# What's wrong wth this picture?



## Guest (Mar 11, 2014)

In my last couple of years in Portland, OR, I spent many happy hours helping a friend sell CDs at various events, not only in Portland, but in Salem and in Eugene as well. (Which means the Oregon Bach Festival.)

Concert after concert with the same pattern, a pattern has always struck me as peculiar, or has so at least since the mid seventies. And even more peculiar is how few people think of it as being peculiar. Before the seventies, I did not think of it as peculiar, either.

This last weekend, back in town for a visit, I helped out my friend with two concerts.

Hilary Hahn and the Oregon Symphony: Grieg, Nielsen, Strauss.

The Portland International Piano Recital Series with Daniil Trifonov: Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Schumann.

These were both typical concerts.

PIPRS this season: 
Rafał Blechacz--Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and Debussy, Szymanowski, Chopin.
Jean-Efflam Bavouzet--Beethoven, Ravel, Debussy, Bartok
Vladimir Feltsman--Bach, Liszt, Scriabin and Haydn, Schubert, Schumann
Vadym Kholodenko--Rachmaninoff, Nikolai Medtner
Garrick Ohlsson--Charles Griffes, Scriabin, Chopin

Oregon Symphony in what's left of this season:
Messiaen, Chopin, Brahms
Pärt, Shostakovich, Dvořák
Haydn, Mahler
Dzubay, Sibelius, Stravinsky

Slightly different from the piano series, but not much.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

LOL.. preachin' to the choir as far as I'm concerned.

I'll wait and see 'what others see' is _wrong with this picture _


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

My guess is that you are being selective in order to improve your position (which doesn't need it).


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

PetrB said:


> LOL.. preachin' to the choir as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> I'll wait and see 'what others see' is _wrong with this picture _


Well, let me be the first to admit that I don't see the pattern. A little help?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

I don't see a pattern either and unless there's crack-cocaine in those CD cases, "it's all good".


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Well, be consistent: is the picture "wrong" or is it "peculiar"?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> Well, let me be the first to admit that I don't see the pattern. A little help?


Broad hint: the huge majority of music on those programs is in the public domain. Some of the music is not in public domain, but the composer is long gone.

If the conductor, musicians and audience are alive, why shouldn't the composer also be alive?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I find it disturbing, rather than peculiar; but that's just me.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Now I know the answer - it is rather sad. After all, people perform the works of new & living dramatists & poets. 
It is a comment on the 'smaller market' for classical music in general, & 'new' classical music in particular. All about money...


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Now I know the answer - it is rather sad. After all, people perform the works of new & living dramatists & poets.
> It is a comment on the 'smaller market' for classical music in general, & 'new' classical music in particular. All about money...


Money yes, but I wonder if the problem is the sheer diversity of modern music with so many different -isms and styles? 
We can get baroque music or classical music or romantic music by the yard and we basically know what to expect, what to look out for, standards of performance and so forth. With 20th and 21st century music we have a much wider range -experimental, minimal, electronic, atonal, serialist. In some ways, you could have a concert of modern music with as wide a range as from Machaut to Mahler. The fact that you have all these niche markets means that there may not be a big enough audience for any one style. So to fill the seats the organisers go back to the old faithfuls.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I have not yet tired of the great works of dead composers. There's a huge back catalog and there's a lot that's still new to me.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I don't see anything wrong with this. They are simply programming music that the audiences want to hear. If the program was all modern music, then it would be less likely to attract an audience. That is surely why modern pieces, when they occasionally are programmed, are usually sandwiched between Beethoven and Brahms! 

The problem seems to be that there is a huge distance between the taste of the wider public and the taste of the music establishment. When it comes to modern music, it seems impossible to achieve both popular appeal and critical acclaim.


----------



## Whistler Fred (Feb 6, 2014)

Is this possibly a copyright issue...if someone plays a piece that is still under an active copyright the festival would have to play royalty fees, and they don't want to do that?


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2014)

apricissimus said:


> I have not yet tired of the great works of dead composers.


Neither have I.

Why the implicit either/or?

All of the living pianists for an entire season's offering play music by dead people. Long dead.

All of the living musicians in the symphony orchestra for even a small three month period (which is all I could get easily online) play mostly music by dead people. Long dead.

That is, it's not the lovers of new music (we're part of "the audience," too, ya know) who are making the either/or situation, it's the programmers, who are serving only part of the audience.

And concert audiences have always had a vast variety of music and styles--it seems, mathematically, that we have more now, because more has been written since 1780 or whenever, but that's looking only at the addition part of the equation. What about the subtraction part? All the music that has vanished, that no longer features on programs?

And "experimental, minimal, electronic, atonal, serialist" can hardly count as they are not, by and large, a part of the ordinary classical concert experience.* So no, practically we very probably have less music presented to us, in concerts, than ever before. And the availability online of practically everything means nothing, either, unless it's being accessed. Is it?

*Ironic that what most people complain about most often in online forums is something that is not a significant part of what's presented to classical listeners, in concert, on the radio, in music stores. People complain about what they need never experience. And that's peculiar, too, eh?


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

some guy said:


> Neither have I.
> 
> Why the implicit either/or?
> 
> ...


I didn't mean to imply an either/or. I just think that there are enough people like me who are for the most part satisfied enough with the huge body of work from the past three centuries or so and that if the newer works are less represented, then they won't feel especially musically impoverished.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2014)

I don't know the exact reasons. Since I was a single student at a university with an orchestra and I got discount tickets, I have not been to a classical music concert. In general, the costs are a bit steeper than your other forms of entertainment, and it doesn't help that I have a wife that gets bored with classical music. So I don't know what the average concert-attending audience is like. But I can imagine the main thing that determines concert programs is what is most likely to get butts in seats and money in the tills. If modern composers could be successful in those two areas, I'm sure they would make it onto more programs. Blame whoever you would like, but it seems pointless to ask an orchestra to drive itself out of existence in the name of promoting modern, living composers. And as someone else mentioned, these days it seems mutually exclusive to have mass appeal and also critical acclaim. Look at another performing art - cinema. By and large, the movies chosen for best picture are the ones that nobody goes to see. 

Those dead composers are the ones that are keeping orchestras in business.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I'm sure it's tough for contemporary composers to have to compete against the greats of the past. That's a high standard.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

apricissimus said:


> I'm sure it's tough for contemporary composers to have to compete against the greats of the past. That's a high standard.


I'm not sure it's a competition; maybe if you squeeze all 'classical' music into one lump it is, but that seems like a silly thing to do. Very few contemporary composers (that I've heard) are creating Romantic period - or Baroque period - or... any other historical period - music. The music they _are_ creating doesn't require ear replacements or psychoanalysis to enjoy though, so there is no _intrinsically_ valid reason for not including their music in concerts. If the piece doesn't run too long, even the stick-in-the-muds could probably survive it.

Hah! Maybe that could be published program data: "The Finnissy lasts about 12 minutes." The admonition to 'man-up' probably isn't necessary.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

apricissimus said:


> I'm sure it's tough for contemporary composers to have to compete against the greats of the past. That's a high standard.


We have specialised Baroque and HIP groups, why not ones for more modern music? There seems to be a market. The composers must be writing for somebody to play, so where are they at a local level?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Taggart said:


> We have specialised Baroque and HIP groups, why not ones for more modern music? There seems to be a market. The composers must be writing for somebody to play, so where are they at a local level?


There are groups that specialize in contemporary music (of various stripes). And there are also festivals and concerts dedicated entirely or primarily to contemporary music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Contemporary_classical_music_ensembles

Obviously _someone_ wants to perform it, and there are people out there who listen to it. Why do I regularly encounter the claim that there aren't any such people?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

I just ran across a contemporary music festival in http://www.talkclassical.com/31059-what-audiences-want.html which is a similar sort of thread to this.

Certainly the Norfolk and Norwich Festival has a wide range of music for example Lavinia Meijer doing Glass and Einaudi on the harp.

PS We're going to have to do something with the spell checker - Einaudi comes up as Inaudible!


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

If there was a concert of works by (say) Cage, Cowell, Glass and Reich, you can be certain that it would not be well-attended. Certainly, I won't be there.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> If there was a concert of works by (say) Cage, Cowell, Glass and Reich, you can be certain that it would not be well-attended. Certainly, I won't be there.


Actually, back in 2008 when I attended the Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival for two nights, the Cage concert I went to was well filled, even more so than the Zappa concert I attended the previous night. If it had been a concert of Glass and Reich it would have been a packed house and no mistake.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> If there was a concert of works by (say) Cage, Cowell, Glass and Reich, you can be certain that it would not be well-attended. Certainly, I won't be there.


Good for you. Interestingly enough, I have travelled a few times in the past five years to hear Ligeti, Xenakis and Stockhausen music in concert. And guess what? Lots of happy people (including others who have travelled) who don't usually attend concerts enjoying a night out listening to stuff they don't get much opportunity to hear live! How about that.

So it doesn't have to happen all the time but modern concerts can certainly sell - often to a different audience that may not want to hear the usual fare. Funny thing is (big bugbear coming up) acknowledged greats of modern rep (those guys above, Boulez - so many more) are seldom programmed - usually some odd mix of the pomo, "accessible", locally-produced or "themed" is preferred without a lot of regard to "quality". But then programmers and arts managers don't usually know a lot about music...

A tidbit - in my dinky city there are 3 groups providing regular contemporary music concerts. There at modest venues but tend to attract a good buzz and a young crowd. The groups are musician driven and young and committed - it's cool! AFAIK there are occassional baroque concerts - dunno who goes to them


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> If there was a concert of works by (say) Cage, Cowell, Glass and Reich, you can be certain that it would not be well-attended. Certainly, I won't be there.


Actually, two things are pretty certain about said concert:
1.) it will be well-attended.
2.) you won't be there


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

It could be that the Xenakis, Ligeti, and Cage concerts were were well-attended due to their relative scarcity. Would people turn out for them like they do for Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

dgee;624383
A tidbit - in my dinky city there are 3 groups providing regular contemporary music concerts. There at modest venues but tend to attract a good buzz and a young crowd. The groups are musician driven and young and committed - it's cool! AFAIK there are occassional baroque concerts - dunno who goes to them[/QUOTE said:


> We have one of those around my parts also. They seem to have a following, and our local anti-establishment hipster news magazine reviews them regularly and favorably.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2014)

apricissimus said:


> It could be that the Xenakis, Ligeti, and Cage concerts were were well-attended due to their relative scarcity. Would people turn out for them like they do for Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms?


Wrong question. Completely ignores history and the accumulated ideas about old music and the need (since around 1800) for old over new.

A correct question, that is, one that is in alignment with history and that might produce a useful answer, could be something like this: Do people turn out for them like they _did_ for Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms?

Yes.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Manxfeeder said:


> We have one of those around my parts also. They seem to have a following, and our local anti-establishment hipster news magazine reviews them regularly and favorably.


Excellent! It's those anti-establishment hipsters who'll be the next generation audience for classical music, mark my words!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> In my last couple of years in Portland, OR, I spent many happy hours helping a friend sell CDs at various events, not only in Portland, but in Salem and in Eugene as well. (Which means the Oregon Bach Festival.)
> 
> Concert after concert with the same pattern, a pattern has always struck me as peculiar, or has so at least since the mid seventies. And even more peculiar is how few people think of it as being peculiar. Before the seventies, I did not think of it as peculiar, either.
> 
> ...


Maybe that's what folks there want to pay for. Otherwise, there won't be a concert series, let alone opportunities to sell CDs, talk about music, festivals etc.


----------



## musicrom (Dec 29, 2013)

If the problem is that most classical concerts feature music by dead composers, I don't really see a problem. First off, there is SO much less classical music by modern composers than past composers, so it would make sense that more of the music is by dead composers. Secondly, I personally (in general) prefer older classical music to contemporary classical music, so I would go to concerts much less often if they featured only or mostly contemporary classical music.

I decided to check the calendars for my local orchestras, and I actually found that a lot of concerts do feature music of modern composers. For my local chamber orchestra, about 60-70% of the concerts include music by living composers, while for my local symphony orchestra, it's about 10-20%. I don't think that's too terrible.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> If there was a concert of works by (say) Cage, Cowell, Glass and Reich, you can be certain that it would not be well-attended. Certainly, I won't be there.


Well, you'd be missing out.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> It could be that the Xenakis, Ligeti, and Cage concerts were were well-attended due to their relative scarcity. Would people turn out for them like they do for Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms?


Probably. A person that goes to see Mozart or Brahms performed over and over goes because they love it. I love Cage and Ligeti (and am exploring Xenakis), and I'd definitely love to hear their music live. If I had opportunities I'd take advantage.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> Probably. A person that goes to see Mozart or Brahms performed over and over goes because they love it. I love Cage and Ligeti (and am exploring Xenakis), and I'd definitely love to hear their music live. If I had opportunities I'd take advantage.


I suspect you'll see the same people over and over at those more modern concerts, while the Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms will draw from a wider audience.

I do enjoy listening to contemporary composers (and I used to go to quite a lot of such concerts in my college days). But I think there's an implication by some people here that the modern music _ought_ to be as popular as the old favorites, and I think that's wrong.

Some of the music I listen to is fairly esoteric and appeals to a very limited audience. It used to upset me that there wasn't a wider audience for it, and I'd sort of look down my nose at people who I thought limited themselves unnecessarily by sticking to what's familiar. Eventually, I realized that although perhaps I'm willing to be somewhat adventurous when it comes to certain kinds of music, there are other kinds of art that I'm not willing to explore if only because I don't have enough time in my life. Surely it's the same with music. People have different priorities, and that's fine.

As it relates to classical music, I do think that there's enough variety and depth among exclusively dead composers to sustain an avid listener, if that's what appeals to them and if that's what they choose to listen to. The general classical music audience is small enough as it is, so it's not unreasonable to expect concert programmers to try to appeal to a broad segment of that limited audience.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

apricissimus said:


> I suspect you'll see the same people over and over at those more modern concerts, while the Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms will draw from a wider audience.


That's genuinely funny. But then, how were you to know that I spent the last two or three seasons manning the CD booth at the symphony and the Oregon Bach festival and various chamber series? Not your fault. But there it is: I saw the same people over and over again.

I've been attending new music concerts, too, for over forty years. You do see some of the same faces at those concerts, too. Sure. People who like the same things like the same things.



apricissimus said:


> I think there's an implication by some people here that the modern music _ought_ to be as popular as the old favorites, and I think that's wrong.


There is no such implication by any people anywhere that modern music ought to be as popular as the old favorites. Popularity is hardly the point, anyway. There is a very strong implication on the part of concert programmers that "people" will only pay money to hear the old favorites. You want cynicism? There's some cynicism for ya, in spades.



apricissimus said:


> It used to upset me that there wasn't a wider audience for [esoteric music], and I'd sort of look down my nose at people who I thought limited themselves unnecessarily by sticking to what's familiar.


Confession is good for the soul. But the fact that you yourself used to look down your nose does not by any means everyone else who promotes new music does so.



apricissimus said:


> As it relates to classical music, I do think that there's enough variety and depth among exclusively dead composers to sustain an avid listener, if that's what appeals to them and if that's what they choose to listen to. The general classical music audience is small enough as it is, so it's not unreasonable to expect concert programmers to try to appeal to a broad segment of that limited audience.


I don't think any of this relates to the topic in any way.

No one's arguing that there's not an incredible variety in the music of dead composers or even that "avid listeners" won't be able to be sustained by it. And so what if old music appeals to some people and if those people choose to listen to nothing else. This is not about what people like or even if they should be allowed to like whatever they like. These are all non-topics.

As for the small enough audience, well, that's hardly an argument for conservatism. That tiny audience is steadily dying off, too, and it is not being replaced. Financially, it seems anything but prudent to base your activities on appealing largely to people who aren't even going to be part of your audience in a couple of years. That's a recipe for disaster, as many arts organizations have already found. The solution, to double down? That's just daffy.

The arts will live no matter what. That's not an issue. But arts organizations are killing themselves off by refusing to take some necessary steps (risks, perhaps) to stay alive. They're avoiding risk, alright. They are on to a sure thing--if they don't replace their dying audience, they too will die. Certain sure. Well, fine. Let 'em.

In the meantime, there is little or no sense that music is being composed today or that any of that music is worth listening to. Is it as good as the music of the past? Well, it's too early to tell about that. And I would say that it's never really important to be able to say that kind of thing. What's important about any music is is it worth listening to now, for itself?

Not, will any individual poster to TC like it immediately or not. That's silly. Is it worth listening to now?

Yes.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> It could be that the Xenakis, Ligeti, and Cage concerts were were well-attended due to their relative scarcity. Would people turn out for them like they do for Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms?


Yes, eventually, that could happen.

You are part of the 'eventually' later audience for Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms, their initial popularity strong, but not nearly as widespread and in place as it is at present -- so it stands to reason with _the somewhat constant and now traditional lag of about seventy to eight years between general acceptance and widespread popularity_ that modern composers will be regularly on programs for later generations. (Right on that schedule, the works of Schoenberg are more regularly scheduled, performed, and recorded, with their attendant audience being part of that phenomenon, of course.)

In every era, there were not so many completely rapt with the music of their own time as some people would now like to think... this is a given, and I think in any era there are but a minority who are avid consumers of the contemporary music of their own time.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

some guy said:


> As for the small enough audience, well, that's hardly an argument for conservatism. That tiny audience is steadily dying off, too, and it is not being replaced. Financially, it seems anything but prudent to base your activities on appealing largely to people who aren't even going to be part of your audience in a couple of years. That's a recipe for disaster, as many arts organizations have already found. The solution, to double down? That's just daffy.
> 
> The arts will live no matter what. That's not an issue. But arts organizations are killing themselves off by refusing to take some necessary steps (risks, perhaps) to stay alive. They're avoiding risk, alright. They are on to a sure thing--if they don't replace their dying audience, they too will die. Certain sure. Well, fine. Let 'em.


There it is! Let's not forget that routinely programming Beethoven and Verdi is not resulting in healthy, well-supported music organisations - the existing business model ain't working and I, for one, am ready to see a shake-up. It might not be programming (as I've mentioned before, there are plenty of other components to the concert experience) but since the current model is broke surely something else is worth a try.

On good days, I see a potentially exciting future with more musician-driven music-making (which will mean vastly different programming and more modern stuff) giving opera houses and orchestras a better run for their money. On bad days I see semi-pros shuttling between playing musicals and popera outdoor spectaculars getting together twice a year to play Beethoven 5 and La Traviata to ever-dwindling audience


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Heck, where I live classical music concerts are barely hanging by a thread and that's with mainstream, conservative programming. When I've attended, the place is 2/3's empty.

Do more adventuresome programming and they would close in a week.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Heck, where I live classical music concerts are barely hanging by a thread and that's with mainstream, conservative programming. When I've attended, the place is 2/3's empty.
> 
> Do more adventuresome programming and they would close in a week.


Great! And then we could all move on to finding something that works


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

dgee said:


> Great! And then we could all move on to finding something that works


Yeah. Fantasia in 3D.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Do more adventuresome programming and they would close in a week.


You cannot know this.

No one can know this.

We do know, however, that "mainstream, conservative programming" isn't doing it. So do we continue to fail with that or do we risk failing with some other model. I'd be inclined to go with "risk failing with some other model," myself.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> You cannot know this.
> 
> No one can know this.


Some years ago, when I lived in Seattle, the symphony had fallen on hard financial times. They dealt with this by programming the entire Beethoven symphony cycle across a series of several concerts. Every one played to a sold-out house. Their financials were much relieved and the faith of donors was revived.

This stuff is hardly a secret.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2014)

Ken, in what way does your post address this exchange? 

hp: "Do more adventuresome programming and they would close in a week."

me: "You cannot know this."

Even if you are thinking that doing "the entire Beethoven symphony cycle" is an example of "more adventurous programming," the point remains that you can only know things once they've happened. It wasn't any more mysterious than that.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Ken, in what way does your post address this exchange?
> 
> hp: "Do more adventuresome programming and they would close in a week."
> 
> ...


Of course what you say can't be argued. But there are people who are paid to find a feasible balance between the new and the old. They may tend to be conservative since being right brings them no glory and being wrong can be quite costly. Not being in that position, we can easily kibbitz.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Broad hint: the huge majority of music on those programs is in the public domain. Some of the music is not in public domain, but the composer is long gone.
> 
> If the conductor, musicians and audience are alive, why shouldn't the composer also be alive?


Music by people who are still alive - isn't that what pop music's for?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Some years ago, when I lived in Seattle, the symphony had fallen on hard financial times. They dealt with this by programming the entire Beethoven symphony cycle across a series of several concerts. Every one played to a sold-out house. Their financials were much relieved and the faith of donors was revived.
> 
> This stuff is hardly a secret.


I think that this is basically the reason for conservative programs. More than other genres classical music needs a lot of money to pay all the musicians. And like in every other genre the popular names have a lot more success. But while an experimental rock band can play even if nobody is listening and paying just because of their passion, the same can't be done with an orchestra with lot of professional musicians who do it for living.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

Classical music halls are museums nowadays. It's nothing new.
But it would be wrong to not consider that contemporary music is partly responsible for that. And, on an other side, even musicians, who overestimate the sacred "repertoire".
But, at some point, you've got to play what people wants to hear. And for their most part, they want to hear pre-1900 music. For most people, Schoenberg, Scriabin or Bartok are still too "modern".

And you can "know this", to some extent. I live in one of the town where the concerts are the most diverse, so it's easy to compare the audiences : same venues, same orchestras, same artists will produce very different results depending on the program. Some artists can bring the audience whatever they're playing but they are rare. 

That being said, you hardly can criticize pianists for not playing new music in their recitals : there isn't much good solo piano music after 1950.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> Well, you'd be missing out.


I have heard pieces by all four. Their works simply do not appeal to me. For example, Peter Schickele wrote one of his PDQ Bach pieces as a parody of Glass, and proved that Glass cannot be parodied. John Cage is most often spoken of as the subject of a joke about his 4'33" -- which is a joke, and a not very funny one at that.

No, I would be missing NOTHING of significance by avoiding a concert by these four crap composers.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

If there's a huge demand for various kinds of music that the existing orchestras aren't meeting, some entrepreneur is going to make a mint soon.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Kilgore Trout said:


> That being said, you hardly can criticize pianists for not playing new music in their recitals : there isn't much good solo piano music after 1950.


Here are some good suggestions for contemporary solo piano.

http://www.talkclassical.com/11931-greatest-contemporary-solo-piano.html
http://www.talkclassical.com/10071-piano-music-1953-present.html

After 1950 would include Shostakovitch's second set of Preludes and Fugues from 1952 which is generally regarded as a major work of his and of piano literature in general. I'd also recommend Messiaen's later works as well as Ann Southam and Michael Finnissy


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

quack said:


> Here are some good suggestions for contemporary solo piano.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/11931-greatest-contemporary-solo-piano.html
> http://www.talkclassical.com/10071-piano-music-1953-present.html
> ...


I didn't say there weren't any good piano pieces after 1950, I said there wasn't much of them, and these two threads are proof of that (even if I think I could come up with more pieces than the one named in these threads). The musical systems used in contemporary music don't suit the piano very well.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2014)

Kilgore Trout said:


> But it would be wrong to not consider that contemporary music is partly responsible for that.


Um, history says that contemporary music is not responsible, even partly, for that. History says that anti-modernist sentiment precedes the earliest twentieth century avant garde by over a hundred years.



Kilgore Trout said:


> ...at some point, you've got to play what people wants to hear.


See? There's that attutude thing right there. Change the attitude and the problem vanishes.



Kilgore Trout said:


> ...you hardly can criticize pianists for not playing new music in their recitals : there isn't much good solo piano music after 1950.


Forget about "good." There's plenty of solo piano music after 1950. How much of it are you familiar enough with in order to make a value judgement about "good"? [Edit: I see from your most recent post that you are _not_ familiar with solo piano repertoire since 1950. OK then.]

You can hardly claim that there isn't much "good" solo piano music after 1950 unless you are intimately familiar with much of the solo piano music composed since 1950.

Besides, even if we were to grant, for the moment, that there is little "good" piano music since 1950, could that not possibly be a result of the hostile environment? 'Solo pianists aren't gonna play my music, so I'll do something else.' I know a very talented electroacoustic composer who said once to me that he'd be more than happy to get a commission to write a work for orchestra, but that he couldn't justify the time and effort to put into writing a piece that he knows no one would ever play. (Hmmm, sounds a lot like that Berlioz symphony in a minor that he kept getting ideas for but that he never wrote because he couldn't afford to spend the time on it. Horrific story. That's a direct result of bad attitudes (see What Audiences Want, post #288).)


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2014)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> No, I would be missing NOTHING of significance by avoiding a concert by these four crap composers.


Yes. Crap composers because you do not like them. And what does that make of the people who do like them? Idiots? Deaf? Troglodytes?

The actual sounds are the same whether you're listening to them or whether I'm listening to them. You come up with crap composers. I come up with delightful music.

So it's not really about the music at this point, it's about you and me. If the TOS allowed it, I say "bring it." But, sadly, they do not.

Oh well. Suffice it to say that these four are not crap and get on with my life.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Um, history says that contemporary music is not responsible, even partly, for that. History says that anti-modernist sentiment precedes the earliest twentieth century avant garde by over a hundred years.


Longer ago than that. I have read fulminations against music of the Galante period as being degraded compared with music of the late German baroque. And somebody here posted a series of such comments about the sorry state of current music from as long ago as the late renaissance. Well, perhaps they were all right.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

some guy said:


> Um, history says that contemporary music is not responsible, even partly, for that. History says that anti-modernist sentiment precedes the earliest twentieth century avant garde by over a hundred years.


History is a little bit more complicated than that. If you think that there is no link at all between the music itself and its reception, and that the state of things is a result of the same "anti-modernist" sentiment that Beethoven received in his time, you're blinder than one could be about these matters.



some guy said:


> Forget about "good." There's plenty of solo piano music after 1950. How much of it are you familiar enough with in order to make a value judgement about "good"? [Edit: I see from your most recent post that you are _not_ familiar with solo piano repertoire since 1950. OK then.]


I am familiar enough with it.



some guy said:


> Besides, even if we were to grant, for the moment, that there is little "good" piano music since 1950, could that not possibly be a result of the hostile environment? 'Solo pianists are gonna play my music, so I'll do something else.' I know a very talented electroacoustic composer who said once to me that he'd be more than happy to get a commission to write a work for orchestra, but that he couldn't justify the time and effort to put into writing a piece that he knows no one would ever play.


I guess you wanted to write "solo pianists are _not_ gonna play my music". But it makes little sense : pianists are much easier to find than a full orchestra. Every composer knows a bunch of pianists, and a lot are pianists themselves.
There are aesthetics and technical reasons to the lack of piano pieces. Piano is essentially a tonal instrument. The exploration of sounds and technics that is the main tendancy of most contemporary music and the new systems are difficult to apply to the instrument. A lot of post-1950's piano music comes from composers who have still a strong link to the tonal tradition (hence a lot of minimalist and post-minimalist piano pieces, and only a few in the catalogue of the european big names). It has little to do with an hostile environnement.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Longer ago than that. I have read fulminations against music of the Galante period as being degraded compared with music of the late German baroque. And somebody here posted a series of such comments about the sorry state of current music from as long ago as the late renaissance. Well, perhaps they were all right.


It's a long-winded excuse for modern composers : "they hated new music in [insert whatever period] so our new music will prevail in time". Except there isn't any kind of necessity in that assomption. It's not because it worked that way in some period that it will always work that way.
Webern did say that schoolboys would sing serial music in 50 years. We're 80 years later and it's not the case, and it will never be the case.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Kilgore Trout said:


> I didn't say there weren't any good piano pieces after 1950, I said there wasn't much of them, and these two threads are proof of that (even if I think I could come up with more pieces than the one named in these threads). The musical systems used in contemporary music don't suit the piano very well.


Okay, please learn me something. In what way do contemporary compositional techniques not suit the piano very well?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Kilgore Trout said:


> It's a long-winded excuse for modern composers : "they hated new music in [insert whatever period] so our new music will prevail in time". Except there isn't any kind of necessity in that assomption. It's not because it worked that way in some period that it will always work that way.
> Webern did say that schoolboys would sing serial music in 50 years. We're 80 years later and it's not the case, and it will never be the case.


I hum and whistle serial music. :3 I'm a schoolgirl rather, but please don't speak for all of humanity dude. Only speak for yourself.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Schnittke and Gubaidulina have some gorgeous post 1950 piano pieces as does Joaquin Rodrigo, though the latter's works are in more of a modern era style. Can't say I'm a fan of Stockhausen's efforts in the genre. The jury is still out for me on Boulez's Piano Sonatas, and John Cage's piano works. I love Lutoslawski's Piano Sonata, although that was composed in 1934.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> Schnittke and Gubaidulina have some gorgeous post 1950 piano pieces as does Joaquin Rodrigo, though the latter's works are in more of a modern era style. Can't say I'm a fan of Stockhausen's efforts in the genre. The jury is still out for me on Boulez's Piano Sonatas, and John Cage's piano works. I love Lutoslawski's Piano Sonata, although that was composed in 1934.


Ligeti's 18 études were completed in 2001. Many consider these pretty significant. Shostakovich's preludes and fugues of course were far earlier, but still in the 2nd half of the century.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Ligeti's 18 études were completed in 2001. Many consider these pretty significant. Shostakovich's preludes and fugues of course were far earlier, but still in the 2nd half of the century.


Yes, Ligeti's etudes I enjoy. Personally I still haven't really warmed to Shostakovich, but these I think are in a more modern era musical language and influenced by Bach. I should give those works another try.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

tdc said:


> Yes, Ligeti's etudes I enjoy. Personally I still haven't really warmed to Shostakovich, but these I think are in a more modern era musical language and influenced by Bach. I should give those works another try.


It's amazing how the Shostakovich P&Fs grow on you. I heard a couple in live performance a while ago and they were quite overwhelming.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2014)

Walter Marchetti
John Cage
John Tilbury
Andrea Neumann

And this beauty from Hans Tutschku, who is Director of the Harvard University Studio for Electroacoustic Composition:

http://www.tutschku.com/content/works-Zellen-Linien.en.php


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2014)

some guy said:


> PIPRS this season:
> Rafał Blechacz--Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin and Debussy, Szymanowski, Chopin.
> Jean-Efflam Bavouzet--Beethoven, Ravel, Debussy, Bartok
> Vladimir Feltsman--Bach, Liszt, Scriabin and Haydn, Schubert, Schumann
> ...


Too many Europeans!


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Feb 26, 2014)

BurningDesire said:


> I hum and whistle serial music. :3 I'm a schoolgirl rather, but please don't speak for all of humanity dude. Only speak for yourself.


I never said that it was impossible to hum and whistle serial music. I can do that, thank you. Webern, and other serialists thought the same in the 50's and 60's, was implying that serial music would replace in 50 years or so tonal music among the general audience, and that this audience would sing serial music as easily as they sung classical pieces in his time. This didn't happen, and it's not speaking for all of humanity to say that.


----------



## WienerKonzerthaus (Mar 11, 2014)

That's certainly a big issue!

It's hard enough to sell tickets (never mind make money) as it is... and then add something to the program that costs money (per minute of performing it) just to play it (when you're trying to make people listen to it in the first place...) It's quite difficult. Even a Berg op.1 Sonata costs extra money... and not too little. (All depends a bit on the local copyright laws, of course.)


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> It's amazing how the Shostakovich P&Fs grow on you. I heard a couple in live performance a while ago and they were quite overwhelming.


His 2nd Piano Sonata is also a very enjoyable work.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

some guy said:


> In my last couple of years in Portland, OR, I spent many happy hours helping a friend sell CDs at various events, not only in Portland, but in Salem and in Eugene as well. (Which means the Oregon Bach Festival.)
> 
> Concert after concert with the same pattern, a pattern has always struck me as peculiar, or has so at least since the mid seventies. And even more peculiar is how few people think of it as being peculiar. Before the seventies, I did not think of it as peculiar, either.
> 
> ...


Cri-keys! At least the Utah Symphony tries to do one newly commissioned piece per year.


----------

