# Why is the Classical Repertoire So Narrow



## gHeadphone (Mar 30, 2015)

I came across this very thought provoking article on Van magazine today, Why is the Repertoire So Narrow? https://van-us.atavist.com/surveying-the-orchestra

It references 2 other articles, https://newrepublic.com/article/114221/orchestras-crisis-outreach-ruining-them (America's Orchestras are in Crisis) 
and 
http://www.wqxr.org/#!/story/317987-timid-programming-classical-musics-biggest-threat/ (Is Timid Programming Classical Music's Biggest Threat?)

I do notice that a lot os old classics are programmed for Dublin, but i guess its a smaller market. However there is no shortage of Beethoven/Bach/Mozart etc in London when i visit, it is rarer to find obscure works.

Any thoughts? Do i just need to work harder to find a wider selection?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Concerning live performances, you likely do need to work harder. Of course, the fast answer to your problem comes from recordings where the spectrum is much wider.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Orchestras depend on those elderly folks to subsidize their budgets. Their tastes are very conservative, so the power of the purse takes precedent over the young cheapskates in the balcony who want to hear Berg, Schoenberg and Boulez, but contribute little if anything to a symphony orchestra's bottom line.

The better question one should be asking is what happens when those rich old patrons fade from the scene permanantly? 

Look for "going out of business" signs. So narrow, the repertoire as to be non-existent.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Bulldog said:


> Concerning live performances, you likely do need to work harder. Of course, the fast answer to your problem comes from recordings where the spectrum is much wider.


Agreed. Some college/university orchestras perform some lesser performed works as well. You may want to look there.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

The symphony orchestra repertory covers the age of the symphony orchestra - approximately Haydn to Bartók. It's relatively narrow because the time period is relatively narrow.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

hpowders said:


> Orchestras depend on those elderly folks to subsidize their budgets. Their tastes are very conservative, so the power of the purse takes precedent over the young cheapskates in the balcony who want to hear Berg, Schoenberg and Boulez, but contribute little if anything to a symphony orchestra's bottom line.
> 
> The better question one should be asking is what happens when those rich old patrons fade from the scene permanantly?
> 
> Look for "going out of business" signs. So narrow, the repertoire as to be non-existent.


I can't say for sure, but I suspect that in Europe, where orchestras tend to get more governmental support and are less reliant on private donations, orchestras perform the warhorses regularly as well. Of course, there is still pressure to perform what the people want even there or else the politicians who write the checks will feel some heat from the people.

As for the future, I don't know. Will old people continue to like classical music? I suspect they will, but that's just a hunch based on prior history. Will the future old people want to spend their charitable money on symphonies though? That I don't know for sure either. We can only guess. Symphony/opera goers aren't just music lovers. There are a lot of people who enjoy culture, or at least want to make an impression that they enjoy culture, so maybe there will be some support for that. Then again, some say that low/middle culture is becoming more popular/acceptable compared to high culture so maybe there won't be support. It's hard to say.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Magnum Miserium said:


> The symphony orchestra repertory covers the age of the symphony orchestra - approximately Haydn to Bartók. It's relatively narrow because the time period is relatively narrow.


That would be 1760 to 1945, or 185 years. But given the popularity of orchestral arrangements of Bach's organ works and of Shostakovich's symphonies, I'd expand that to 1710 to 1970, or 260 years.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> The symphony orchestra repertory covers the age of the symphony orchestra - approximately Haydn to Bartók. It's relatively narrow because the time period is relatively narrow.


Though otoh "Become Ocean" is an honest to dog hit for orchestra & if that happens a few more times, then who knows, maybe it's not over after all.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Klassik said:


> I can't say for sure, but I suspect that in Europe, where orchestras tend to get more governmental support and are less reliant on private donations, orchestras perform the warhorses regularly as well. Of course, there is still pressure to perform what the people want even there or else the politicians who write the checks will feel some heat from the people.
> 
> As for the future, I don't know. Will old people continue to like classical music? I suspect they will, but that's just a hunch based on prior history. Will the future old people want to spend their charitable money on symphonies though? That I don't know for sure either. We can only guess. Symphony/opera goers aren't just music lovers. There are a lot of people who enjoy culture, or at least want to make an impression that they enjoy culture, so maybe there will be some support for that. Then again, some say that low/middle culture is becoming more popular/acceptable compared to high culture so maybe there won't be support. It's hard to say.


No doubt about it. The Arts are held in high esteem across the pond-Great Britain, Germany, Austria, etc; and their governments budget a lot to support the Arts.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

gHeadphone said:


> I came across this very thought provoking article on Van magazine today, Why is the Repertoire So Narrow? https://van-us.atavist.com/surveying-the-orchestra
> 
> It references 2 other articles, https://newrepublic.com/article/114221/orchestras-crisis-outreach-ruining-them (America's Orchestras are in Crisis)
> and
> ...


On records I listen to music from Gregorian Chant thru John Adams. When I attend a Symphony Concert I am at the mercy of the programmers


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

The people get always what they want and rightfully so, even in my small country we have world premieres and all sort of music. from the medieval till recently composed.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

If the government is to support the arts, it should probably be aimed at the arts enjoyed by the largest number of people. I suggest subsidies for rap concerts, where the tickets can be so expensive as to disadvantage the poorer among us. What say, hey?

On the other hand, we can subsidize more imports of British TV series about rich people living in impossibly large houses... :lol:


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

People buy tickets to listen to great canons because these are the great works. Listening to recordings is a different thing compared with attending concerts, hence the repertoire is more on the established great works that are proven.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Please don't continue political comments. Discuss the classical repertoire instead.


----------



## poodlebites (Apr 5, 2016)

In the place I live, before the "crisis", there was an orchestra per region, but now there's only one for the three southern regions and they play in all the cities the three orchestras used to play. If you see what's played where, it's clear that there are cities more open to new works and some more moderne pieces and other cities where only the classics are played. Season after season.
What I'm trying to say is that the public plays an important role in the repertoire the orchestra plays.


----------



## gHeadphone (Mar 30, 2015)

So a lot of the blame in the article is given to the style of teaching in music schools. A particular focus is given to Donald Jay Grout’s A History of Western Music and the repertoire covered here tends to be reflected in the concert hall. Its an interesting argument and not one I've heard before.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

In Helsinki, where I live, there are two large orchestras (plus smaller ones). They are heavily funded by the state, and the repertoire goes almost always by the formula of 50% well-known classics, 50% new or unknown music. With some nights reserved solely for one or the other style. It works very well. I'm pretty conservative in my tastes, and I'm completely happy when I can hear a rendition of one of my favourite pieces accompanied by something unknown, even if I don't like it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The conservatism of American audiences and orchestras struck Prokofiev forcefully during his four-year stint in the USA (1918-1922): "As I wandered in the enormous parks in the center of New York, looking at the skyscrapers which dominated them, I thought with cold rage of the marvelous American orchestras which were not playing my music, of the critics who were repeating over and over again what had already been said, such as: 'Beethoven is a composer of genius' and who were brutally thrusting aside anything new, of the impresarios organizing long tours for artists who were rendering the same program of known work fifty times over. I had come here much too soon."

The advent of low-cost recordings, and now all other means of access to classical music has perpetuated the situation. Lovers of new music or of obscure music can now have immediate satisfaction at home, while simultaneously relieving orchestras of pressure to program unfamiliar works. The astonishing prices now charged for CM concerts by major orchestras also perpetuates the situation by elevating the power of wealthy and usually musically conservative patrons. Norman Lebrecht dealt with the whole issue of price inflation in his book, _Who Killed Classical Music?_, and he has identified the chief factors and villains. his analysis raises the question of what sort of music might be heard if it cost, say, half, or a third, or a fifth for a ticket to a major orchestra concert? Assuming that a mechanism could be found to have orchestras be financially secure, a much larger, younger, less affluent yet more adventurous audience buying affordable tickets and filling concert halls might result in more performances of "newer" and more challenging works--even Prokofiev's Third Symphony or Martinu's Concerto for Two Pianos might fill the hall with sound and then applause.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> The conservatism of American audiences and orchestras struck Prokofiev forcefully during his four-year stint in the USA (1918-1922).


Is Prokofiev really lamenting "the conservatism of American audiences and orchestras," or just lamenting that _his_ own music wasn't getting more play? Would he argue today that his works should be put on the back burner in favor of that of more contemporary composers? (I very much doubt that.)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

JAS said:


> Is Prokofiev really lamenting "the conservatism of American audiences and orchestras," or just lamenting that _his_ own music wasn't getting more play? Would he argue today that his works should be put on the back burner in favor of that of more contemporary composers? (I very much doubt that. )


It probably was a fifty-fifty mix of anger at the neglect of his own music and a perceived general neglect of then-contemporary music, but that's just my inference. He would moan today that his works, other than the PC #3, Kije, maybe Symphony #5, some others, were hardly today on any American orchestra's front burner. And being Prokofiev, he would probably argue that most of the post-Prokofiev composers were wasting their and everybody else's' time.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

It's not too complicated. The core of the concert audience is rich people and most rich people are philistines, as they always have been.

I feel lucky to live in a city with a lot more options.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

hpowders said:


> Orchestras depend on those elderly folks to subsidize their budgets. Their tastes are very conservative, so the power of the purse takes precedent over the young cheapskates in the balcony who want to hear Berg, Schoenberg and Boulez, but contribute little if anything to a symphony orchestra's bottom line.
> 
> The better question one should be asking is what happens when those rich old patrons fade from the scene permanantly?
> 
> Look for "going out of business" signs. So narrow, the repertoire as to be non-existent.


EXCEPT that the most successful US orchestra with the highest annual budget is the one which programs a very high percentage of contemporary music...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/arts/music/los-angeles-has-americas-most-important-orchestra-period.html?_r=0


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Is anyone seriously suggesting that more contemporary music on the program is how orchestras will thrive today?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Becca said:


> EXCEPT that the most successful US orchestra with the highest annual budget is the one which programs a very high percentage of contemporary music...
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/...cas-most-important-orchestra-period.html?_r=0


Even with so much music by living and recent composers being programmed in LA, the orchestra earns about 75% of its costs from ticket revenues as opposed to donations. The average for major US orchestras is under 40%, and none approaches LA's success in this regard.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Perhaps part of the problem is that too many orchestra management teams are wedded to the idea that their only source of funding is the rich old patrons and so they are scared to offend them. If they took some real chances perhaps they would discover that there are other viable options. Let's watch what happens as Deborah Borda takes over the NY Philharmonic.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

If the classical repertoire is narrow, maybe it has something to do with us...


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Becca said:


> Perhaps part of the problem is that too many orchestra management teams are wedded to the idea that their only source of funding is the rich old patrons and so they are scared to offend *themselves*.


Fixed that for you. The board of directors at many orchestras are the richest of the old patrons and so they'll get what they want. If what they want is something adventurous, then that adventurous music is what will get played. However, usually they're just Beethoven and Brahms type fans and so that's what gets played. It is what it is. Like I said earlier, there are some college and university orchestras which play more obscure stuff that would love to sell more inexpensive tickets so there are always options if one really wants to take in live performances. Someones one can't try to live in the box if they're looking for an out of the box experience.

LA crowds are just different than NY crowds. This is true for music, theater, comedy, sports, and probably a number of other things as well. The critics/media are different too. Borda knows this obviously so we'll see what happens.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Orchestral boards usually do not demand that the music they like gets played -- but they _are _interested in filling the seats. Most boards have a number of objectives in their strategic plans, and one is usually that the orchestra play a vital role in the community. If people don't show up for concerts, that's clearly not happening.

If halls are too empty, donors will look at other places for their charity, and boards (usually themselves made up of major donors) know this. I think this is a far more important factor, for most, than the specifics of the music being played.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Orchestral boards usually do not demand that the music they like gets played -- but they _are _interested in filling the seats. Most boards have a number of objectives in their strategic plans, and one is usually that the orchestra play a vital role in the community. If people don't show up for concerts, that's clearly not happening.
> 
> If halls are too empty, donors will look at other places for their charity, and boards (usually themselves made up of major donors) know this. I think this is a far more important factor, for most, than the specifics of the music being played.


Right, exactly. There might not be explicit pressure to perform certain music, but there is implicit pressure in a complex form that might be felt from the bottom up and also perhaps from the up on down.

There was an old and now completely outdated saying in IT that nobody got fired for ordering from IBM versus some unknown competitor. Obviously things changed there, but there's still a sense in orchestras that nobody will get fired for programming Beethoven and so forth. Literally this is not true of course, but someone who programs unknown pieces is putting more bullets in the revolver of the gun that will ultimately be pointed at them.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Even with so much music by living and recent composers being programmed in LA, the orchestra earns about 75% of its costs from ticket revenues as opposed to donations. The average for major US orchestras is under 40%, and none approaches LA's success in this regard.


Do you know what allows the LA Philharmonic to earn almost double what other orchestras do from ticket sales? I have trouble believing they fill almost twice as many seats per performance. Do they charge more? Do they have lower revenue but also lower costs? How is it that they stand out this way?


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Becca said:


> Perhaps part of the problem is that too many orchestra management teams are wedded to the idea that their only source of funding is the rich old patrons and so they are scared to offend them.


That surely must be a significant part of the explanation. Since I live in the NYC metropolitan area, I took a look at the NY Phil's most recent annual report (2015 - https://nyphil.org/~/media/pdfs/support/2016-annual-report.pdf). If I'm reading their financial statements correctly, contributions from rich old farts, while significant, are actually less than orchestra revenues from performances. Performance revenues were approximately 28MM, while contributions were approximately 25MM. Orchestra expenses were approximately 57MM. Add in approximately 28MM of income from investments and other ancillary expenses, and the orchestra's revenues actually exceeded their expenses by about 5MM. I have no idea whether this is representative of other orchestras in the US.



Becca said:


> If they took some real chances perhaps they would discover that there are other viable options. Let's watch what happens as Deborah Borda takes over the NY Philharmonic.


Yes, let's do. I also went through their 2017 schedule, and it's really (to me, at least) predictable and boring. Beethoven. Dvorak. Grieg. Elgar. I didn't see anything from the last 75 years, let alone the 21st century. Ticket prices ranged from $29 to $150 for the handful of performances I checked out.

One good option for people in this region is local universities. I've seen some really good performances at Montclair State University. For example, a few years ago we saw all six of Bartok's string quartets done in two performances (1-3-5 first, then a two-hour break, then 2-4-6). Performed by artists in residence, the Shanghai String Quartet. Also saw a fine performance of Pierrot Lunaire there, with Fred Sherry as director and cellsit. MSU has a fantastic small theater for this kind of thing (seats 499).

In the grand scheme of things, I don't know... what happens when the old crowd dies out? Will their trust-fund brats continue to fund orchestras? I suppose we'll have to see.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> Do you know what allows the LA Philharmonic to earn almost double what other orchestras do from ticket sales? I have trouble believing they fill almost twice as many seats per performance. Do they charge more? Do they have lower revenue but also lower costs? How is it that they stand out this way?


I don't know the answer to your questions. I've read that seats at their concerts at Disney Hall are, on average, over 90% filled, which is much higher than most other major orchestras. I also know that they're not at all generous in their pricing - they cancelled their excellent simulcast series, which made live concerts available at various movie theaters, because it competed with concert hall tickets.

The numbers I quoted are from a survey of form 990s I did some time ago - these are the financial forms charitable businesses are required to file annually with the IRS to keep their tax exemptions. But the numbers don't support much drilling down to do more detailed analysis.

They certainly don't have lower costs; at the time I did the survey, they had the biggest budget of any US orchestra, and I understand that's still the case.

_Added_: The LA Phil also has the Hollywood Bowl as its "summer home", which I'm told is quite profitable. It has 17,500 seats! That could well give their financials a nice boost.


----------



## laurie (Jan 12, 2017)

This weekend I will be at the Oregon Symphony to hear one of my top favorite pieces, Debussy's La Mer 
clap The rest of the program is Mendelssohn's The Hebrides; Britten's Violin Concerto; & Hosokawa's Circulating Ocean (2005). 
In January we heard Prokofiev's Violin Concerto No. 2, Stravinsky's Fairy Kiss (divert.), & Tchaikovsky's Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture. That program opened with a Sean Shepard piece, Magiya (2013). Heavy on rhythm, percussion, brass (the trumpets were actually using wah-wah mutes!) & every kind of noisemaker*, it was a cool piece to hear _and _watch; the audience response was very enthusiastic.

Looking ahead at the season, concerts I plan on going to include Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, with Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, & a world premiere/commission by Rogerson. Another one is Ravel's Daphnis & Chloe (complete), opening with a world premiere/com. by Akiho. Looking down the list, nearly every mixed program seems to include a 21st Century work, many listed as world premieres &/or commissions; & other names like Takemitsu, Adams, Piston, Shostakovich, Hanson, Symanowski, Bartok, Glanert, Kokkonen alongside the "Brahms & Beethoven stuff". I have hardly any Symphony concert-going experience; but to this newbie these programs look pretty well-balanced & "wide" (you know, as opposed to narrow, )..... is this not the "average" type of Symphony programing?

_
* Instrumentation for Sheperd's "Magiya" ~ 3 flutes, 3 oboes, 3 clarinets, 3 bassoons, 4 horns, 3 trumpets, 3 trombones, tuba, timpani, bass drum, cabasa, castanets, claves, crotales, cymbals, glockenspiel, maracas, metal coil, ratchet, sandpaper blocks, slapstick, sleigh bells, snare drum, tambourine, tam-tam, temple blocks, 2 triangles, vibraphone, vibraslap, woodblock, xylophone, 
& strings. !!! (I know what you're thinking ... wait! No cowbell?? :lol: )_


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

laurie said:


> This weekend I will be at the Oregon Symphony to hear one of my top favorite pieces, Debussy's La Mer clap The rest of the program is Mendelssohn's The Hebrides; Britten's Violin Concerto; & Hosokawa's Circulating Ocean (2005).
> In January we heard Prokofiev's Violin Concerto No. 2, Stravinsky's Fairy Kiss (divert.), & Tchaikovsky's Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture. That program opened with a Sean Shepard piece, Magiya (2013). Heavy on rhythm, percussion, brass (the trumpets were actually using wah-wah mutes!) & every kind of noisemaker*, it was a cool piece to hear _and _watch; the audience response was very enthusiastic.
> 
> Looking ahead at the season, concerts I plan on going to include Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, with Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, & a world premiere/commission by Rogerson. Another one is Ravel's Daphnis & Chloe (complete), opening with a world premiere/com. by Akiho. Looking down the list, nearly every mixed program seems to include a 21st Century work, many listed as world premieres &/or commissions; & other names like Takemitsu, Adams, Piston, Shostakovich, Hanson, Symanowski, Bartok, Glanert, Kokkonen alongside the "Brahms & Beethoven stuff". I have hardly any Symphony concert-going experience; but to this newbie these programs look pretty well-balanced & "wide" (you know, as opposed to narrow, )..... is this not the "average" type of Symphony programing?
> ...


This, I think, proves that classical repertoire isn't narrow at all. Hope you will enjoy Hosokawa's music. I love it!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

laurie said:


> This weekend I will be at the Oregon Symphony to hear one of my top favorite pieces, Debussy's La Mer clap The rest of the program is Mendelssohn's The Hebrides; Britten's Violin Concerto; & Hosokawa's Circulating Ocean (2005).
> In January we heard Prokofiev's Violin Concerto No. 2, Stravinsky's Fairy Kiss (divert.), & Tchaikovsky's Romeo & Juliet Fantasy Overture. That program opened with a Sean Shepard piece, Magiya (2013). Heavy on rhythm, percussion, brass (the trumpets were actually using wah-wah mutes!) & every kind of noisemaker*, it was a cool piece to hear _and _watch; the audience response was very enthusiastic.
> 
> Looking ahead at the season, concerts I plan on going to include Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, with Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, & a world premiere/commission by Rogerson. Another one is Ravel's Daphnis & Chloe (complete), opening with a world premiere/com. by Akiho. Looking down the list, nearly every mixed program seems to include a 21st Century work, many listed as world premieres &/or commissions; & other names like Takemitsu, Adams, Piston, Shostakovich, Hanson, Symanowski, Bartok, Glanert, Kokkonen alongside the "Brahms & Beethoven stuff". I have hardly any Symphony concert-going experience; but to this newbie these programs look pretty well-balanced & "wide" (you know, as opposed to narrow, )..... is this not the "average" type of Symphony programing?
> ...


Looking to move to Oregon. How is the real estate value?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I think it would be more correct to say that MANY orchestras today , not only in America , have a relatively narrow repertoire . But there are quite a few exceptions, for example, the much maligned New York Philharmonic , which over the decades has played an amazingly wide variety of orchestral repertoire ranging from Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and occasionally Bach and Handel, to the latest works by the leading composers of the present day .
Every one of its music directors within memory : Mitropoulos, Bernstein, Boulez, Mehta, Masur, Maazel and now Alan Gilbert , has programmed a considerable amount of new or recent works by composers as diverse as Messiaen, Carter, Adams, Glass, Gubaidullina, Saariaho , Berio, Ligeti , Penderecki, Lutoslawski , Christopher Rouse, Tan Dun, Thomas Ades, Henze, Boulez, Tippett , Bolcom, Peter Lieberwson , Corigliano, Tobias Picker , Wolfgang Rihm , and others . 
This orchestra regularly performs repertoire which is considered box office poison my the artistic administrators and presidents of other orchestras . 
As well as regularly reviving long forgotten works from the past . 
New York's other orchestra , the American symphony , which only gives sporadic concerts under its music director Leon Botstein , has been concentrating on all manner of music by lesser known composers , to the exclusion of standard repertoire . Unfortunately, New York is the only classical music capital with only one full time orchestra , while London has five of them and some there cities, such as Berlin, Moscow and Tokyo , have even more . 
But none of the major five London orchestras plays as much comtemporary music as the New York Philharmonic .
Other US orchestras , such as the Los Angeles Philharmonic, the San Francisco symphony , the Cleveland orchestra , to name only a few , do not neglect new music by any means .


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A summary of the LA Phil’s current season, as found on the KUSC site:

21 commissions, 14 world premieres, 5 U.S. premieres, and 5 West Coast premieres. This beats last year’s world premiere record by two and shatters the commissions number from last year, which was 12.

In 2016-17, the LA Phil will present music by 1 Baroque composer, 7 Classical-era composers, 24 Romantics, and 46 composers from the 20th/21st Century. That’s 1% Baroque, 7% Classical, 24% Romantic, and 46% 20th/21st Century.

Of the 78 composers on the 2016-17 season, 7 are living. That’s 9%. If you include the Green Umbrella concerts, that number increases to 17 of 88, or 19%. This represents a steep decline from last season, which featured 42 living composers out of a total of 107, or 39%.

The LA Phil will perform 97 different works in 2016-17: 1 Baroque, 9 Classical, 36 Romantic, and 51 20th/21st Century. That’s 1% Baroque, 9% Classical, 37% Romantic, and 53% 20th/21st Century


----------



## laurie (Jan 12, 2017)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> This, I think, proves that classical repertoire isn't narrow at all. Hope you will enjoy Hosokawa's music. I love it!


Thanks, I'm_ really_ looking forward to this concert! I can't decide if I should listen to "Circulating Ocean" beforehand, or wait to hear it for the first time live ..... what do you think?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I would wait for it! A real live orchestra is the best


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

laurie said:


> Thanks, I'm_ really_ looking forward to this concert! I can't decide if I should listen to "Circulating Ocean" beforehand, or wait to hear it for the first time live ..... what do you think?


I think the answer to this question depends on your listening habits and preferences. Do you usually need to hear a piece several times before it clicks with you? In that case, you probably should familiarize yourself with the piece to enhance your appreciation. On the other hand, if you tend to enjoy the experience of being surprised by a new piece, then you might want to wait until the concert so that you can feel that first-time magic.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Becca said:


> Perhaps part of the problem is that too many orchestra management teams are wedded to the idea that their only source of funding is the rich old patrons and so they are scared to offend them. If they took some real chances perhaps they would discover that there are other viable options. Let's watch what happens as Deborah Borda takes over the NY Philharmonic.


I am somewhat amused by this odd presumption that the perceived "problem" with the concert repertoire is the perpetually dominating hand of "rich old patrons" who are apparently easily offended. There has long been an assertion that young people are, or should be, naturally more open to contemporary classical music, but that assertion has been made for more than a generation without producing the results one might expect. Leonard Bernstein makes a similar statement in his Young People's Concerts series, but all of those children would now be at least in their 60s, and that renaissance has not come to pass. (In fact, some of those former children are probably among the "rich old patrons" being assailed in this thread.) A few orchestras may be able to survive in spite of playing more contemporary music, but I assert that orchestras in general will not see a direct benefit in shifting their programming in that direction. (How popular can this music be when even the composers admit that most newly commissioned pieces will get no more than a handful of performances?) Where exactly is this great mass of people who just love contemporary classical music, or would if they would be allowed to hear it? How is it that they have been successfully suppressed all this time? Isn't this really just wishful thinking on the part of a relatively small number of devotees?


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

JAS said:


> I am somewhat amused by this odd presumption that the perceived "problem" with the concert repertoire is the perpetually dominating hand of "rich old patrons" who are apparently easily offended. There has long been an assertion that young people are, or should be, naturally more open to contemporary classical music, but that assertion has been made for more than a generation without producing the results one might expect.


Fair point. I'm sure that in the United States at least, certain works by Copland, Barber, and Prokofiev have become "safe" choices for orchestras to perform and the audiences are probably pleased. Perhaps even some John Adams works have become acceptable. I suspect the old people of 50-70 years from now who show up for concerts will want their Beethoven, Mozart, and so forth. There may be a few new added names to the list, but it's not like the old warhorses will stop being loved in a hurry and living composers are always working against established favorites for spots on the schedule.

How often do audiences stop loving old warhorses and are eager to get them replaced? I'm sure someone has done some research into this and can name some pieces that were popular to perform in the ~1950s that aren't so popular today. The only ones I can think of that have fallen out of favor are works by Ferde Grofe, but calling something like the Grand Canyon Suite a warhorse might be a stretch.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Klassik said:


> I suspect the old people of 50-70 years from now who show up for concerts will want their Beethoven, Mozart, and so forth. There may be a few new added names to the list, but it's not like the old warhorses will stop being loved in a hurry and living composers are always working against established favorites for spots on the schedule.
> 
> How often do audiences stop loving old warhorses and are eager to get them replaced?


I am not aware that anything has been said about that. The issue is how few spots are available on the schedule after the old warhorses have been played yet again. Spread them out a bit, add in some lesser known works by well known composers, some works by lesser known composers and <horrors> even some contemporary pieces.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

I'm looking at the Houston Symphony schedule for next season and it looks pretty diverse to me. There's lots of Bernstein confused, Stravinsky, and Shostakovich with Ives, Messiaen, Bartok, Britten, and Prokofiev mixed in. The Beethoven fans get very little, it looks like just PC #4. Perhaps there could be more works by living and lesser known composers, but the 20th century is quite well represented at the very least.

https://www.houstonsymphony.org/Concerts-Tickets/2017-18-Season/1718-Classical-Series


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Orchestras depend on those elderly folks to subsidize their budgets. Their tastes are very conservative, so the power of the purse takes precedent over the young cheapskates in the balcony who want to hear Berg, Schoenberg and Boulez ...


I'm not certain that young people in a symphony audience are necessarily open to or eager to hear Berg, Schoenberg and Boulez, or other adventurous contemporary or avant-garde music. After all, many of them are still unfamiliar with Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky, so to them, the Violin Concerto in D (with its ominous drumbeat opening) is new music. And that's fine.

I have tickets for the Pittsburgh Symphony's June concert featuring Mahler's great "Resurrection" Symphony, the Second. I'm not a youngster, and I have heard the Second countless times on disc (by many different orchestras and conductors) and at least once in concert prior. But it's invigorating to hear this music again, live, in a venue for which is was meant to be heard -- the concert hall. Mahler was not too familiar with LP recordings or CDs when he wrote the Second, but he was familiar with concert halls.

I enjoy new music, certainly, and I do attend concerts that feature new music, though mostly I access my music, new or old, by way of stereo equipment, records and CDs, and occasionally tapes (cassette and reel to reel). I am as eager to hear old favorites (Tchaikovsky's Fifth, Beethoven's Seventh, Brahms's Violin Concerto) as I am to hear something new and unfamiliar. It is, after all, the musical experience I am after. I especially enjoy when a concert program features something old, tried and true, and something new. For me, Xenakis's _Metastasis_ is "old, tried and true", but I know it will be new for many others. And it's a good introduction to "modern music".

I do notice that the "new" music is generally programmed early in a concert. Maybe there will be a familiar Overture or introductory kind of piece, a crowd pleaser. Then the challenging modern work. Then, after an intermission, the feature war horse. And this is fine with me. And I think a good way to proceed. Especially when some sort of link can be had between or among the works programmed.

The Pittsburgh Symphony tends to program in this way, which makes it a favorite of mine. I've heard works or premieres by Leonardo Balada, Sir James MacMillan, Jennifer Higdon, Steven Stucky, Joan Tower, Richard Danielpour, John Corigliano, Michael Hersch, Krzysztof Penderecki, Christopher Theofanidis, and Christopher Rouse, among others. Alongside the tried and true masters: Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Dvorak, Ravel, Shostakovich, Tchaikovsky.... An upcoming concert will feature two works: Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto and Shostakovich's Eighth Symphony. Older and newer, familiar and (probably) unfamiliar to most, and what seems to be a delightful program. Granted, the audience tends to be graybeards, like me, but I've not seen folks walking out of the contemporary pieces. And I've not witnessed _Sacre_-like protests, either. I'm always encouraged when I see families in the audience, with younger children. I became a classical music enthusiast at an early age by hearing a piece by Tchaikovsky. It has moved me onto other composers and types of music, but I retain my love for the Russian romantic master and am still moved to hear pieces by him that I've heard "a thousand times".

If we can grab the young audience with Tchaikovsky (as I was grabbed), they can eventually get to Boulez (and I am today a fan of this master's work). For love of music is love of music, and brings about a yearning for hearing ever newer works (whether they be old or contemporary).

It is difficult to say whether classical music or orchestras will die off. The future is unpredictable, and the new technology has certainly made everything more easily accessible to all.

Too, as it is Saturday, I am reminded that this morning I listened to Christopher O'Riley's radio program "From the Top" which features young musicians. The future looks (and sounds) hopeful.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This article, Rebuilding the Repertoire for the 21st Century, though written in 1997 is interesting. James Orleans suggests several possible actions to bring orchestras into the 21st century. Orleans considers the idea that audiences are shrinking is a myth. Apparently the CSO surveyed audiences in roughly 1992 and 1962. In both cases the median age was 55. Possibly audience age could be increasing somewhat now due to the demographics of the baby boomers.

_Among Orleans' suggestions are_:

A think tank for musicians: "address organizational problems at the artistic level ourselves, without the intrusion of managements, conductors, or marketing influences..." (I especially like this idea.)

Orchestra advisory committees could create lists of modern/contemporary works that should become part of the repertoire. Apparently a review of the Boston Symphony Orchestra past programs shows that in the early part of last century modern works were performed repeatedly over a period of a couple of decades. Presently premieres or new works are performed once or maybe twice but not regularly over a longer period.

"Orchestras should be performing more symphonic works written by members of those communities."

"The audition lists for major symphony auditions could be changed to accommodate excerpts from important" modern works.

Orchestra members could offer to split the cost of an extra rehearsal of new works.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

The Dallas Symphony Orchestra is paring Jonathan Leshnoff violin concerto 2, world premiere with Beethoven Symphony 9.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

JAS said:


> I am somewhat amused by this odd presumption that the perceived "problem" with the concert repertoire is the perpetually dominating hand of "rich old patrons" who are apparently easily offended. There has long been an assertion that young people are, or should be, naturally more open to contemporary classical music, but that assertion has been made for more than a generation without producing the results one might expect. Leonard Bernstein makes a similar statement in his Young People's Concerts series, but all of those children would now be at least in their 60s, and that renaissance has not come to pass. (In fact, some of those former children are probably among the "rich old patrons" being assailed in this thread.) A few orchestras may be able to survive in spite of playing more contemporary music, but I assert that orchestras in general will not see a direct benefit in shifting their programming in that direction. (How popular can this music be when even the composers admit that most newly commissioned pieces will get no more than a handful of performances?) Where exactly is this great mass of people who just love contemporary classical music, or would if they would be allowed to hear it? How is it that they have been successfully suppressed all this time? Isn't this really just wishful thinking on the part of a relatively small number of devotees?


I think the problem is more fundamental than repertoire. Starting with my generation (baby boomers), I think it has become harder to get "young" people into the audience at all. My generation eschewed subscriptions. It seems to me that subsequent generations have no interest in the institutions themselves. This does not mean they are not interested in culture, just in the manner it has been historically presented.

I speak with more knowledge about not-for-profit theatre than classical music (although many years ago I served on the board of an institution that maintained a professional orchestra). The situations are not identical, but they overlap. In Manhattan it seems that younger generations have little desire to set foot above 23rd Street, whether to a classical concert (Carnegie is on 57th and Lincoln Center is in the 60's) or a Broadway show (except "Hamilton"). Even the attendance at off-Broadway is skewing older, and off-Broadway has historically been considered theatre for younger audiences. Moreover the techniques traditionally used by these institutions in reaching out to audiences is failing. Non-greybeards don't turn to the New York Times or the New Yorker to decide what to do. They rely on their friends and the Internet. And my theatre, like many others, suck at social media.

The problem is not insoluble. I have had some involvement with a group called LoftOpera, which presents operas in found spaces in Brooklyn - for $30 a ticket. Say 3-400 seats. Its upcoming programs range from Pergolisi to Bartok. And people - including a lot of young people - will fill the house. It's an event - partly cultural, partly social. But I wonder how many of those people go to the Met. And yes, in part it is ticket prices, but there is still a good deal of money in this city held by young and old, and many of those who have it are willing to spend it on things they find interesting. But not a traditional symphony orchestra concert.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> I'm not certain that young people in a symphony audience are necessarily open to or eager to hear Berg, Schoenberg and Boulez, or other adventurous contemporary or avant-garde music. After all, many of them are still unfamiliar with Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky, so to them, the Violin Concerto in D (with its ominous drumbeat opening) is new music. And that's fine.
> 
> I have tickets for the Pittsburgh Symphony's June concert featuring Mahler's great "Resurrection" Symphony, the Second. I'm not a youngster, and I have heard the Second countless times on disc (by many different orchestras and conductors) and at least once in concert prior. But it's invigorating to hear this music again, live, in a venue for which is was meant to be heard -- the concert hall. Mahler was not too familiar with LP recordings or CDs when he wrote the Second, but he was familiar with concert halls.
> 
> ...


Classical subscription concerts are in a financially precarious position. One has to sell tickets. Scheduling contemporary works that the mostly conservative audiences loathe is not the way to achieve this.


----------



## laurie (Jan 12, 2017)

laurie said:


> This weekend I will be at the Oregon Symphony to hear one of my top favorite pieces, Debussy's La Mer
> clap The rest of the program is Mendelssohn's The Hebrides; Britten's Violin Concerto; & Hosokawa's Circulating Ocean (2005). .........


A couple of days after I attended this concert (which was excellent; La Mer was_ amazing_ to hear live!!), the Oregon Symphony emailed me a survey asking about my experience; questions like what I enjoyed most about this concert, if I came to hear a particular piece, my opinion of the orchestra, if I recommend them to friends, etc. And, asked for an enjoyment rating (scale from 1-5) for each individual piece of music. For my trouble, I was offered 50% off any tickets to either of the last 2 concerts of this season (Mahler #2 or Stravinsky's Persephone; I chose Stravinsky - & really good seats! )
I was impressed that they do this; it shows that the Symphony cares about & are paying attention to what the customers have to say about the music they want to hear. They also mentioned, in the introduction to the concert, that this season has been very successful, with a record amount of sell-outs (of course, I've forgotten the percentage he said, but it's apparently very good!)


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Becca said:


> EXCEPT that the most successful US orchestra with the highest annual budget is the one which programs a very high percentage of contemporary music...


So many logical fallacies used on so many posts on this site and here is yet another...this time we have a type of causal fallacy, specifically the correlational fallacy also known as _cum hoc ergo propter hoc_.

Too funny...


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

isorhythm said:


> It's not too complicated. The core of the concert audience is rich people and most rich people are philistines, as they always have been.
> 
> I feel lucky to live in a city with a lot more options.


......................................................................................................


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Funny, I always considered the pop music scene to be fairly narrow -- consisting primarily of "boom-boom-boom-boom, boom-boom-boom-boom, boom-boom-boom-boom, boom-boom-boom-boom . . ." etc.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

Does the repertoire need to be wider? Perhaps. I tend to go to concerts not as a function of what’s being played but how it’s being done. Gidon Kramer is around my locality soon. I don’t really care too much if he’s doing Mozart 40 or Stockhausen. I know the chap will have something to say about the music which makes me want to be there.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

There are two elements involved in selecting repertory for an orchestral season, assuming they can afford the cost of the scores. The first is can the orchestra play it on the practice schedule they have? Unless you live in a megamarket it is likely your orchestra in USA employs part-time musicians; even the bigger ones have seasons that are only 20-30 concerts and most musicians don't come to work everyday for a 40-hour week like most people.

The second is financial support. For orchestras that exists on patron support, whether through donations or ticket sales, the orchestra had better please the audience. If government funds them they only need please the government. I don't know why this is so difficult for anyone to understand.

Mozart wrote serenades and divertimentos because he was paid by aristocrats to write music for their parties. How long do you think he'd have been doing that if he wrote 12 tone music or anything else they didn't like?

I think the belief that the average concertgoer is wealthy and old is somewhat silly. I go to plenty of concerts and I see those people but I see many others of much lower age and financial backgrounds and sometimes even young adults with their children, especially if one of the parents is a player. This is commonplace at regional and local orchestra concerts. If you attend a university orchestra's concert you will see a much younger audience, one of more diverse cultural background.

But you will still see the same old stuff performed. Only the university orchestras where I live will program "world premiere" performances and they never do so on the major bodies of their organization. Those programs tend to be made up of works, not always well known, but by well-known composers. Maybe the woodwind orchestra will have a world premiere.

A third reason, one I have talked about ceaselessly for 25 years, is the quality of classical music that has been written since the death of Shostakovich more than 40 years ago. We have now gone an entire lifetime and not a single classical composer has emerged that has written a single piece of music that has taken the world by storm, creating millions of new fans for classical music.

When I started attending concerts, buying records and following the industry about 1970, it was vibrant, cranking out hit recordings, making new fans of young people and creating new press outlets for the industry. It was the year of the Beethoven biennial, the Solti revolution in Chicago was sweeping the world, his recording of Wagner's Ring for Decca was still fresh in everyone's mind. Dorati hadn't yet recorded all the Haydn symphonies and his 2 million seller of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture and Beethoven's Wellington's Victory was all the rage. Public radio in USA was going great guns and expanding, conductors like Bernard Haitink and Colin Davis were just coming into their own, Shostakovich was still alive, and the Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs -- classical music's last real hit -- was still a half-decade away. And lots of people were recording what has been called avant-garde music.

That energy all ended later in my adulthood. I'd say in the last 30 years the only development that cranked up people about classical music was the widespread use of period performance practice starting with the Beethoven symphonies Roger Norrington recorded in the 1980s for EMI. That lasted about a decade, then PPP became ingrained in universities and conservatories and it wasn't a novelty anymore.

As I have aged the industry has not created new fans, has not created hit recordings, composers have not created new music that thrills everyone, the digital revolution killed record stores and books (the places people went to learn new music) and the cult of conductors changed because there wasn't anyone in the world with the cache and magnetism of even the late Lorin Maazel.

This is in opposition to every other major musical art form with the possible exception of jazz. Popular music not only creates new hits, new performers and new fans all the time, it creates new styles with great regularity. Since Shostakovich died there has been rap, grunge, metal, disco, the movement of country music into the mainstream of popular music, and hundreds of other forms for new fans to latch onto.

Musical theater has continued to crank out new composers and hits that fill auditoriums everywhere. Meanwhile, what's happened to classical music? Post-everything and the repeating gun known as minimalism. Dullsville, in other words.

While the better composers in the world seem to be Asian, and while in Asia a classical music culture that once existed in the United States and Europe still thrives with record stores, book sales and an abundance of young fans, I see no indication that above scenario is going to change in classical music in America or Europe in my lifetime (I am 68.)

So a very real reason the classical repertory is restricted is because the industry hasn't created anything worthwhile to listeners to add to it in years except for film music, which now appears regularly on subscription concert schedules. Otherwise there might be a lot of music out there you like, and you may enjoy music no one's heard of, but the world isn't listening to it.


----------

