# To what extent is popularity important?



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think we can all probably agree on two things (though I won't count on it, so tell me if you don't):

1) If popularity was of absolute importance, classical music would be considered a failing.
2) If a piece is only ever appreciated by its creator and no one else, it is worthless.

I think that a composer should always aim to be popular without being populist. In other words, I think it ought to be an artist's aim to convey what they wish to convey in a way understood by as many people as possible _without_ compromising their goals. Or, in other, other words, present your ideas without compromise in their simplest possible terms.

Given this, complex ideas _will_ require complex music (which is why classical music is both a necessity and unpopular/difficult compared to pop music), but I think there is a certain level of diminishing returns. I believe a lot of the feelings/sensations/thoughts/provocations achieved by the most complex music can be done with simpler, more popular means.

Where do you draw the line, if at all?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

To be pedantic I don't think #2 is correct, but its worth would be so ridiculously limited (based on the enjoyment of one person) that it's negligible. So I won't go the airy philosophical route here.

I think a composer should only aim to express what they want to express, and it it becomes popular, good. Popularity is a vehicle; the artist should focus on his art rather than driving.



> I believe a lot of the feelings/sensations/thoughts/provocations achieved by the most complex music can be done with simpler, more popular means.


Very simple things can reflect ideas as profound as any expressed by a symphony, but the problem with "populist" art is rarely that it's just too simple, but rather too shallow or mechanical or based on dubious conventions that are pushed by an industry. A Nickelback song and Tibetan folk music are both very simple, but only one of these two has any value. (That last part is my opinion of course.)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some of my favourite composers successfully straddled the divide you talk of. Eg. the line between something that's popular but of little artistic value and being unpopular but of high artistic value but inaccessible to the average listener. By average I don't mean dumb but just a listener like myself, in the middle of the spectrum, not a "specialist" or "groupie" of anything, just in it for engagement, enjoyment, enrichment of my life, etc. I think it does take talent to satisfy both the "highbrows" and "lowbrows," but more importantly, appeal to the "middlebrows," the middle of the listening spectrum, which is most classical music listeners.

One composer who did do this during the inter-war period was Aaron Copland, whose music includes a lot of the then new techniques, but it is written in a very accessible way. & he did write other works than the classic "Americana" works, eg. things influenced by jazz & atonality as well. I think a similar thing can be said for Leonard Bernstein's compositions, which I'm currently enjoying. Probably Samuel Barber as well, althoug he was more of a traditionalist than the other two. I think the Americans had this ability, but so did other composers.

I basically hate those people who poo-poo the middle ground, but seem quite extreme/contradictory themselves. Eg. if it's too popular, that's a problem OR if it's too obscure, that's a problem. You can't satisfy everyone, or try to satisfy everyone but end up satisfying nobody. It's better to be somewhat balanced and pitch towards the baseline, maybe depart from it when you feel like you need to do that as an artist, but generally it's good to keep the majority of the listeners in mind - & that's not just one type of listener, it's many many types of listeners, as we can see on this forum...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I think we can all probably agree on two things (though I won't count on it, so tell me if you don't):
> 
> 1) If popularity was of absolute importance, classical music would be considered a failing.
> 2) If a piece is only ever appreciated by its creator and no one else, it is worthless.
> [...]


1) Your terms make the question self answering. However, popularity is _*not*_ 'of absolute importance'.

2) The piece is worthless under those terms only if the creator is worthless.

3) This is pretty basic stuff. Do they teach _anything_ at Oxford?

:scold:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

If the composer (and his/her fringe followers) push consistently for the extreme, like one or two members do here, then the end results are often (but not always) works that punish itself in the long run, or put simply, crap works. But of course there are exceptions. Bach's _Art of Fugue_ was quite an extreme piece of fugal study that the composer himself loved & understood, and he certainly intended to publish it for his contemporary connoisseurs, who certainly would not have been the typical composer/artist/general populace. Though _Art of Fugue_ came from a giant. Unfortunately perhaps, most composers ain't no Bach-stature giant and so the lesser folks' concept of "extreme" might well just be _extreme mediocrity_.

Thankfully, most of the past composers did not churn out "extreme mediocrity"; maybe a lot of medicority, but generally good works that while some were relatively popular or at least well appreciated by its premier audiences, have re-surfaced again today to be again appreciated as passable pieces. For the sake of the work itself and its posterity, I would say that at least some aspect of the pieces must be recognised by listeners today as passable.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Popularity can serve most thinking, if there is sufficient layering.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

To wahat extent does popularity matter?

Hmmm. I couldn't care less what people think


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Popularity is meaningless with regard to measuring the worth of a work of art. It is neither an indicator of merit, nor the reverse. At the same time, for any work of art to survive it must speak to an audience of some size (and influence within that art form) if it is not to be forgotten.

Personally, I think most artists imagine an audience not unlike themselves. Some more mercenary-minded may indeed gear their work toward the lowest-common-denominator (and the largest audience), but I don't think that this is as easy to achieve as some might suggest. On the other hand, I don't imagine (in most cases) that those whose works are more challenging or obscure intentionally set out to create an art that is inaccessible.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Popularity in classical music is basically a crap shot. What we call the "standard repertoire" or the "canon" is just a list of those works which just happened to achieve a lasting place in the repertoire and which have been performed and recorded the most.
These works are generally deserving of their popularity because they appeal greatly to audiences everywhere .
But these a re far from being the only works which deserve to be heard and recorded.
There's a saying that goes "There are no undiscovered masterpieces in classical music", but this is dead wrong. There are many,many undiscovered masterpieces which are almost never performed, for a variety of reasons, such as difficulty of performance, using impractically large forces etc, having had poor initial performances and being poorly receives etc.
In addition , many famous composers are known for a very small portion of their entire output, and have written remarkable works which are rarely performed, often because conductors and other musicians are content to keep on playing the same old familiar works which audiences expect to hear.
Dvorak is a perfect example of this. He's known for only a handful of his works,such as the last three symphonies, the cello concerto,Slavonic Dances, and a few other pieces. But unfortunately, you rarely hear his first six symphonies, which are wonderful, and a wealth of other orchestral works, and oratorios, the great Requiem, and of his ten or so operas, only Rusalka is performed outside of the Czech Republic with any frequency, and only since the past 30 years or so.
His output is a veritable goldmine of wonderful music awaiting discovery for so many people.
Fortunately, things have been changing in recent years, and some orchestras and opera companies have been expanding their repertoire to include obscure but deserving works from the past by many different composers , and there are conductors and other musicians who are willing to think outside the box and program
works outside the standard repertoire .
On CD, there is a staggeringly wide variety of non-standard works available , and classical CD collectors have an embarassment of riches to choose from. 
We classical music lovers don't realize how fortunate we are to be alive at this time, when there is more to choose from,live or recorded, than ever before .


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

superhorn said:


> On CD, there is a staggeringly wide variety of non-standard works available , and classical CD collectors have an embarassment of riches to choose from.
> We classical music lovers don't realize how fortunate we are to be alive at this time, when there is more to choose from,live or recorded, than ever before .


Well said.

As far as I am concerned, popularity is only important for one reason - making sure that a piece of art stays accessible. As long as it can be accessed, it does not matter at all to me if ten people or ten thousand or ten million like it.

Sure, it's nice to post something about one of your favorite works and have someone else respond that they love it, too. But, the lack of such a response doesn't endanger my feeling for the piece a bit. I _like_ confirmation, but I don't _need_ it.

If I were a composer or a professional performing musician, however, I might feel differently. One does need to make a living. I suspect, however, that in those circumstances, I'd be content simply to make that living and keep on doing what I love doing, than be all consumed by not having hundreds of thousands of fans. But, that's just me.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

i dont agree with this:
*
2) If a piece is only ever appreciated by its creator and no one else, it is worthless.*

i believe art is separate from its creator and should even one person appreciate the art itself (even the artwork's creator) then it is not worthless.

tchaikovsky and puccini are 2 composers who are IMO more popular than they are great


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Popularity is very important because I already wrote better music that any "highlight" from Verdi's Il Trovatore yet noone wants to play me just because Verdi is estabilished trademark and I am not. 

HMMM

What Polednise is talking about is rather "acessibility" than "popularity". I agree with main presumtion that there is no reason to make music more difficult to listen, if the idea itself is not banal then it won't sound banal even if presented in reasonably accessible way. 

But there is also the same aspect in context of performers and musicians. When you're writing an aria you just have to add some hair-rising, difficult cadence at the end of it, just to make sure that no bad singer will perform and ruin it. In this context popularity is most dangerous and should be avoided.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

@Harpsichord Concerto - I am of the opinion that, like the two books of The Well Tempered Clavier Bach probably did not intend the Art of Fugue to be played through as a concert piece, but that both were designed for teaching exercises. However common useage has determined otherwise.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Aramis said:


> [...]
> But there is also the same aspect in context of performers and musicians. When you're writing an aria you just have to add some hair-rising, difficult cadence at the end of it, just to make sure that no bad singer will perform and ruin it. In this context popularity is most dangerous and should be avoided.


So... there is a dark motive for some of that 'end of it' screaming!


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I'll try to answer this question indirectly..

An important thing to remember is that we conceive of music and its intended audience now in a very different way now then most classical composers did. Especially before Beethoven, musicians tended to rely on patrons and composed for churches and courts as a way to make a living. Those churches and courts had certain expectations, and the composers were expected to fulfill them. Music for public consumption wasn't particularly profitable (especially since copyright laws sucked) until public concerts really started to take off in the early 19th century. Composers didn't have as many restrictions when composing for public concerts, so individuality began to take precedent over functionality. Of course, these public audiences still had certain expectations, but they were less restrictive.

To me, the most important thing was the fact that composers were in relatively high demand over this time (as evidenced by the 13,000+ symphonies written in the 18th century) and remained that way until the rise of mass-produced pop music in the 20th century. Because there was a certain market for certain kinds of music, whether it's for church or courts or public consumption, composers wrote for those audiences. People usually didn't just "write for themselves" unless they had some other means of making a living. There was no reason to.

Now, since the demand for new classical compositions is virtually nil and it's pretty much impossible to make a living as a classical composer, we feel justified asking the question, "is popularity important?" ..well, it probably won't have a big audience anyway, even if it's the greatest symphony since Beethoven's 9th. In essence, every classical composer composes more for themselves than to any real audience. So here, now, in the 21st century, no, popularity is not important. But it certainly was for most classical composers throughout history.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

tchaikovsky and puccini are 2 composers who are IMO more popular than they are great

Of course it could also be that it is simply your opinion that is less than "great". Indeed, it might be somewhat logical to assume that there is some reason that Tchaikovsky and Puccini continue to resonate with audiences, including many who are quite well informed or experienced. Personally, I prefer Mahler and Brahms and Bruckner and Wagner and the German/Austrian tradition as a whole to Tchaikovsky and the Russians... but I would not think to suggest that their continued popularity is undeserved.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Tchaikovsky was a great composer, but i do think the popularity surrounding him is more than what i feel his compositions would warrant him, it's just my opinion.

Puccini i do not take seriously at all, but I don't wish to offend anyone. I will say though that I think Lennon & McCartney were more gifted composers than Puccini but I think the classical world would never agree with me.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

This lady composer was mentioned in another thread. What you think? Freak show or popular music or what? I thought I shall post it here in the context of this good thread. Stuff like this below makes it clear to me how stupid it all gets when the composer writes pretty much for himself / herself in this case.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> This lady composer was mentioned in another thread. What you think? Freak show or popular music or what? I thought I shall post it here in the context of this good thread.* Stuff like this below makes it clear to me how stupid it all gets when the composer writes pretty much for himself / herself in this case.
> *


Ok, but the thing is, how can you say for sure that she is just writing for herself? I enjoyed that piece, quite a bit. So doesn't that mean she wrote that piece for me as well?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Tchaikovsky for one was a big influence on later early modernist composers, eg. Janacek & Sibelius definitely, and probably Mahler as well (his 9th symphony ending with a slow movement, as Tchaikovsky's_ Pathetique _does). I think it would be sensible if people read up a bit about who influenced who, who made a big impact, not just poo-poo someone for the implied fact that they wrote big tunes that can easily be memorised by the great unwashed masses. There's deeper things going on in Tchaikovsky's music for sure on many levels, and those three guys I mentioned did sit up and take notice big time...


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

*Popularity is everything*, but there's popularity now and popularity over time.

Bach is only considered good because there are people who consider him good. If no one likes his music he wouldn't be good, in fact we wouldn't know him at all because he'd be long forgotten.

Merit is how popular you are after the* initial momentum* is gone and the fads fade into the dust.

"Popularity" usually means "popularity now and within the next few years or decades".

Every somehow everyone who liked Wagner disappeared and no one ever liked Wagner ever then there'd be universal consensus that Wagner is terrible and no one in the next generation would know that he existed, and he'd be of interest to scholars who study history and remarked on the horrible 200 year Wagner phenomenon.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

I have found that most popular music within a genre tends to be the most accessible and 'best' of that genre. Basically if a lot of people like something, there is usually something likeable about it.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I think to justify our very enjoyment of classical music we have to disregard the notion of popularity altogether.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Popularity is very important to me, but it is only one of the very important factors.

Shchedrin's _Carmen Suite_ was evidently fairly popular in the 1960s (if I remember right - I'm going on memory here). Whether I wind up loving it or liking it or just wondering what the heck, the fact that it was popular makes it a little more interesting to me. I want to try to imagine why it was popular, what people heard in it.

There is a kind of solipsistic argument that only my own opinion and tastes should matter to me. I'm not saying they shouldn't matter or don't matter - _of course_ they matter very much, but so do other people's.

One of the reasons I listen to music is to connect with other people. A passage that changed my life in Amos Oz's beautiful book _A Tale of Love and Darkness_ described the mother, a woman I felt I would've liked to know, listening to operas on LPs in Israel in the 1950s, missing Russian culture and her family and everything they left behind. That made me want to listen to operas that would've been on LP in the 1950s, mono sound and all. So Maria Callas it is.

Strauss's _Morning Papers_ is more than a few minutes of music, it's a connection with the people of Vienna, the heroes and criminals, janitors and aristocrats, journalists and capitalists. _The Battle Cry of Freedom_ is a connection with the soldiers of the Civil War. Frank Sinatra's music is a connection with the Italian-American communities of his time. And so on.

Even when I like a work that isn't popular - Takemitsu's _From Me Flows What You Call Time_ is a good example - it feels really good to find someone else who enjoys it as much as I do. Really, I think that's the #1 reason I come to a site like talkclassical, because here I have a chance of doing so. And when someone from this site says they like Clementi's piano sonatas, and turns me on to some music that is new to me that I turn out to enjoy very much, there is in addition to the solipsistic private enjoyment of the music, an interpersonal aspect, the fact that someone somewhere shared something with me: _through the music_, a connection has been made between me and some other people.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

science said:


> Even when I like a work that isn't popular - Takemitsu's _From Me Flows What You Call Time_ is a good example - it feels really good to find someone else who enjoys it as much as I do.


I do.

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


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

violadude said:


> I think to justify our very enjoyment of classical music we have to disregard the notion of popularity altogether.


I agree with you, though some people would make the quite repugnant suggestion that popularity only matters if you're talking about the right people. 



brianwalker said:


> Every somehow everyone who liked Wagner disappeared and no one ever liked Wagner ever then there'd be universal consensus that Wagner is terrible and no one in the next generation would know that he existed, and he'd be of interest to scholars who study history and remarked on the horrible 200 year Wagner phenomenon.


I could play along with the idea that everyone who likes Wagner now suddenly disappears, but there's no way that no one would ever like Wagner again. There is something in the music that makes it enjoyable, and some people will always find it enjoyable. Popularity, then, can only ever be an indicator of merit - not a quality in itself - and even then it may not be the most reliable.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I could play along with the idea that everyone who likes Wagner now suddenly disappears, but there's no way that no one would ever like Wagner again. There is something in the music that makes it enjoyable, and some people will always find it enjoyable. Popularity, then, can only ever be an indicator of merit - not a quality in itself - and even then it may not be the most reliable.


Right, because the enjoyment of Wagner has transcended *fad-time;* it's proven its worth, but we know its merit only because we know almost certainly that it will be popular with future generations because there has never been a work of that that has maintained popularity for so long across so many borders and then, bam, went into oblivion.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Some of my favourite composers successfully straddled the divide you talk of. Eg. the line between something that's popular but of little artistic value and being unpopular but of high artistic value but inaccessible to the average listener. By average I don't mean dumb but just a listener like myself, in the middle of the spectrum, not a "specialist" or "groupie" of anything, just in it for engagement, enjoyment, enrichment of my life, etc. I think it does take talent to satisfy both the "highbrows" and "lowbrows," but more importantly, appeal to the "middlebrows," the middle of the listening spectrum, which is most classical music listeners.
> 
> One composer who did do this during the inter-war period was Aaron Copland, whose music includes a lot of the then new techniques, but it is written in a very accessible way. & he did write other works than the classic "Americana" works, eg. things influenced by jazz & atonality as well. I think a similar thing can be said for Leonard Bernstein's compositions, which I'm currently enjoying. Probably Samuel Barber as well, althoug he was more of a traditionalist than the other two. I think the Americans had this ability, but so did other composers.
> 
> I basically hate those people who poo-poo the middle ground, but seem quite extreme/contradictory themselves. Eg. if it's too popular, that's a problem OR if it's too obscure, that's a problem. You can't satisfy everyone, or try to satisfy everyone but end up satisfying nobody. It's better to be somewhat balanced and pitch towards the baseline, maybe depart from it when you feel like you need to do that as an artist, but generally it's good to keep the majority of the listeners in mind - & that's not just one type of listener, it's many many types of listeners, as we can see on this forum...


I think you have the tail wagging the dog here:
Copland: All the 'serious non-populist' works sound self-conscious and labored, with perhaps the one exception of his piano trio Vitebsk, which is still based on a popular Jewish theme.

Bernstein: again all the 'serious' pieces sound self-conscious and labored, and even those have a strong taste of musical theater - more the Broadway kind than the Covent Garden "Opera" sort. Some of the more 'straight' classical work nonetheless sound very 'pop' music theater-ish, too, like the Chichester psalms or Mass. His most telling, and 'crossover' work, and I think his best, is the premiere version of Candide, where he does brilliant classical parody (the coloratura aria 'Glitter and be Gay') and ballade-like 'sophisticated' numbers. The finale of Candide doesn't just announce, but screams that the highly emotive / sentimental West Side Story is just around the corner.

Barber: simply wrote what he could, to the best of his (meticulous craftsman) ability. Yes, he saw the opportunity of making both an orchestration and a choral piece of his Adagio from the String Quartet No. 1 - I bet royalties from that, plus his day job, plus commissions, helped him get by. Populist? Not consciously or by intent. He happened to have a talent and aesthetic which was / is more readily received by a general audience, that's all. Still a 'one and a half hit wonder' with general audiences, not so with the more dedicated.

Point? I think the populist composers you mention were not 'dropping their other true musical persona' in order to 'make music for the people,' but rather, writing as they could, and they remained very true to their personal impulses. To recognize what one does best and then to consciously decide to do that vs. something else is an everyday good choice made by many when it comes to their work. "My work has a populist reception - I'll do that, I'll even refine it, not because I will please many and make loads of cash, but because I am most in accord with myself and personally fulfilled by doing what I do best."

I add in the same 'populist' vein, John Adams, Steve Reich, perhaps Philip Glass and the youngish Nico Muhly. Again, acting on the impulses of their native personal sensibility, and with Adams and Reich, honing that quality first 'for themselves,' coincidentally, their audiences are broad.

Britain: 'minimalist' Graham Fitkin, with a little more of that 'EuroAngst' and more than a whiff of his former teacher Louis Andriessen in some of his works, might be called another 'populist' composer, his later work being a blend of classical with a somewhat exuberant / rowdy big band dance band feel (his composer-teacherAndriessen is a more socio-political artist who nonetheless has a very strong 'elitist' stripe.) 
I think Gavin Bryars is not so much attentive to a political 'write for the everyman' as he is just following his own path and interests, and those are _coincidentally_ in sync with more populist taste.

In every generation, there will be artisans who make things very much to the public taste, without 'lowering their standards' or 'condescending' to everyman -- because their native impulses and what they produce are just more in sync with the public than other artisans who are more 'avant' in their personal pursuits.

It seems sometimes when this 'populist' thing is brought up there is more than a slight taste of a more a 'radical movement' to _demand_ of every artisan that they meet that populist taste: if that is the request, polite or other, it is rather simplistic, if a demand, then tyrannic. It also seems to me that some listeners are very angry when works are not accessible to them - what is that, if not some sense of humiliation, probably due to an invalid social pressure and / or self-conceit that they 'should be getting' that which they do not?

Is anyone actually making the mistake of thinking that all art and craft produced should be aimed at the most general taste, i.e. it should 'all be for you?'

Audiences have the option to consume or discard, quite freely, whatever they want that is currently 'out there.'

I do not see _at all_ why populist vs. non is even a matter of interest. My 'collection' of 20th century composers has a great number of 'middle ground' modern and contemporary classical musicians -- who were writing 'what they could,' and I take enormous pleasure in their works. That entire lot of late-romantic Russians and others from that period are completely 'middle ground' fare. There is lots out there, all the time, in every era. Those composers were not 'the avant-gardists' of their time, nor were they remarkably innovative - just very fine and intelligent composers whose works happened to be immediately accessible to a broad(er) audience.

When you get to wishing that the likes of Howard Shore's score for 'Lord of the Rings' be entered in the Classical catalogue, I take huge issue. It may well serve its function, be a well-crafted what it is - but it is one hugely derivative and unremarkable film score. Why anyone would press for that being entered in the classical catalogue is beyond me. (Sorry Sid, I will get over it but it is to me well exemplar of...) What makes it desirable, when it is so unwarranted and unnecessary, to call it anything more but a film score?

Somewhere (it was not my or my teachers' doing, nor that of other classical musicians I know and have worked with) there is a very bad press, or attitude, from some who seem to 'claim' classical music as theirs, as if 'they owned it.' On that, I am wholly in agreement it is time to take classical music out of those particular party's hands -- they do 'the cause' no good whatsoever. Anyone who hints that they 'own' any kind of music should be called on it, because they do not.

People spend their entire youth in specific training to have the skills to be a composer whose career brings us 'classical music.' What they compose is what they can come up with: the audience / consumer has the right to choose that which they wish to consume -- simples. Try it, and if it is not for you, there is another bus in 20 minutes, no biggie. But the whining (because that is what it most sounds like to me) that an artisan is 'writing songs of love but not for you' has got to go, imo.

The artisan first must 'please himself' - non-indulgent interpretation, please, i.e. must meet their own demanding high standard of making something worthwhile. If it is a work for performers, the second consideration is that the performers are receptive enough to the new work to wish to perform it. The audience, in consideration, is far down that totem, and really should not be considered at all if the artisan hopes to make a work of any integrity whatsoever. The artisan can only hope an audience likes it, because it is 'what the artisan can do.'

"Social obligation of the craftsman / artisan / artist?" -- especially as a rudder for the audience named channel 'the makers' should sail / swim in? The notion is egregious to me. Whenever that has become 'official,' Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, the majority of the world reels in repulsion.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DavidMahler said:


> Tchaikovsky was a great composer, but i do think the popularity surrounding him is more than what i feel his compositions would warrant him, it's just my opinion.
> 
> Puccini i do not take seriously at all, but I don't wish to offend anyone. I will say though that I think Lennon & McCartney were more gifted composers than Puccini but I think the classical world would never agree with me.


They each knew very well how to compose and what they were doing - the aesthetic, well, like you I do not take either one seriously, just can't. Oh, Tchaikovsky. some fantastic woodwind writing, BTW, but for me that's 'all I get' from it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

violadude said:


> I think to justify our very enjoyment of classical music we have to disregard the notion of popularity altogether.


Very well said: Bravo!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

John Adams was mentioned, and he is certainly one of the more popular CM composers in the US. I have read that he's pretty much alone in making a living solely from his commissions (and, I assume, residuals of some sort). Does anybody know if that's true?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> This lady composer was mentioned in another thread. What you think? Freak show or popular music or what? I thought I shall post it here in the context of this good thread. Stuff like this below makes it clear to me how stupid it all gets when the composer writes pretty much for himself / herself in this case.


I didn't even listen. Here's the deal with youtube -- self indulgent or other, the moment anyone posts their work or performance means it is intended for others to hear. You are the one who has to decide if it is 'self-indulgent' or other.

I overheard a terrific statement, which is simultaneously sardonic and true: It still is entirely subjective in what it says, though:
*"I'm all for self-expression, but it has to express something to me."*

*Here is a remarkable piece for Ondes Martinot sextet:
Olivier Messiaen ~ Fête des belles eaux (1937)* Do we think Messiaen was thinking about being populist / popular when he sat down at a desk and composed this?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Here is a remarkable piece for Theremin sextet:
> Olivier Messiaen ~ Fête des belles eaux (1937)


A nice piece. BTW the ondes martenot is different from a theremin. It is a fixed-pitch instrument played with a keyboard and accessory controls. The theremin has a continuously-variable pitch and is controlled (with great difficulty!) by moving the hands in the air about an antenna -- in some cases two antennas. The electronics might generate similar timbres (or not), but the effects overall are not at all the same. Oddly, both were invented in 1928.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> John Adams was mentioned, and he is certainly one of the more popular CM composers in the US. I have read that he's pretty much alone in making a living solely from his commissions (and, I assume, residuals of some sort). Does anybody know if that's true?


Adams had first a teaching post at the San Francisco Conservatory of Music which he held between 1972 - 1984. It was then he composed 'Shaker Loops' and a fair number of other pieces. He also did some work for a PBS series, and somewhere in there, became the consultant on contemporary new music to San Francisco Symphony conductor Edo de Waart. His Common Tones in Simple Time (1979) and Harmonium (1980) were premiered by De Waart and the SFSO.

After 1984, it seems without any other work history, he has been living solely from the income from commissions, performances and recording royalties - one of a very few Americans to ever do so (Copland was the other - and if it were not for "Fanfare for the common man" becoming wildly popular as well as being used in many commercials - Copland's income status might have been very different. Leonard Bernstein is sometimes cited, but between the (well-paid) post of Conductor of the New York Philharmonic, and a very great deal of a regular revenue stream from "West Side Story" -- yes we all know it has a twelve-tone fugue in it but is this Broadway musical _truly_ 'classical?' -- it is not quite valid to think of Lenny's income coming solely from his Symphonies, Serenade for Violin and orchestra, etc.)

Usual for any composer in Copland, Adam's situation, is being hired, too, to conduct their own works.

Adams' works are popular in Europe as well -- here he is, guest conductor of the Dutch Radio Philharmonic Orchestra and choir, conducting 
Milhaud's La Creation du Monde, 
a more than interesting orchestrated by Steven Stucky / Stravinsky's Les Noces, 
lastly his own City Noir. 
(Under the window, click on the active digit after the listed Milhaud - 7:02 - and the link will play from the beginning of the music, bypassing a lot of introductory speeches.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Many thanks for the info and the link! :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ferde Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite is still popular.
Howard Shore's entire film score for Lord Of The Rings is popular.
Both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are still popular.
Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, o.a. are still popular.
Grieg is popular.
Tchaikovsky is popular.
Philip Glass is popular.
Yiruma is popular
Yanni is popular
The orchestrated music from the video game "Legend of Zelda" is popular
The orchestral suite from Joe Hisaishi's "Howls Moving Castle" is popular
John Williams' film scores from Star Wars and Harry Potter are popular

Therefore, "Popular" is of no consequence whatsoever.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I think we need some definitions here! What does "important" mean? And important to whom? For that matter, what does "popularity" mean? Just asking...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I think we need some definitions here! What does "important" mean? And important to whom? For that matter, what does "popularity" mean? Just asking...


I think we should rely on something close to standard usage as found in most dictionaries, then the prime definition, as in from Vox Populi, of the people -- liked by a great number of the general population.

_... which pretty much eliminates, as ViolaDude mentioned, any connection between "Popular" and classical music in general _


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB, I think you nailed "popularity." But you kinda skipped right over "important."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> ...
> Point? I think the populist composers you mention were not 'dropping their other true musical persona' in order to 'make music for the people,' but rather, writing as they could, and they remained very true to their personal impulses. To recognize what one does best and then to consciously decide to do that vs. something else is an everyday good choice made by many when it comes to their work. "My work has a populist reception - I'll do that, I'll even refine it, not because I will please many and make loads of cash, but because I am most in accord with myself and personally fulfilled by doing what I do best."
> 
> ....


I think there's some deal of truth to this. Not forgetting that there is always a decision to be made, pitching for some audience or other. Be it 'lowbrow' or 'highbrow' or whatever in between. Obviously composers write music for different purposes. & often it just comes out, Barber actually said his process of composition (eg. exactly how he did it) was quite a mystery to him. Composers are often not good judges of what will be a huge hit and what will be a flop. There's a number of cases of them selling rights to pieces for a trifling one off sum and living to regret it once the publishers made millions on royalties from those works (eg. Sibelius' Valse Triste).

I would add that to turn away from popularity (to more 'highbrow') can be equally valide. Elliott Carter was early on similar to Copland, writing in a kind of populist style, which fit in well with F.D.R's 'New Deal' era of progress and getting through the Depression and WW2. But after the war, Carter felt it was no use to continue like that, and as a result at about age 40 he went into the more experimental style that most of us know him for today.

Then, way after the war in the 1980's, you had John ADams' _Grand Pianola Music _get a hostile reception from highbrows at its premiere. Some I think walked out and did not clap. Similar here in Australia, the first minimalist composers (eg. Anne Boyd) where basically laughed at. Too simple, a kid could do it, etc. Now she's not exactly popular but firmly 'establishment,' lecturing at Sydney Conservatorium, one of our best music schools.

So there is no problem what composers pitch for, there are different audiences, and often composers are not good judges of what will be popular and what will not be. Ultimately it has to be decided with hindsight, by audiences of today, and by posterity. But to me that's not always important, but it is a factor worth considering when discussing issues like the 'provenance' of works over time, whether they be warhorses or more obscure, whether highbrow or lowbrow, whether they've been constantly in the repertoire over a long stretch of time or laying dormant and recently rediscovered.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ... there is always a decision to be made, pitching for some audience or other. Be it 'lowbrow' or 'highbrow' or whatever in between.


I believe the above is more directly from the contextual thought of a business model in a capitalist free market than from anyone within the fine arts arena.

Of course, a composer is presuming there will be players, a hall, and an audience in place, but I seriously doubt they are predetermining 'High, Middle, or Lowbrow' content for the audience in those halls where 'art music' is performed. The fine art of music (and the fine arts in general), remains very much a matter of patronage, whether it is a government subsidy from tax revenues, corporate patronage, or independent grants for the fine arts: it is not a free market business affair precisely because it is known that being dependent upon a common denominator support would altogether undermine the aim of its being 'fine art.'

The whole system is still in place specifically to keep the artist away from being dependent upon 'the populist vote' influencing the art they make.

Composers get an idea, sit down and get to work, work it out, write it out, all that time from the onset and through to limning that double bar on the score, without ever having thought of 'which audience, High, Middle, or Low' they are pitching to... happens all the time.

The in place convention of course is composers composing for professional musicians who will perform the music in a large hall, there will be a lot of people in that hall, second guessed in no other way than as 'concert goers,' without further detail or distinction.

I'm beginning to think there are some who think that is a 'bad thing.' Without it, fine art cannot thrive -- that has been well established for centuries now. Without it, the arts do become dependent upon general 'popular taste' and that would turn them away from being fine art into far less distinguished works which would be a literal mediocrity. It is the fact the arts are 'fine' and not 'populist' which attracts people to the works in the first place.

Most of Europe sees a goodly chunk of each nation's money funneled into the fine arts, and there has yet to be a mass turnaround in voters demanding those funds be halted, which speaks well of those cultures and their 'masses' still believing there is some value to that cultural tradition whether every man woman and child consumes its 'product' or not. In the states, perhaps in your homeland, it is more touch and go, less systematic of what gets funded and how, but nonetheless that funding is somehow achieved, again keeping the determination of what gets produced in the fine arts out of the immediate control of 'the masses.'

It seems some, thinking perhaps they 'own' the artists, or that the artist has a direct obligation to the society or the general public, are not at all happy with that state of affairs. For those who think that way, I suggest a lifetime of training, some music manuscript paper, a pencil or pen, and having a go at it themselves, i.e. write what they want to hear to the best of their ability. That is all composers do, anyway: if the composers are not coming up with what 'the public' wants to hear, someone else must: if there is truly a real need, some individual or individuals will do exactly that.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> Ferde Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite is still popular.
> Howard Shore's entire film score for Lord Of The Rings is popular.
> Both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are still popular.
> Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, o.a. are still popular.
> ...


...except those are the things that fund orchestras today. They're playing that type of stuff - the crossover stuff bring a lot of money in, and of course most of the season of orchestras here is dominated by warhorses. The plebs love 'em, the musicians probably get bored of playing Beethoven and all that stuff (I mean his same warhorse stuff) every season (hell, they actually might have more fun playing LOTR? - at least its something different from what they've been doing for like 20-30 years), and the orchestra survives financially for another year (or does not go over the wafer thin knife edge).

So it does have consequence, definitely. I'm just stating that as a fact, esp. in light of the world economy today. This has been covered on other threads though.

I'm responding now as I didn't see this before my last post here, I skimmed over the thread.


----------



## drpraetorus (Aug 9, 2012)

Being popular helps pay the bills.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Ferde Grofe's Grand Canyon Suite is still popular.
> Howard Shore's entire film score for Lord Of The Rings is popular.
> Both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are still popular.
> Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, o.a. are still popular.
> ...


I do like the music from Zelda though, if only for nostalgic reasons.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

As a general reply to Petrb's last post on this thread, I would just say that whatever we argue here, its largely irrelevant. I agree with many things the composer Ned Rorem has said over the decades regarding the state of the classical music industry. I made a thread on him here, with a link/quote from an interview he did:
http://www.talkclassical.com/17538-fetishising-past.html

Even on that thread, people here who are into many kind of classical music (incl. newer/new musics), where kind of balking at the implications of what Rorem was saying. Basically classical music now, its a museum piece. He said in another interview I read that in the past the composer had a problem or challenge in getting accepted by his audience. But today, Rorem said, his problem is more basic. Its the fact that he hardly has any audience. The 'highbrow' or serious classical composer, that is.

As I have stated many times now in the past couple of weeks, I've been reading critiques of Modernist ideology, from some prominent composers of the 20th century. But I am not game enough to do a thread on it, as I would be torn apart by people on this forum with ideologies that conflict with my own, some of them I see as being of a very extreme nature.

So I'll let it rest at that. We can argue here, but what I see here, the changes in the classical music industry over the past 20 or more years, they are not heartening. Its a catch 22. If concert or radio programmers only pander to one extreme - the warhorse brigade - it will not save classical music. Neither will the other extreme succeed, which is what happened in some places in Europe after 1945, legitimisng extreme Modernist ideology with tactics that now with hindisight prove to have alienated many listeners, including composers who did not tow the line of that near religious dogma.

Dunno what's the solution but fact is that the best days of classical music is now far behind it. ANything that's done to fix it - whether pandering to highbrows or lowbrows or in between - comes across to me as a futile band aid solution. The decline set in long ago, and I see this trend as irreversable and as a fact of life. We can deny it all we like, we can glorifiy the European system (which bought us such controversial things as Boulez's baby IRCAM, which can hardly be viewed as for the benefit of more than a very small number of people, mainly people in the contemporary electronic music industry). So I do see as playing film scores as more relvant to the population as a whole than that. & having heard a number of compositions to come out of IRCAM (not only by Boulez, but his proteges of sorts) I don't really see that music as better than the best film scores by the likes of John Williams or Howard Shore. I do like some electronic music but it largely has not come out of IRCAM. I see things like that as a waste of money, just like I see the Wagner Ring to come to Melbourne next year to be the same thing. Its for a narrow segment of the classical listening public and at the service of some agenda which is largely irrelevant the majority of classical music listeners.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Sid James said:


> As I have stated many times now in the past couple of weeks, I've been reading critiques of Modernist ideology, from some prominent composers of the 20th century.


Sid, could you post a link to those critiques or tell me where you found them? I'd really be interested in learning more about what contemporary (or modern) composers feel about the status of classical music.



Sid James said:


> I do like some electronic music but it largely has not come out of IRCAM. I see things like that as a waste of money, just like I see the Wagner Ring to come to Melbourne next year to be the same thing. Its for a narrow segment of the classical listening public and at the service of some agenda which is largely irrelevant the majority of classical music listeners.


I can understand your view of IRCAM music since it reaches a relatively small percentage of listeners. I'm less clear about The Ring. I know that a minority of classical music listeners like opera or would attend one, but certainly good opera seems to draw a large audience. If a work can fill a large hall, how much better can one do in bringing a performance to the listening public? When you say it's a waste of money, do you mean that The Ring will not engage new listeners or even _potentially_ engage a significant portion of the listening community?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Wide popularity can be discouraging.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> Sid, could you post a link to those critiques or tell me where you found them? I'd really be interested in learning more about what contemporary (or modern) composers feel about the status of classical music.
> ...


Well its from secondary sources quoting a number of composers & musicians who had a 'beef' with Modernist ideology. Or rather how it turned out, how it became more extreme in various circles after 1945. So you can read up of the big names who wrote on music during that era, eg. Hindemith, Krenek, Ansermet where some biggies. Ironically they make more sense to me than people like Boulez, who back then was a zealot.

I'm kind of 'keeping mum' about my exact sources, because in the past when I have revealed them, a minority of members here shot me down for things like bias, distortion and then proceeded to discredit (implicitly and gutlessly, of course) both me and my source.

I feel I've become paranoid of these types of persecutions but I may change, given a change in vibe of this forum. I'm open to that.



> ...
> I can understand your view of IRCAM music since it reaches a relatively small percentage of listeners. I'm less clear about The Ring. I know that a minority of classical music listeners like opera or would attend one, but certainly good opera seems to draw a large audience. If a work can fill a large hall, how much better can one do in bringing a performance to the listening public? When you say it's a waste of money, do you mean that The Ring will not engage new listeners or even _potentially_ engage a significant portion of the listening community?


Again, I have read a recent critique of The Ring being done in Melbourne by a person here. I am loathe to post it on this forum, for similar reasons above. I agree with some things the writer points out, but not with everything he says. But whatever I say my point will be academic and hypothetical. People on this forum have pointed out that the Melbourne Ring is now sold out, has been for a couple of months or more. However I think that given what other things could have been done with that money (whic is the bit I agree with that writer about) its a waste of money. For this country, at this time (we've got a huge hole in our national budget), and with this type of music. So I see it as an agenda, but nevertheless it should now go ahead, esp. as its been planned for a long time and its sold out.


----------

