# Repertoire Status



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Some on this forum seem convinced that repertoire status is something granted to great works and great works only (or primarily). At the same time, the argument is also brought up that it is one way to judge that a work is indeed great.

In some of these discussions, the question of the audience is brought up, usually to imply that it is audiences that decide, by their responses, which works gain this status and which do not. I am beginning to wonder if perhaps it is not audiences, nor academics/musicologists, but musicians, whether performers or conductors, that hold the greatest power in developing the canon (although of course the others play their own part as well). If a work is not performed, then it goes unheard, and thus cannot enter the repertoire.

How do you think a work gains repertoire status? What do you think are the most important factors involved?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Performers, conductors and music directors would seem to be gatekeepers of sorts, but if you asked them, they'd probably admit that they are often playing what audiences want to hear. 

Over time, I suspect audiences have more sway. All it takes is one conductor to champion a single work. If audiences like it, it catches on and spreads.

Also, how much choice to musicians actually have? Aren't they often booked to play a specific piece ("we want you to play the Rach 3 next season")?


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2013)

Repertoire being the kind of thing that it is, I suppose one essential quality a piece needs to enter the repertoire is age. I don't know how much age, but I've seen it said somewhere that Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra_ is the last orchestral piece to have entered the repertoire. Not sure when that happened, though. Considerably after 1943, I'm sure.

I inhabit a very different world, one in which new pieces are constantly being performed. Nostalgic folks--and even the new music world has some of those--want to hear their favorites over and over again. But the rest of us want to hear new things. Composers, too. Composers want their newer works to be performed.

Martin Bedard's _Excavations _gets programmed all the time. It's a lovely piece, all right, but Martin has written other things. He'd like those things to be heard, too, nice though being programmed all the time is. And it really is. I've heard those other things, and while none of them has had the time to grow on me as _Excavations_ has, I must say I agree with him.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

A work frequently performed by well known conductors/musicians has to be a factor. And the audience for these pieces obviously influences the choice of repertoire. I suppose most people like a good melody, so it's no surprise that abstract works are less frequently performed. 

But there is still too much great music being overshadowed by the warhorses. It's not like you can go out and hear an Ives or Schnittke symphony very often.

The world of chamber music seems to be a different situation. There are thousands of recitals happening all the time that feature obscure works, but the audience at these events might number 30-40 people.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Musicians nowadays are looking for a unique selling point. It could be a total mastery of one composer. It could be sheer virtuosity - both fireworks and gentle emotionalism. It could be an orchestral wall of sound. It could be sheer beauty of orchestral playing. It could be specialisation within early music. Musicians gave to sell their product. look at some of the silly CD Covers.

Two distinct areas emerge - the solo performer and the orchestra - but the key is the same - vision. The performer has to have a clear vision of what they can do and which composers suit their style and how they can use the composers' vision to develop a saleable performance. The orchestral leader, conductor, whatever, has to know their orchestra and have the same vision to develop viable performances. There will always be the "standards" - the things the audience expects as part of a classical music performance - even the sillies Mozart by candlelight with performers in 18th century dress and wigs. But there will also be the "signature" pieces - the performances that define an orchestra or soloist and which may become part of the repertoire in time.

What are they looking for in musical terms? Basically, a composers who is "playable" - good structure, orchestration, harmonies (or whatever) - in other words a competent piece of work with a comprehensible vision that they can get into. If it becomes "popular", then other people will take it up and it will enter the repertoire. If not, it will stay in a niche market e.g. Ex Cathedra and South American Baroque.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

One thing is certain ; there is greater variety of repertoire being performed today than ever before in the history
of western classical music . There is a certain core repertoire of lastingly popular works but these are far from the
only ones being performed today . 
Today we can hear ,live or recorded , everything from works written centuries before the time of Bach to
the latest works by living composers . There are ensembles which specialize in the music of the medieval and
renaissance periods which coexist with ensembles specializing in new music . And why not ?
In the course of any given season , mainstream orchestrs will play anything from Bach, Handel, Haydn,
Mozart and Beethoven to the latest works by John Adams, Tan Dun, Peter Maxwell Davies, Penderecki ,
Arvo Part , Kaaia Saariaho , nd other living composers . 
Opera companies perform operas by Monteverdi , Handel, Rameau, Gluck and Mozart , Rossini , Verdi,
Puccini, Bizet, Wagner, Richard Strauss, Berg, Massenet , etc and they have premiered new operas by 
Glass, Adams, Saariaho, Heggie, Birtwistle, Henze, Poul Ruders , Bolcom, Wuorinen , and other 
living composers . 
There is so much music from all periods which is worth hearing . Why should we limit ourselves to new works ?
A common complaint is that there is something supposedly "wrong" with classical music today becuse in the past,
"most music was new music ". But this ignores the fact that long ago, we simply did not have the enormous accumulation
of repertoire which exists today . 
In the time of Mozart and Haydn, the symphony orchestra as we know it was a relatively new thing ; a lasting
repertoire had not yet developed . 
But today , we should be profoundly grateful that we can hear such an incredible variety of classical works of
every possible variety .


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

^ superhorn, you make a point that was on my mind all day, the one of recordings. I hesitated, as I believed the OP to be referring exclusively to live performance, but, now that the subject of recordings has been raised, I will say that I think the concept of repertoire _should include_ recordings. Many orchestras/performers make many recordings of works that would likely rarely/never be performed in a concert hall and there appears to be quite a degree of competition involved in issuing recordings of certain works among performers/recording companies.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

It is a mixture. While performers, in essence, develop the canon as _they_ are the ones learning the music, if an audience reacts enthusiastically to a particular piece and it drives up the performer's popularity, that reaction will cause the piece to become more popular in general. There are several encores I've learned simply because other performers have had success with them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> ....
> 
> How do you think a work gains repertoire status? What do you think are the most important factors involved?


I think its a mix of the things you mentioned in your opening post. I don't know if one group is more important than the other - musicians, listeners, academics or critics. I think its a mix of things. If there is some sort of consensus between them, I suppose you have got a kind of "bingo" situation. All boxes ticked. Sometimes things require time and a bit of exposure and promotion or championing. At other times things catch on very quickly.

In terms of your view of musicians being of primary important in development of repertoire, I think it is important, immensely. I can associate some musicians with favourite composers or areas of the repertoire. For example, look at how Adrian Boult premiered so many works by Vaughan Williams and Holst. You look at Simon Rattle at the other end of the 20th century, how he put his weight behind modern and contemporary repertoire, particularly British. You've got Mstislav Rostropovich commissioning many works from the likes of Shostakovich, Britten and Dutilleux. You've got others like Serge Koussevitzky and Paul Sacher, who commissioned dozens of masterpieces.

In the Asia-Pacific region two come to mind, both now passed away. Hiroyuki Iwaki, who conducted Takemitsu's music both in Japan and abroad (including a long stint with the Melbourne SO), and also Stuart Challender who worked to get Australian composers works performed.

You've also got those who have focussed on areas of the repertoire more of the past, such as John Elliott Gardiner, Christopher Hogwood and Nikolaus Harnoncourt.

So I think that musicians are important. That ties into the aspect of vision and determination to bring things to light.

However I think audience are also important, speaking to this:



CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> It is a mixture. While performers, in essence, develop the canon as _they_ are the ones learning the music, if an audience reacts enthusiastically to a particular piece and it drives up the performer's popularity, that reaction will cause the piece to become more popular in general. There are several encores I've learned simply because other performers have had success with them.


I have read of, and in one case seen first hand, performances where you wouldn't expect things to go so well, but they do. I have also seen the opposite, of a third of the concert hall audience leaving at interval before the long symphony work finishing the concert is played.

In terms of new music, you have the aspect of challenging but also fun music going down well - and this makes the performers get some of that positive vibe. I read for example that there was a composer who wrote a concerto incorporating rock instruments, and at first the orchestra thought it was tacky. But at the premiere, the audience loved it, and the musicians ended up warming to it.

Its easy to forget how composers have gone out on a limb in many ways, and the establishment or critics might criticise their music but the proof is in the pudding in terms of positive audience reaction. There are quite a few examples of this, from the music of Tchaikovsky to John Adams which I have read about. Works like the Piano Concerto #1 in B flat minor and Grand Pianola Music are now entrenched in the repertoire, but at first critics thought they where failures for one reason or other.

Recently I have been reading of critics getting it totally wrong with many warhorses many of us know and enjoy - sometimes the critics being reputable composers! It happened with all manner of composers, from high octane innovators to those who innovated but in a more evolutionary rather than revolutionary way. Its quite interesting, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

So I go with consensus if there is any, but of course there are a good deal of grey areas, and they are in some respects the most interesting. Its there that you have some chance of pushing the repertoire into new and enriching areas, opportunities which the likes of Adrian Boult, Simon Rattle and the others I mentioned where able to make use of.


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

I like the quote in your signature - "Listening to the fifth symphony of Ralph Vaughan Williams is like staring at a cow for 45 minutes."
- Aaron Copland

I like a lot of Vaughn Williams's music but I don't care for his fifth symphony.



CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> It is a mixture. While performers, in essence, develop the canon as _they_ are the ones learning the music, if an audience reacts enthusiastically to a particular piece and it drives up the performer's popularity, that reaction will cause the piece to become more popular in general. There are several encores I've learned simply because other performers have had success with them.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

I don't have the time or money to attend a lot of live performances, so recordings are very important to me. In effect, they enable me to give certain works my own, individual repertoire status.

Popularity, per se, is of no importance whatsoever to me. A sufficient amount of interest, of course, is necessary in order to make recordings possible. But, as long as there is enough of that to make sure that a recording (or, preferably, *recordings*) is available, I'm satisfied.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Canonical status is something that is developed over time and is the result of the interested audience, the "experts" and academics, and subsequent generations of artists working within the field.

If we look to the realm of literature we find a writer such as Alexander Dumas or Arthur Conan Doyle is largely ignored by the "experts" (critics, professors, etc...) as well as by subsequent writers of real merit... but we must recognize that their efforts are indeed "classics" or canonical in that they remain beloved by a large audience of what Virginia Woolf termed "common readers" (the well-informed lovers of literature). 

At the opposite end of the spectrum we have writers like James Joyce and Cesar Vallejo whose reputations rest almost wholly upon the opinions of the academics and subsequent generations of writers. 

I doubt that any of these three groups (the academics, the artists, the audience) holds more of a sway than the others... although as I already suggested, any one may be the most influential in conferring canonical status upon a given work or body of work. Conductors like Jordi Savall, singers like Cecilia Bartoli and Philippe Jaroussky, and ensembles like the Hilliard Ensemble can go a long way toward drawing attention to a forgotten or little known repertoire, but ultimately no single individual or group can assure canonical status and long-term survival.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Listeners over time. Pure and simple.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Listeners over time. Pure and simple.


It can't be _that_ simple. For example, there have to be people before any audiences who choose what music is commissioned, what music is performed, what music is recorded, and so forth. If it never goes before the ears of the public, clearly they had no say in whether or not it entered the repertory.

I agree that music cannot get by without _any_ support from the public, and there has to be a positive response relative to the forces involved (one of the reasons why contemporary composers have written much for small ensembles and soloists).


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ugh I replied on the wrong forum (wrong tab on browser I guess), first time I ever did that. And you can't even delete or edit posts later here it seems.



Anyway totally agree with Vesteralen's post.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

We can also count the championship of a popular composer for a long forgotten composition or composers. Take the example of Mendellsohn's revival of Bach's choral works. He popularized them in 19th century by performing these works and in turn, Bach' other music become mainstream on that time. Another one, would be Schumann's rediscovery of Schubert's Great C major symphony in which he wrote ecstatically on his magazine (heavenly length). He urged Mendellsohn's to perform it and though it had a hard time finding itself on the repertoire due to its supposed length and difficulty, it became one in the end. Also, the rediscovery of Schubert's Unfinished after 40 years when it was performed by Herbert.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> We can also count the championship of a popular composer for a long forgotten composition or composers. Take the example of Mendellsohn's revival of Bach's choral works...


Mendelssohn's good deeds go well beyond what is commonly remarked on. He popularized other Bach works as well, for instance adding the Toccata and Fugue in D minor to his organ recital repertoire about 1830. It has been a hit ever since.

Another amazing thing -- two actually. He resurrected Beethoven's Violin Concerto and 4th Piano Concerto, both of which had sunk without a trace after their premieres. This was 30-40 years after the fact! Both stayed firmly in the repertoire this time.


----------

