rebroadcasts and streams LA Phil concerts as well as concerts from the Colburn School of Music. Both are far more adventurous that the station's normal programming. I'm beginning to think my original post was unfair!


Seems to me that radio has to be more conservative than concerts because the audience is bigger and can leave more easily.

Not to mention older. I haven't listened to a radio since the 1990s.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> Seems to me that radio has to be more conservative than concerts because the audience is bigger and can leave more easily.
> 
> Not to mention older. I haven't listened to a radio since the 1990s.


Don't you have one in your car ?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> I suppose I agree with your interpretation of his words in a narrow sense, but Queenan's tone is I think highly significant here and there's an awful lot of contempt in there, for both modern composers and music and modern audiences and even things that aren't particularly relevant to his point (e.g. "Renaissance muzak", as Sid James pointed out). ...


Thats right, he manages to put virtually everyone's noses out of joint - from people who like Renaissance music, to those who like warhorses, to those who don't like Modern/contemporary stuff, and ostensibly to those who do, cos to him its all boring. I don't really know why he has to bring all this stuff into his argument, which as I said, is not controversial in itself. Eg. audiences of classical getting older, being less prone to like new/newer stuff, being easily won over by big name celebrity type performers and so on. But as we can see, saying these things in itself, its no big deal. But looks like he needs to say it in a way to antagonise as many people as possible.



> ... Sid James said "I'm trying hard not to shoot the messenger here" but I would say, why not shoot the messenger when he makes himself the target?


Well as people here have said, it appears to be his way of being controversial, so yeah he's bringing it on himself. Maybe his way of selling issues of the Guardian or getting online subscriptions to it. Dunno and frankly I don't care.


----------

