# Do composers have any obligation to a potential audience or society at large?



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*Do composers have any obligation to a potential audience or society at large?*

Thinking this has nothing to do with any formal ideology, and hoping to keep discussion in an arena of the individual who writes the stuff and the individual who listens to what was written. Is there any 'unwritten' contract implied or understood by either or each?

I'm especially interested to hear from (non-pop) composers, the auto-didact, the dilettante, all the way through career pro. Do you think to 'write to an audience' other than your self?

[I am equally interested to stipulate one criterion: No music with text (or heavily laden textual title) as part of discussion or argument.]


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm not a serious composer, but think a composer has NO obligation to anybody beyond his family and, in a traditional sense, his community. If he/she is trying to make a living by composing, then some attention to realities might be in order. But an obligation? No...


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Not being a composer... but imagining if I were one, my answer is not at all.

It is enough with the influence of environment or at most picturing social reality, but a sort of obligation to an audience... no way. Why?

I will not be doing music to please people but as a way to create something.

My field of creativity is essay writing, thus I never consider pleasing people. I like to write about facts not about the mind fictions of the masses.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2012)

Definitely yes.

Not by giving people what they already like but by giving people what they don't yet like.

A parallel topic, therefore, would be "do listeners have any obligation to composers?"

Again, I would say definitely yes. 

Not by liking everything but by supporting the idea that composers are supposed to be writing things that listeners don't yet like. And so expecting if not demanding things that do not simply repeat what's already been done by someone else.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I'd have to disagree with some guy. Composers should feel free to write whatever they'd like. There are infinite amount of things to explore in every medium, and some of this includes past forms, as well as breaking into new territory. There is enough room for all of it, in my opinion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Definitely yes.Not by giving people what they already like but by giving people what they don't yet like.


Aside from Beethoven (always an exception) most of the composers we love had a hard enough time giving people what they *did* like. Of course it's much easier giving them what they don't like. Even I could do that.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> Definitely yes.
> 
> *Not by giving people what they already like but by giving people what they don't yet like.*
> 
> ...


I catch your drift, as it were, but isn't "*Not by giving people what they already like but by giving people what they don't yet like.*" a tad twee, i.e. even if you are a Hovhaness (or name your composer who essentially wrote the same piece, almost completely one interchangeable for the other --later Hindemith, Karl Jenkins, etc.) You are still producing 'that which has not yet been heard.

It is another topic, I think, that has the audience willing and able to 'work at' listening.... a premise with which I agree, not thinking of worthwhile music as a passive entertainment.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Composers are free to write what they wish, break new grounds (or try to), continue with current and or return to the past. The artist is free. There is no restriction. Equally though, current audiences who are listening to any new piece have the right to decide whether the piece suits their preference / listening objectives or not. Any piece of music is an implicit contract between composer and listener: the composer has taken the effort (or lack of) to produce a piece a music and wants to convey something to the listener (or at least the person reading / studying the score in the case of didactic works).

As for obligation to society at large, let's assume we are referring to current, living audiences - this is the decision the artist makes for himself /herself. My signature for example (quote of Boulez) has some relevance to the discussion. As an artist, I do not believe that one can survive as a living artist without at least some awareness of current tastes (put simply) nor do I believe in extremities of artistic "engineering" for the sake of purely alienating audiences who see no relevance in the new art. Maybe it might be so in one hundred years when I am dead, but I want art to be relevant to both living artists and current, living audiences today, here and now.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> Not by giving people what they already like but by giving people what they don't yet like.


Can you be more concise - "they don't yet like". Do you mean the smae people need time to come to appreciate or do you mean people collectively in decades/centuries later when original artist and original audience are long dead? I sure hope it is not the latter.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> *Do composers have any obligation to a potential audience or society at large?*
> 
> Thinking this has nothing to do with any formal ideology, and hoping to keep discussion in an arena of the individual who writes the stuff and the individual who listens to what was written. Is there any 'unwritten' contract implied or understood by either or each?
> ...


Depends on the composer & even the individual work, the individual commission, at hand.

In terms of a composer not caring about whether or not he has an audience, look to guys like Ives (made his money from insurance) or Bax (who lived by independent means, I think he had what is called old money). In terms of a composer very much caring about his compact with his public and society at large, look to Hindemith, eg. his music for use (gebrauchsmusik). Unfortunately he was maturing when the Nazis came in, and they had a different ideas of a composer's obligations to his public. In the USA, an example of this was Copland with his Americana period, aiming to give the public music that was both accessible and modern.

The late Elliott Carter, who also worked for a while in this style, decided it was not appropriate for the post 1945 period, so he made a break at about age 40 with works going into atonality and his innovations (with works like his first string quartet). He thought it would never be performed, such was the difficulty of playing it, but it was performed and even won an award at a string quartet competition. Similarly, Schoenberg never thought Moses und Aron would ever be performed. It was not in his lifetime, but shortly after his death, it got its first production.

You had Beethoven and Schubert writing for posterity (their late quartets and sonatas). You had Rossini taking Europe by storm, his operas definitely money spinners (and so what?). Same with the period after World War I, the French group Les Six came at a time when people wanted to forget the horrors of the war - so heavy late Romantic (esp. Germanic) stuff was out, lighter and refined and maybe comical stuff was in, speaking to French traditions going way back (to Offenbach, or to the entertainments at court by Lully).

When asked for a violin concerto by the violinist Zoltan Szekely, Bartok really wanted to do a theme and variations for violin and orchestra. But he got his cake and ate it too, putting that as the middle movement (& this being the only work he incorporated serialism into).

Beethoven who I mentioned before was planning an instrumental ending to his 9th symphony. Then some English choral society asked him for a choral work. So he decided to kill two birds with one stone, discarded the instrumental ending (which became the basis for the ending for the string quartet Op. 132) and did a choral one instead.

So there are the factors of the artistic aims of the composer, who is commissioning the work, and of course what his aims and needs are. Not to speak of the wider context in which he is living (and I have aimed to steer away from ideology as asked to do so).

So I think its obvious there is no one size fits all answer to your question.

& I'd add its similar to architecture and design. Some people hire these people to do a makeover of their house or build a new one the way they (the client) wants it. Some design/architecture firms cater to this client focussed type practice. Other clients only give the bare bones of what they want to the architect or designer - eg. saying here's a space or a site, do with it what you want or what you usually do - and the architect does something he wants (eg. Frank Gehry's buildings are like this, there is one being built in Sydney now, and it has been criticised for not addressing the context of the site, and this is not unusual in our world today, with image and brand riding roughshod over practicalities and the context in which things are built).

Anyway another ramble but I think the analogy holds in some respects. Clients needs can be big, but so too can be the "brand power" of a creative individual hired by them. So maybe the audience is implied? But in some cases their needs are ignored. Or maybe the aim of the client is to get the creative person to do a 'landmark' thing, which can push boundaries and be shocking as a thing in itself, and thus be like a monument to the client/person commissioning the work. There are many different scenarios here.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

I think classical music is largely,although it dont looks like that when you look and listen for example Choir of Vienna Boys on New Years day where all cream de la cream is gathered, an underground and unpopular form of music that just dont sells..So its really hard to tell for someone that hes a sell out...This music will always stay in small circle of enthusiasts...


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

I think all Artists wish to communicate with others and be appreciated - I think with this in mind they have an obligation to the audience for sure. At the very least they should be expressing themselves in a way that can be understood.
I really doubt there are any serious Composers who writes only for their own pleasure to be heard by noone.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art's_sake


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

I think that to be an artist, in any field, music, painting, literature, etc., one's only true obligation is to always attempt to most perfectly realise one's aesthestic values to the maximum of one's talent in every work one produces.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Same here anyway...Even if you work only for your soul and aesthetic ideal you will find like minds who share your vision...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Once upon a time I fell in with a bad crowd of arrogant young student composers and musicologists who felt they knew the truth of art, and in a moment of naïveté and weakness I decided to ingratiate myself with that group by subscribing to their aesthetic ideals. I became part of a school, you might say, a very strict school. So I began writing in this manner, blithely ignoring my desperate plea for me to stop, and completed a few short keyboard pieces. I knew deep down that these pieces sucked on a level beyond any two-bit RPG soundtrack I had yet deigned to sign up for, and quite unsurprisingly the very people for whom I was composing didn't like it at all. Yet, determined as I was to pander to these snobbish jackasses, I continued, each rejection more crushing than the last until eventually I became aware of this feeling of hollowness, it was intense and all consuming and I felt that I may well go mad and die at that point. The next day that all seemed far in the past, but in truth it had been a violent epiphany: when next I sat down to write I felt compelled by a regained sense of self to write what pleased me, and what I wrote was good.

I don't know if that was straightforward enough but damn it I'm feeling poetic.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2012)

‎"I believe that a real composer writes music for no other reason than that it pleases him. Those who compose because they want to please others, and have audiences in mind, are not real artists."
Arnold Schoenberg,_ Heart and Brain in Music_, 1946


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Kontrapunctus said:


> ‎"I believe that a real composer writes music for no other reason than that it pleases him. Those who compose because they want to please others, and have audiences in mind, are not real artists."
> Arnold Schoenberg,_ Heart and Brain in Music_, 1946


Nice quote! 

I don't know if it is a myth to make something out from Mozart, but some biographers tell that he felt miserable not being able to write the music he felt, because being forced to please Colloredo and Co.

In my opinion, if one wants to please an audience, 'pop' style oriented music is the correct approach.

The great business of 'pop' oriented music is just because it is thought to please masses of people. For those who likes that... that is OK. It is a fact of choosing but never an obligation.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Actually in some respects I have, for certain pieces. If a piece is meant for somebody, for instance a gift, then I will try to write something I think they will like, but at the same time I'm not going to give them something I don't think is good, something I don't like. If I am not pleased with the piece, I would not feel it worthy of the person I was writing for, even if they liked it alot. It would be like a lie, a musical lie.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Kontrapunctus said:


> ‎"I believe that a real composer writes music for no other reason than that it pleases him. Those who compose because they want to please others, and have audiences in mind, are not real artists."
> Arnold Schoenberg,_ Heart and Brain in Music_, 1946


I personally find this quote a little too black and white. I think composers write for a variety of reasons, and no one can claim the right to define who is a real composer or not based on inner motives. I really admire composers who appear to have composed in both ways (for themselves and for others). For example J.S. Bach's Cantatas were clearly composed with not just himself in mind, yet he wrote countless masterpieces this way. The works most consider his greatest masterpieces were all in fact written with others in mind - The _Mass in B minor, St. Matthews Passion_ and (for a music-only example) the _Well-Tempered Clavier_. He also was able to compose many other masterpieces that strike me much more as being composed more for himself for example the _Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor _and the_ Art of Fugue_.

Another composer I have great respect for who appeared to compose not just for himself was Aaron Copland. Copland composed many cutting edge works for his own enjoyment, but was also able to compose a lot of great pieces he termed 'functional music', for other projects in a more conservative manner. These latter pieces were very successful commercially and allowed him to achieve what so few composers before him or after have ever accomplished - to make a lot of money composing. I find this kind of versatility inspirational, I also find the general outlook of both the audience and ones own voice to be less narcissistic and self-serving than only composing for oneself.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ....Frank Gehry's buildings are like this, there is one being built in Sydney now, and it has been criticised for not addressing the context of the site, and this is not unusual in our world today, with image and brand riding roughshod over practicalities and the context in which things are built.


Do you consider the Sydney Opera house 'not addressing the context of the site? From other mentions of 'decontextualization' you've made I am curious as to what your (visual) idea is of site context.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Do you consider the Sydney Opera house 'not addressing the context of the site? From other mentions of 'decontextualization' you've made I am curious as to what your (visual) idea is of site context.


I think the opera house does address the site but I will go into detail in a private message to you when I can. The Sydney opera house is different to most buildings here. There was an international competition for its design, selected by a panel of experts. Utzon's design was apparently in the reject pile when Finnish architect Saarinen saw it and arged to the panel that it should be the winner. The building was one of the most expensive and complex to buid in this country's history (new engineering techniques had to be innovated at the time to make Utzon's sketches into reality), eg. a series of public lotteries was a huge funding source there. I can go on but its hard to compare that to Gehry's building for Sydney. That's not been done as a result of a competition, I don't think. Most likely he's been invited to do it, because the powers that be here have said for over a decade that we should have a Gehry building. Maybe he won a bid/tender to build it. Whatever the case, Utzon was not the same as architect superstars like Gehry who strut the globe putting a building here and there. Today a type of brandpower rules the industry, that aspect of the industry that caters for people who want a Gehry building, or a Norman Foster building (which we got a few years back & its no big deal, just a bit like a shorter version of one of his other buildings but I forget where in the world it is - the Sydney one had to be made shorter for various realpolitik/money reasons).

I will go no further but the complications of how architects work, how they fulfill their commissions/briefs can be compared in some ways to composers, similarly working with different types of things being asked of them. My belief is that music is for different purposes. To argue a kind of one size fits all philosophy about how and why and for whom composers do music is kind of simplistic to say the least, imo.


----------



## tgtr0660 (Jan 29, 2010)

No. 

If someone pays you a comission to write a piece for any specific use and you accept it, there is an obbligation. 

Other than that, the composer (and the artist in general) is obbligated only to himself.

How well that will serve himself and others is another matter.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Composers don't have an obligation or duty like this. It'll ruin their inspiration if they think that way anyway. If lucky and possibly also talented, they may fulfill such a high obligation that weird music philosophers believe they owe them, though unwittingly.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Like any artist, composers have a duty to be true to their art but also their audience. If an artist fails to communicate with his audience then his art is a lost cause. Much of the music written today falls into that category, of artists completely out of touch with their hearers. Beethoven is often held up as an uncompromising artist but he knew that he had an audience to please and kept this in the back of his mind. Hence his music, though 'modern' and revolutionary, never completely lost touch with the hearers.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

In my opinion, if a piece of music has been done as an act of creativity -as music itself- and, not having been done to please the mass public, but it has suddenly been found liked, that could be considered a kind of masterpiece of music.

Even though I don't see necessarily wrong if a composer decides to perform to keep the crowd happy. That is the logic of business men pushing art into the utilitarian purpose. But again, about being an obligation, no way.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

In the case of Keith Jarrett Solo Piano on stage performances he has always declared about having a rapport with the audience as an act of losing his ego an in order to flow with the environment but never about deliberately pleasing people but keeping the creative act out from any sort of utilitarian ultimate intention.

If not, in my opinion and advancing an hypothetical thought he will be playing Clayderman's sort of soft friendly tunes.


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2013)

"Do composers have any obligation to a potential audience or society at large?"

No, none whatever.

Do audiences have any obligation...etc?

No, none whatever.

The creation and consumption of music (as with all art) must remain an entirely voluntary contract.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> "Do composers have any obligation to a potential audience or society at large?"
> 
> No, none whatever.
> 
> ...


Very broad sweeping view, which in my mind, sounds rather bombastic. Now assume those who are "entirely voluntary" as you wrote, do those who voluntarily enter the contract, actively choosing to do so - create and consume art - what basis are they on? When you voluntarily choose to buy a CD of Mozart's music performed by a living artist (never mind Mozart for now), what obligation do you think the artist and you spending British Pounds have implicitly or otherwise?

The answer is obvious. Both you and the performing artist want to make the art that is performed and consumed relevant to you and the artist here and now.

Of course, we are talking about those who, as you curiously put it, enter into "voluntary contract".


----------



## Guest (Jan 1, 2013)

Rapide said:


> Very broad sweeping view, which in my mind, sounds rather bombastic.


It seemed to me to be a simple question with a simple answer. If that's the definition of bombastic, I'll plead guilty. I find some threads contain too much lecturing and long-winded answering (I'm guilty of that too at times) so a New Year's resolution for me: try to be briefer.

Why is the idea of a voluntary contract 'curious'?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Composing classical works is a crapshoot . Any time a new work is premiered anywhere, the chances are that it will be quickly forgotten , whether deservedly or not . Some composers have written works strctily on comission and have aimed to please audiences , but not all . Some have done both.
Furthermore, no composer can predict whether an audience is going to like any given new work of his , or how the critics will react .
Haydn, for example, wrote music to please his employer Count Esterhazy and his aristocratic guests .
He knew just what the Count liked . It was rather like being the personal chef to a rich person; your food better taste great or you won't keep your job . 
Charles Ives was the exact oppoiste . He composed music on his own terms, and if you didn't like it, tough noogies . He could not have cared less about writing to please audiences, which he thought was th esissy thing to do , and he was independently wealthy because of his successful insurance firm .
But if Beethoven had been cautious all his life and had continued to write charming symphonies and ocncerts in th eHaydn/Mozart tradition, we would not have the Eroica symphony, the 5th or the 9th etc, or the Emperor concerto, the Hammerklavier sonata , the late quartets or the Missa Solemnis .


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Like any artist, composers have a duty to be true to their art but also their audience. If an artist fails to communicate with his audience then his art is a lost cause. Much of the music written today falls into that category, of artists completely out of touch with their hearers. Beethoven is often held up as an uncompromising artist but he knew that he had an audience to please and kept this in the back of his mind. Hence his music, though 'modern' and revolutionary, never completely lost touch with the hearers.


Disagree, in that 'out of touch' is a very two-way street. Beethoven lost followers, steadily, from his early and 'accessible' quintet, op. 29. Myths abound around Beethoven, the first composer to be lionized, and that by people from an era of truly 'romantic' ethos.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

tdc said:


> I personally find this quote a little too black and white. I think composers write for a variety of reasons, and no one can claim the right to define who is a real composer or not based on inner motives. I really admire composers who appear to have composed in both ways (for themselves and for others). For example J.S. Bach's Cantatas were clearly composed with not just himself in mind, yet he wrote countless masterpieces this way. The works most consider his greatest masterpieces were all in fact written with others in mind - The _Mass in B minor, St. Matthews Passion_ and (for a music-only example) the _Well-Tempered Clavier_. He also was able to compose many other masterpieces that strike me much more as being composed more for himself for example the _Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor _and the_ Art of Fugue_.
> 
> Another composer I have great respect for who appeared to compose not just for himself was Aaron Copland. Copland composed many cutting edge works for his own enjoyment, but was also able to compose a lot of great pieces he termed 'functional music', for other projects in a more conservative manner. These latter pieces were very successful commercially and allowed him to achieve what so few composers before him or after have ever accomplished - to make a lot of money composing. I find this kind of versatility inspirational, I also find the general outlook of both the audience and ones own voice to be less narcissistic and self-serving than only composing for oneself.


How narcissistic is it of 'the audience' to expect only that which goes down easy and pleases them?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Beethoven lost followers, steadily, from his early and 'accessible' quintet, op. 29.


I think the truth is quite the opposite. It's entertaining to follow his reviews, from well before 1801, the year of the Op. 29 quintet, to 1817:

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/

Beethoven was never more in demand that at the end of his life, when he was writing the final quartets. From Cooper:

"It is often assumed that, after the Ninth Symphony, Beethoven turned his back on the public, withdrawing into a private world to write string quartets purely for his own satisfaction. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although his late quartets were supposedly sparked off by a request from Galitzin and sustained by his own love of the genre, it was public demand, filtered through a number of publishers, that fuelled this unprecedented burst of activity in a single genre. Beethoven had been asked for quartets by both Schlesinger and Peters even before Galitzin's commission had arrived; and Schott's and probably Steiner had joined the chase before a note of Op. 127 had been written. These and other publishers then sustained Beethoven's activities with offers of high rewards unmatched, as Schlesinger confirmed, in other types of music... He had, it is true, received 600 fl. from Schott's for the Ninth Symphony -- more than the 360 fl. now being offered for a quartet -- but in proportion to the work involved the rate was lower."

Cooper also describes the dinner parties during this period at which much mutual schmoozing took place -- Beethoven angling for higher prices, the publishers competing for exclusive rights.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> How narcissistic is it of 'the audience' to expect only that which goes down easy and pleases them?


I don't think anyone would accuse people who go to restaurants expecting to be served food that pleases them of being narcissistic. Similarly, people who don't go to experimental film festivals and only attend popular films are not narcissistic. People who read biographies rather than _Physics Review Letters_ are also not narcissistic. Those people are simply doing things they believe they will enjoy.

You and I and many other TC members have a distinctly different attitude towards music. Great. But the idea that perhaps greater than 95% of all people are narcissistic just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

A general extra thought on this topic, for what its worth.

I was reading an article in BBC music magazine about Maestro Solti. It said he praised Lloyd Webber's musical 'Phantom of the Opera.' & the article said that highbrows disapproved of Solti saying that. I think that talks to this topic in terms of there being this kind of sacred cow ideology of composers writing the more popular forms (movies, musicals & maybe the emerging area of video game music is a similar thing to those?) being inferior to the 'serious' or highbrow categories.

But I don't think that the so called 'lowbrow' music is tainted by money, its just for a different purpose. In any case, composers like Bernstein did all these genres. So too composers today, eg. Glass and Australian composers like Carl Vine and Nigel Westlake have done film scores for example.

I don't know exactly how this plays into 'audience.' Of course its a grey kind of mass, the audience as a whole. Its so segmented nowadays too. I suppose for composers it boils down to the needs of the work at hand, the parameters of the commission, or indeed things like has already been discussed, some composers just writing music for the pleasure of it.

But I admit that reading this article I like Solti more than I did before. He was VERY difficult to work with, bordering on being a bully. However, he just said things straight, regardless of how they'd go down with various cliques and enclaves in the classical music community/industry. He just spoke his mind.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> A general extra thought on this topic, for what its worth.
> 
> I was reading an article in BBC music magazine about Maestro Solti. It said he praised Lloyd Webber's musical 'Phantom of the Opera.' & the article said that highbrows disapproved of Solti saying that. I think that talks to this topic in terms of there being this kind of sacred cow ideology of composers writing the more popular forms (movies, musicals & maybe the emerging area of video game music is a similar thing to those?) being inferior to the 'serious' or highbrow categories.
> 
> ...


That's good. Solti conducts very good Wagner music, too. Give those a try.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I don't think anyone would accuse people who go to restaurants expecting to be served food that pleases them of being narcissistic. Similarly, people who don't go to experimental film festivals and only attend popular films are not narcissistic. People who read biographies rather than _Physics Review Letters_ are also not narcissistic. Those people are simply doing things they believe they will enjoy.
> 
> You and I and many other TC members have a distinctly different attitude towards music. Great. But the idea that perhaps greater than 95% of all people are narcissistic just doesn't make sense.


I don't really like the food analogy. I took PetrB's comment to be about the "greater" audience and not the marginal audience of which the composer already has a following from. If that isn't how you took it, then please ignore the following.

I am going to a certain restaurant for a certain type of food and I would be disappointed if restaurants pandered to meet some sort of catch-all. Most people I meet love McDonalds, but I would be quite unhappy if every restaurant attempted to be McDonalds. I wouldn't go to a sushi place and expect them to leave off the roe and instead serve me hamburgers because that is what the average American would like instead. This is why it is necessary to have different outlets for different tastes. If I want a hamburger, I will go to a place serving hamburgers. If I want pig intestine stew, I would hope to be able to find a place that did not attempt to pander to the "greater" audience. If someone went to that type of restaurant expecting hamburgers and then got angry when they did not receive them, I would indeed call them narcissistic.

I do think in general that the public is sort of narcissistic. Many believe that everything should please them or it is worthless. I think that is rubbish! Quality suffers when you attempt to please everybody.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Rapide said:


> That's good. Solti conducts very good Wagner music, too. Give those a try.


I agree that Solti conducts Wagner very well. Perhaps your new found Solti respect can balance out Wagner's evilness in order to make a more enjoyable experience for you, Sid.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Rapide said:


> ...Solti conducts very good Wagner music, too...


I didn't know that cos I'm STOOPID.



> ...
> Give those a try.


Yeah, I will, if you give Phanty a try! :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> If I want pig intestine stew, I would hope to be able to find a place that did not attempt to pander to the "greater" audience.


You're making me hungry! Of course most cities have one major orchestra (if that), a limited number of concerts each year, and considerable expenses to meet. So I suspect that their natural desire to "satisfy all tastes" is more than offset by an absolute need to fill up those seats.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Fact: "Solti conducts very good Wagner music."

Suggestion: "Give it a try, if you have enough money!"


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

KenOC said:


> You're making me hungry! Of course most cities have one major orchestra (if that), a limited number of concerts each year, and considerable expenses to meet. So I suspect that their natural desire to "satisfy all tastes" is more than offset by an absolute need to fill up those seats.


Indeed, but that is where the demand for lesser orchestras and chamber groups should come. I've no problem with major orchestras "satisfying the masses". Although, I'm split to whether they should try to "satisfy all tastes" in one-go. Many who come to hear Tchaikovsky may not be pleased with the Schoenberg on the same program. I would happen to like that, and perhaps you'd have some people in the crowd becoming fans of Schoenberg, but I wonder if separating them would be better for financial return.

Something tells me that if your average person went for a hamburger but had to deal with those pig intestines on their fries they would not be returning often...


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*It takes all kinds*



DavidA said:


> Like any artist, composers have a duty to be true to their art but also their audience. If an artist fails to communicate with his audience then his art is a lost cause. Much of the music written today falls into that category, of artists completely out of touch with their hearers. Beethoven is often held up as an uncompromising artist but he knew that he had an audience to please and kept this in the back of his mind. Hence his music, though 'modern' and revolutionary, never completely lost touch with the hearers.


There are all types of living composers. Some compose atonal/avant-garde music like Brian Ferneyhough. Others compose very tonal accessible music like Mark Camphouse. As many have stated sometimes a composer writes for a specific commission, sometimes he composes to satisfy his muse.

As a matter of fact our community band commissioned Mr. Camphouse composed a piece for us: _Foundation_. The piece was composed in memoriam for a long time member of the band who passed away. In this situation Mr. Camphouse received certain requirements for the piece. We requested that he would incorporate some of the late member's favorite hymns in the work. One of them is Sibelius' _Finlandia Hymn_. Since we were familiar with his music, we were aware of the type of music we would be performing.

Attached is a recording of an ensemble of studio musicians performing the work:











'DavidA', if you would search through these forums one will find many discussions about living composers who counter your observation of "artists completely out of touch with their hearers." For example: http://www.talkclassical.com/18533-post-ww2-composers-who.html


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DavidA said:


> Beethoven is often held up as an uncompromising artist but he knew that he had an audience to please and kept this in the back of his mind.


Beethoven liked to think he was above it all. But he read his reviews very closely indeed! On one occasion very early on, he even wrote the AMZ complaining of his bad reviews -- claiming, of course, to be concerned about their discouraging effect on newer composers just starting out. Right.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> I am going to a certain restaurant for a certain type of food and I would be disappointed if restaurants pandered to meet some sort of catch-all. Most people I meet love McDonalds, but I would be quite unhappy if every restaurant attempted to be McDonalds. I wouldn't go to a sushi place and expect them to leave off the roe and instead serve me hamburgers because that is what the average American would like instead. This is why it is necessary to have different outlets for different tastes. If I want a hamburger, I will go to a place serving hamburgers. If I want pig intestine stew, I would hope to be able to find a place that did not attempt to pander to the "greater" audience. If someone went to that type of restaurant expecting hamburgers and then got angry when they did not receive them, I would indeed call them narcissistic.
> 
> I do think in general that the public is sort of narcissistic. Many believe that everything should please them or it is worthless. I think that is rubbish! Quality suffers when you attempt to please everybody.


I looked up narcissistic and apparently it can have many more meanings than I ever imagined. Some use it to mean selfish. I thought it meant an unhealthy love of self. The latter meaning seemed to go too far to describe the vast majority of people. Since everyone is selfish, I can certainly accept that meaning in this context.

It is certainly useful to have different outlets for different tastes. The classical music lover goes to a concert precisely because the orchestra is catering to a very specific taste rather than generic music (say pop or rock). They do _not_ want the orchestra to pander to the general music audience. They want classical, but yes many want what they have come to expect at classical concerts (i.e. not Xenakis or Stockhausen or even, apparently, Mahler 9). I think an analogy would be someone going to a burger place and being served donkey burgers. Many would be upset at that, and I certainly would not call them narcissistic.

Twenty years ago the situation was much more unfortunate. Back then people who wanted to be exposed to much modern music had very limited choices - basically buy CDs with that music without ever hearing the music beforehand. Even knowing what music was out there was difficult. We could not easily hear it in concerts or on the radio. Now we can sample the music online in a variety of ways and then decide what CDs to buy (or if lucky enough, what concert to attend). To me, that is wonderful!


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I would hope that one would know they were getting a donkey burger when they ordered it! If you go to a place expecting a hamburger but ended up with a donkey burger, well, I'd imagine that is the fault of the consumer not doing their research 

I completely agree with your last paragraph; it is quite wonderful indeed. In many major cities there are more than just the major orchestra. You may get a lot of Romantic stuff being played at the cities orchestra, but there may be a Baroque group that puts on performances at your local art museum, or something like that. I would hope for even more to take up their instruments and join forces to give the public even more music. There is room for all the music to be played.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2013)

Rapide said:


> Very broad sweeping view, which in my mind, sounds rather bombastic.





MacLeod said:


> It seemed to me to be a simple question with a simple answer. If that's the definition of bombastic, I'll plead guilty. Why is the idea of a voluntary contract 'curious'?


Just checked my dictionary (AskOxford)



> high-sounding but with little meaning; inflated:


I fail to see how saying 'no' to the questions posed could be described as bombastic.

Now, back to the idea of the voluntary contract...you were saying that it's curious...?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Just checked my dictionary (AskOxford)
> 
> I fail to see how saying 'no' to the questions posed could be described as bombastic.
> 
> Now, back to the idea of the voluntary contract...you were saying that it's curious...?


Refer to my example of you purchasing a Mozart/any composer performed by a living/dead artist. Is there anything particular voluntrary? You actively chose to spend some money acquiring the CD/music, as do a large number of music lovers and as do a large number of living artists, for example who engage in artistic performance. People who actively choose to make professional careers out of it, and listeners who actively choose to consume the arts throughout their lives. I don't see what is "voluntrary" about that. Perhaps we are arguing about semantic, which I dread.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2013)

Rapide said:


> Refer to my example of you purchasing a Mozart/any composer performed by a living/dead artist. Is there anything particular voluntrary? You actively chose to spend some money acquiring the CD/music, as do a large number of music lovers and as do a large number of living artists, for example who engage in artistic performance. People who actively choose to make professional careers out of it, and listeners who actively choose to consume the arts throughout their lives. I don't see what is "voluntrary" about that. Perhaps we are arguing about semantic, which I dread.


No, no semantics, though I don't mean 'unpaid', just that there is no compulsion or obligation. I'll choose what music I'll listen to and a composer should choose what music they will write. It's up to listener and writer whether that choice takes account of the other's needs and wants. I might volunteer to listen to something a little more 'difficult' than I might normally choose, but I shouldn't be obliged to. A composer might volunteer to write something for a specific audience need, but they shouldn't feel obliged to.

That kinda thing...


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> No, no semantics, though I don't mean 'unpaid', just that there is no compulsion or obligation. I'll choose what music I'll listen to and a composer should choose what music they will write. It's up to listener and writer whether that choice takes account of the other's needs and wants. I might volunteer to listen to something a little more 'difficult' than I might normally choose, but I shouldn't be obliged to. A composer might volunteer to write something for a specific audience need, but they shouldn't feel obliged to.
> 
> That kinda thing...


How revealing. I never ever realised.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2013)

Rapide said:


> How revealing. I never ever realised.


You never ever realised what? You still find the idea of 'voluntary contract' a curious one?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> You never ever realised what? You still find the idea of 'voluntary contract' a curious one?


I for one can make sense of your voluntary contract idea. Literally, if you buy a ticket to a concert, you are entering into a contract. Sometimes conditions of this contract of purchase are printed on the ticket in small print. Eg. that you don't get your money back if you can't make it to the concert, that sort of thing. Similarly if you buy any music product (eg. a cd or a book) you are entering into a contract. All our purchases are in effect contracts.

Which brings me to the point that if I buy a ticket to a concert, I accept the terms & conditions of that contract. Eg. what music they will perform. Eg. who is performing it. & a common 'disclaimer' nowadays is that they can change the program from that which is published before the event (& they quite often do!). So there you go. But I suppose those who argue that music is not a product will not like this.

In any case, there are free concerts, but even they are like contracts. If you go into the concert hall for that, you have to abide by the rules. So there are implied contracts too.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Beethoven Fur Elise*

Composers have many motivations for composing a piece of music. Check out this video of Jeffrey Siegel discussion of Beethoven's _Für Elise_:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I think the truth is quite the opposite. It's entertaining to follow his reviews, from well before 1801, the year of the Op. 29 quintet, to 1817:
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/
> 
> ...


More popular to a more and more limited audience -- means 'both' in an odd sort of way.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Rapide said:


> How revealing. I never ever realised.


Put into more everyday near slang, something you 'signed up for' without in any way feeling either obliged or forced.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I looked up narcissistic and apparently it can have many more meanings than I ever imagined.


I used it in that more primary psychological view of 'infantile,' completely unaware of others self-centeredness;

the person who manages to not perceive or absorb the fact that a large hall seating up to thousands, a professional orchestra of up to eighty or more highly trained performers, and a piece of music written by yet another individual of the many who 'made all that happen.' then whines, after freely signing up for a seat at said venue, that the fare is shockingly not to his taste, which is often accompanied by a sense of (I suppose) real outrage.

A perfect example of that was the 'new member' who signed up, it seems to only lodge complaint about a piece by Henri Dutilleux on a program with two other pieces of more conservative musical fare.

This party, after demonstrating even further he was really there only to bash contemporary music and any of its admirers, was quickly banned, the thread quickly closed. The rather perfect example of the outraged narcissist concert attendee who clearly thinks it should "all be for him exactly the way he wants it... and make that snappy!" By the way, he was very much aware the Dutilleux was on the program before he purchased the seat, and he knew perfectly well what it was' as well.

This is an astonishing display of the outraged autocrat shrieking angrily he did not get what he paid for, after it is clear he knew what he voluntarily signed up for. It is almost amusing to see the 'qualities' he attaches to those audience members he slams because they seemed to visibly like that which he could not stand. (The Dutilleux is known particularly as one of the more lyrical and 'layman audience friendly' pieces of conservative serial / atonal music.)

That banned member has become a sort of 'poster boy' of the (very negatively) narcissistic concert goer. I warn you, he gets pretty directly mean and nasty, and the thread is a bit of a flame war, to understate the case. It is also a bit comedic-hysterical 
http://www.talkclassical.com/18533-post-ww2-composers-who.html


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> More popular to a more and more limited audience -- means 'both' in an odd sort of way.


A strange interpretation. A publisher makes money based on the number sold. In this case, the publishers were obviously expecting significant sales -- hardly an argument for a "more limited audience".


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Publishers may also buy works based on the prestige having them in their catalog gives them. I know Universal Edition bought the works of a young and very disliked composer named Arnold Schoenberg because he came with the highest recommendations from two of Germany's living best, Gustav Mahler and Richard Strauss (the latter of whom later criticized Schoenberg's atonal works).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Publishers may also buy works based on the prestige having them in their catalog gives them. I know Universal Edition bought the works of a young and very disliked composer named Arnold Schoenberg because he came with the highest recommendations from two of Germany's living best, Gustav Mahler and Richard Strauss (the latter of whom later criticized Schoenberg's atonal works).


That seems quite possible (in the case of Beethoven's late quartets).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> A strange interpretation. A publisher makes money based on the number sold. In this case, the publishers were obviously expecting significant sales -- hardly an argument for a "more limited audience".


Chamber music then was consumed, the sheets, primarily by fine amateur players who got together and made this music in a home environment. "Amateur, in that old use, were players who were considered professional caliber but who did not play for a living. They were -- steel yourself -- the connaisseurs and cognoscenti -- what they were not was the broader more passive general public who buy seats to performances where they 'just' listen.

Beethoven, once, managed to sell the same piano sonata to two publishers for two separate fees -- he was found out. (I think he copped a plea he had to do it for lack of government funding


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Rental Fees*

The publishing industries has a bizarre practice for disseminating orchestral music. One can normally purchase soloist, chamber, band or choral music. The only way one can secure 99% of copyrighted orchestral music is to rent the parts from the publisher. The typical rental fees can be anywhere from three to eight hundred dollars. This puts a limit on the number of 20th century pieces that our community orchestra performs. For example, the rental fee for the Hindemith _Symphonic Metamorphosis_, which no one can accuse of being radical, was $550.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> The publishing industries has a bizarre practice for disseminating orchestral music. One can normally purchase soloist, chamber, band or choral music. The only way one can secure 99% of copyrighted orchestral music is to rent the parts from the publisher. The typical rental fees can be anywhere from three to eight hundred dollars. This puts a limit on the number of 20th century pieces that our community orchestra performs. For example, the rental fee for the Hindemith _Symphonic Metamorphosis_, which no one can accuse of being radical, was $550.


I'm not involved in music performance, but I can imagine that the amount of money needed to mount a performance of some very demanding mid-late 20th century works, with their use of nonstandard instrumentation and potential electronic elements, not to mention the rehearsal time necessary for unfamiliar and challenging to play music would be astronomical compared to playing something everybody knows that's in the public domain.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I think it worthwhile to point out that until very recently, scores and parts existed in only several formats. The 'maximum' of legibility being the printed score, and printed orchestral parts, which were _hand engraved by highly specialized engravers_.

Next, a photostat ( or other earlier technological copy) of the original handwritten score, ditto the parts as often farmed out to copyists, who furiously, with India ink, hand-copied those individual instrumental parts. Those multiples, such as violins, etc. were then photocopied again. Some of those had ingenious split pages, to allow one player sharing a desk to turn while the other continued playing.

Some pieces ended up in both formats, an engraved printed score, hand-copied parts.

The composer, anticipating first the photocopy as more likely than a full engraved copy, worked on specialized semi-transparent onion-skin paper (expensive), preliminarily drafting the page in light strokes with blue pencil, then setting that permanently by inking it over. The blue pencil did not register in the photocopy. There was, however, no margin for error if you made a mistake with the pen in India ink: if you did, you had re-do the entire page over again.

All of this was, in comparison to contemporary standards of digital software printouts, astoundingly labor intensive and very costly.

It may be difficult now to imagine Aaron Copland's larger orchestration of the suite from Appalachian Spring was not popular enough to get regular play, but there was no fully anticipating the margin of return for costs of producing the score and parts in engraved format. Even the photocopy score and parts was expensive enough. Add the factor of storage for multiple copies, and not knowing if and how many orchestras would wish to purchase score and parts for their permanent home library, and that gives a set of reasons why so many now well-known scores are only available on rental. With perhaps one 'master' copy in store when the rental score is out, part of that charge is to ensure all parts are returned, all penciled in marks for performance cleanly erased.

Imagine the storage space for 100 times copies of a full orchestral score and all its instrumental parts, bound in a stiff binding cover, on the standard over-sized sheets.

Some pieces, 'popular' but far less generally so than the core older repertoire, are still in those older hand-written photocopy formats. The copyists, no matter how immaculate, have 'a hand,' reading from those is reading a good but idiosyncratic musical handwriting. Engraving, or paying a copyist to input all of that into a contemporary computer program for a cleaner and cheaper print-out, is also expensive.

As some works became later popular, a few may have made it into the cleaner and more permanent mode of engraved and printed score and parts. Often, though more popular, the frequency rate of how often they are done still does not warrant the expense of converting them to engraved or computer print scores.

For those greater orchestras in the larger cities, another $500 or $1000 to perform a work is not a very big dent from the net take from a house almost permanently full from subscription holders, with the cheapest gallery or terrace seats starting at $25 or $30.

A conductor / music director at several millions a year is a determining factor in what other current royalty or rental score pieces may be 'affordable' within the overall budget, not a $500 or $1000 per performance fee.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

You could ask the exact same question of painters, sculptors, playwrights, novellists, poets - ANY creative person. While I believe that a composer must stay true to him/herself and write sincerely what they want to write, one also should not forget that a piece of music needs a listener to make it real (or, at least, meaningful to anyone except the composer). A book is pointless symbols on paper until someone reads it; a painting is just coloured media on canvas (for example) until someone observes it. Of course, the creator gets satisfaction (presumably) from the creative process, but is that justification enough for a piece of work's existence?

A composer locked away in a studio composing for their own sake has NO obligation to anyone except themselves. However, when a composer received a commission to write a piece for a specific performer/event/venue then I think he/she DOES then have an obligation to their paymaster to deliver something that is not so esoteric and/or self-indulgent that it alienates its listeners. Of course, this too is a difficult criterion to define; how many pieces of music deemed 'noise', 'the music of a madman' or 'impossible' at the time of their composition have now passed into standard repertoire? Quite a few!

For me, the very best composers have an innate ability to 'communicate' with their audiences without compromising their musical style at all. Open-minded, intelligent music-lovers can instinctively recognise a fine piece of music even if they don't care for or understand it at first.

No 'Socialist Realism' here, please.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Aside from Beethoven (always an exception) most of the composers we love had a hard enough time giving people what they *did* like. Of course it's much easier giving them what they don't like. Even I could do that.


I disagree. The criteria for serious composition (to input into this argument) far outweighs this simplistically literal 'humorous' statement. It's an oblique jab at modernism or "difficult" music; a variation on the "even my two-year-old could do that."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

"Do composers have any obligation to a potential audience or society at large?"

I'm going to reverse the bias of the thread question, and pose it as a statement:

*"If music alienates, makes difficult, requires effort from, or is beyond the immediate scope of understanding of a "potential audience or society at large," then it is very likely that it is "pure" art. This is a probable sign that it is concerned with the medium or language itself and the expansion thereof, has a sufficient degree of complexity and mystery, and is not concerned with pandering to the mass-media entertainment machine."*


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

All creative people need to consider their audience. That doesn't mean pander to them. But without an audience, art does not communicate anything.


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Nobody is an island...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

bigshot said:


> All creative people need to consider their audience. That doesn't mean pander to them. But without an audience, art does not communicate anything.


That is, if you consider "communication" to be a high priority in the creation of art. I don't.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> ...mass-media entertainment machine.[/B]


I think this is the issue that the OP is addressing.



bigshot said:


> All creative people need to consider their audience. That doesn't mean pander to them. But without an audience, art does not communicate anything.


In my opinion the act of creation has considered 'an audience' by itself.

Any oeuvre as an act of creative force in the mind of an artist, isn't created in a social void. It reflects the spirit of the time in any given society. It speaks to people by itself.

The act of creation is the product of an unavoidable relationship of the artist with her or his environment so, once an oeuvre has seen the light, there is a given audience out there.

Also, going further, the oeuvre itself will select its proper audience independently form the will of the artist if she/he has created it just as an act of will in her mind. Art for art's sake.

If a single person has looked at it and has felt something, there happens the relationship. And it will happen.

The issue is if the act of creative force in the mind of an artist has defined deliberately an specific sort of audience and a deliberately purpose for them. That is another story. And I think there is no obligation for this. It is up to the artist to do that.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> That is, if you consider "communication" to be a high priority in the creation of art. I don't.


You'll be much more tolerant of the crap then.


----------

