# What Audiences Want



## Freischutz

The music industry has a problem that all its demographics are guilty of. Listeners are guilty, recording companies are guilty, concert organisers are guilty, and the list goes on.

Our problem is assuming that it's intuitively obvious what kind of concert programmes "The Public" wants as though this knowledge is innate in us without exploration or research.

Of course, the kinds of programmes we all imagine Mr. and Mrs. Average hope for are ones whose composers have been dead for at least 150 years. Anything more modern than that is just _bound_ to put them off no matter how good it is, isn't it?

The problem with this is not just a marketing dilemma - it is a deep and cancerous contempt. Contempt for our own art and contempt for other people. The comedian Bill Hicks was once told that his stand-up material was clever and funny, but that TV executives were concerned it wouldn't "play in the midwest" - he responded, "If the people in the midwest only knew the contempt that television holds for them…"

It's also a patronising, self-fulfilling prophecy because so long as we keep modern music out of programmes, people are deprived of the opportunity to come to appreciate it. So of course if we keep programming more of the same, people are going to want more of the same because anything else becomes strange.

I could go on ranting for ages, but I'll leave it there for discussion - it'll be more fun bouncing off other people!


----------



## Guest

Yeah, "We have already decided, for all of you, what you are capable of enjoying."


----------



## violadude

Trying to figure out what people "want" based on market patterns is a little dubious IMO. After all, if we look at the most successful businesses in the food industry today, we might conclude that a large fraction of the population wants to die at age 50 of heart failure. At least I hope that's not what all these people actually want! :lol:


----------



## Guest

In which part of the world is the alleged market mal-functioning reckoned to be occurring in, where no composers who died less recently than 150 years ago have been programmed in concerts?


----------



## Freischutz

Partita said:


> I'm not clear whether this matter is raised solely in connection with concert programming, or does it cover the full range of classical music dissemination including radio, CDs as well?





Freischutz said:


> The music industry has a problem that all its demographics are guilty of. Listeners are guilty, recording companies are guilty, concert organisers are guilty, and the list goes on.





Partita said:


> If the matter relates to concert programming alone, which part of the world is the alleged market mal-functioning reckoned to be occurring in, where *no composers* who died less recently than 150 years ago have been programmed?





Freischutz said:


> the *kinds of programmes* we all *imagine* Mr. and Mrs. Average *hope for* are ones whose composers have been dead for at least 150 years.


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


----------



## mmsbls

We've discussed this question in several threads on TC (it's certainly not a problem to continue the discussion), but I think it's still an open question exactly how restrictive the programming is. Certainly radio stations seem to abhor post 1900 composers with a few minor exceptions. I think some large orchestras place relatively few modern works on their programs, but others are vastly less restrictive. I've never seen one that caters more to modern than earlier music, but some include modern and contemporary works fairly often. Of course, "fairly often" for one person might be relatively rare for another. There are also smaller groups that schedule some all contemporary or all modern programs. 

I think many of us at TC would prefer more modern works scheduled in concerts. I do believe that TC members are probably much more inclined as a group to explore and enjoy modern music. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. The question is how to affect a change that would be significant.

Large organizations are generally rather conservative in that they will not change unless forced to. The present situation roughly works. There are some orchestras that have filed for bankruptcy, but most plod along. Making significant changes to the programming is a risky idea. It might also be a good one; nevertheless, it's risky. Because large groups are risk adverse, I don't expect much change anytime soon.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> ...............................................


Sorry but you have quoted text which I revised some 20 minutes before your reply.

I asked you to explain in which part of the world the concert programming problem you have referred to exists.


----------



## hpowders

Where I live, concert programming is extremely conservative, focusing mostly on basic repertoire.

Before each concert is about to start, there seems to be a need for someone in authority to come out on stage to welcome the concert goers and explain something about what they are about to hear.

Needless to say, I no longer attend. Too bad. The armrests were pretty good.

They lost me, but I certainly wasn't among the target audience they were after.

Yet, if my intelligence wasn't insulted, I may have spent years subscribing to their concerts.


----------



## Winterreisender

Modern composers shouldn't just expect to be programmed alongside Beethoven in large concert venues, as if we modern audiences somehow owe them a living. Although critics and academics may wish to write their favourite modern composers into the same tradition as the "great masters", it is clear that many audiences aren't buying it. Modern classical composers, like all other modern musicians, should have to earn a fanbase the hard way, without sulking about audiences being too stupid / too conservative to understand them.


----------



## Guest

Some people seem to think that concert organisers, radio stations etc are no good unless they revise their programming to provide music that they happen to like, and should forget about the interests of the majority of listeners/concert goers. 

If concert organisers etc don't provide what's wanted by the majority, they will suffer the consequences in lost revenues. It's far better to leave the market to discipline incompetent concert organisers (if such exist). Non-market solutions imposed in market situations are a recipe for disaster, as if this is not obvious.


----------



## Freischutz

mmsbls said:


> We've discussed this question in several threads on TC (it's certainly not a problem to continue the discussion), but I think it's still an open question exactly how restrictive the programming is ...


I don't so much mind about getting into the nitty-gritty of quantifying the exact balance of old and new music on programmes - what matters more to me is this persistent condescending attitude that we all somehow know already what other people want to listen to when we haven't even begun a true cultural exploration of new music. At best it's short-sighted, at worst it's snobbery, and it's a nasty strain of thought that is pervasive in a lot of different kinds of media, not just music.



Partita said:


> Sorry but you have quoted text which I revised some 20 minutes before your reply.


No, you just removed the first half. The second half I still responded to with a requote is the same, and my requote emphasises how you are asking a question based on a misreading.



Winterreisender said:


> Modern composers shouldn't just expect to be programmed alongside Beethoven in large concert venues, as if we modern audiences somehow owe them a living. Although critics and academics may wish to write their favourite modern composers into the same tradition as the "great masters", it is clear that many audiences aren't buying it. Modern classical composers, like all other modern musicians, should have to earn a fanbase the hard way, without sulking about audiences being too stupid / too conservative to understand them.


Show me the modern composers with this sense of entitlement. Show me the modern composers not trying to earn their fanbases. Show me the modern composers sulking because their audiences are stupid. This is a profound misunderstanding of my post and slander against people you don't know. Smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Freischutz

Partita said:


> *If concert organisers etc don't provide what's wanted by the majority*


It amazes me how quickly we go full circle back onto the presupposition that this entire thread calls into question without justifying it. Say it again, say it again, say it again - repetition will make it true.

_You don't know what the majority wants and the market is incapable of determining it._


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> Show me the modern composers with this sense of entitlement. Show me the modern composers not trying to earn their fanbases. Show me the modern composers sulking because their audiences are stupid. This is a profound misunderstanding of my post and slander against people you don't know. Smoke and mirrors.


As for sense of entitlement, how about the modern composers who rely on money from the government to fund their composition, as if their music is so important that they should be paid to write it, even if no-one wants to pay to hear it?


----------



## Bulldog

Freischutz said:


> It amazes me how quickly we go full circle back onto the presupposition that this entire thread calls into question without justifying it. Say it again, say it again, say it again - repetition will make it true.
> 
> _You don't know what the majority wants and the market is incapable of determining it._


I think the market is certainly capable, but let's assume for the moment that you are correct. What's your proposed solution to the problem? Is there really any problem to solve?


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford

Well, I think that the radio broadcasters, concert directors and musicians should still play a lot of the older music that is more familiar, but start introducing the public to...let's say 15% of music that is modern. That will solve two problems. First, it will maintain the people's interest when they see the familiar selections that are scheduled to be played, and, secondly, it will start giving people a new taste for the many wonderful more modern works by composers and masters of music in our day.


----------



## Taggart

OK Classic FM gets excoriated but if we look at it's list of top 300 favourites for 2013, chosen by the listeners, the top 50 has quite a few early 20th century works:

49 Spiegel im Spiegel - Arvo Pärt
48 Five Variants of Dives and Lazarus Vaughan Williams, Ralph
36 The Ashokan Farewell Ungar, Jay
35 Rhapsody in Blue Gershwin, George
34 Piano Concerto No.2 in F major Opus 102 Dmitri Shostakovich
32 Concierto de Aranjuez Joaquín Rodrigo
20 The Lord of The Rings Shore, Howard
17 Adagio for Strings Barber, Samuel
16 The Armed Man Jenkins, Karl
14 The Planets Holst, Gustav
5 The Elder Scrolls Series Soule, Jeremy
4 Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis Vaughan Williams, Ralph
3 Final Fantasy Series Uematsu, Nobuo
2 The Lark Ascending Vaughan Williams, Ralph

Umm, that's 15 out of 50 in the 20th century, and I've missed out some Elgar and Rachmaninov

Other points

Dambusters - Eric Coates 293
Sleep - Eric Whitacre 286
Divenire - Ludovico Einaudi 278
Violin Concerto - Philip Glass 276

It's a fairly catholic collection and I think those who want "more up to date music" may not be listening because they feel Classic FM is too vox pop. We've also had people on here pushing for game music on the list, so if you *do *want to see "more up to date music" a) vote for it and b) lobby for it.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> It amazes me how quickly we go full circle back onto the presupposition that this entire thread calls into question without justifying it. Say it again, say it again, say it again - repetition will make it true.
> 
> _You don't know what the majority wants and the market is incapable of determining it._


You seem to be suggesting that listeners, radio stations, and recording companies and concert programmers are guilty of a conspiracy against modern music. This simply is not tenable.

How can listeners be guilty of anything? They do not exist to serve the interests of modern composers. If they do not want to listen to modern material, that is tough for the producers of the material. If the latter cannot earn a living, and are worried about it, they should take up some other occupation where they might hope to stand a better chance.

Radio stations cannot simply programme classical music against what their market research tells then that their audiences expect and require. They are not normally run by stupid ill-informed people, as you glibly seem to assume. There is competition for listeners to radio stations, and if they play musical material that is not liked they will suffer the risk of losing part of those audiences, as any gains would be offset by bigger losses amongst their existing clientele. Nor do radio stations exist to promote the interests of modern composers. [The BBC is a slight possible exception, which I won't delve into further here, but suffice to say that they do play some modern material in part of their scheduling].

I would very much doubt that concert programmers' schedules and record companies' classical music portfolios are biased against modern composers. Any apparent gap does not mean bias exists, but rather that there is inadequate demand to justify performance or stocking, as the case may be. In regard to record companies they sell what they can in order to make the best living they can for their staff and shareholders. If any fail to do a good job, they will not last long. This is part of the capitalist system in most Western countries, and in the process consumers' interests are normally well catered for unless there are major market failures. In the context of the market for classical music, I am not aware of any such failures unless you are implying that lack of information about the "merits" of modern music might be one, in which case it seems highly fanciful and wishful thinking.


----------



## Taggart

Following on from @Partita, one might convincingly argue that it is in the record companies' best interests to promote modern music. After all, once you've got your four or five complete sets of Beethoven or Hadyn or <insert composer of choice> by the best artists, what can they sell you? *New Music* - it's the only sensible way to go. And if the record companies want to plug the new stuff, I'm sure the dj's will play it.

The interesting thing is that the Early Music festival gets York but the Contemporary Music festival gets .... Huddersfield.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> You seem to be suggesting that listeners, radio stations, and recording companies and concert programmers are guilty of a conspiracy against modern music. This simply is not tenable.


Conspiracy is a loaded term. Your term, not Freischutz's. His point is about attitudes, attitudes that are deeply entrenched.

Perhaps if we can keep the conversation focused on those attitudes, we can create a different atmosphere, an atmosphere more like that of Haydn's time, when audiences went to concerts _in order to_ hear new music. Maybe if we know how and when and even why the attitude changed from "new is better" to "old is better" we can go on to create a situation in which both can dwell together successfully.

Problem, of course, as several posts indicates, is that people who hold that attitude are invested in making sure that the millennium is never ushered in, as it were. "Modern music" is a bugbear, a hobgoblin, something to be suspicious of, _sound unheard._ It is generally anonymous, too, getting no more specific than "modern music," so one gets the very clear idea that experience has very little to do with it. Sound unheard. Sound unheard.

One can see what's going on by looking at what happens when a particular piece or other is heard. Either the mind remains closed and the ears send the message "chaotic crap" to the brain, or there's this moment of extreme surprise: "wow, I heard this 'modern' piece, and I actually liked it!!" Well, yeah. There's a lot of really cool music out there. Some of it you might like, if you ever get a chance (which you rarely do) to hear it. You might even get to the point of realizing that "modern music" is not a uniform, homogeneous bunch of equally noisy and chaotic crap. You might even get to the point of realizing that what you've been calling noisy and chaotic is possibly quite beautiful and makes perfect sense. It's happened to other listeners, why not to you, too?

I always wonder the same thing when topics like this arise. What do you have to lose?

Far as I can see, you have only your deaf prejudices to lose. What do you have to gain? The whole world. Fortunately, in spite of the best efforts of programmers and musical organizations everywhere, people do keep making new things. They are out there. They can, with effort, be found. They can, with money and with praise, be encouraged. They could, if we could figure out how to refurbish our attitudes, be an incredibly rewarding source of beauty and delight. It will take some work, but to those of us who already love this stuff, it will be work we think is worth doing.


----------



## Wood

some guy said:


> Conspiracy is a loaded term. Your term, not Freischutz's. His point is about attitudes, attitudes that are deeply entrenched.
> 
> Perhaps if we can keep the conversation focused on those attitudes, we can create a different atmosphere, an atmosphere more like that of Haydn's time, when audiences went to concerts _in order to_ hear new music. Maybe if we know how and when and even why the attitude changed from "new is better" to "old is better" we can go on to create a situation in which both can dwell together successfully.
> 
> Problem, of course, as several posts indicates, is that people who hold that attitude are invested in making sure that the millennium is never ushered in, as it were. "Modern music" is a bugbear, a hobgoblin, something to be suspicious of, _sound unheard._ It is generally anonymous, too, getting no more specific than "modern music," so one gets the very clear idea that experience has very little to do with it. Sound unheard. Sound unheard.
> 
> One can see what's going on by looking at what happens when a particular piece or other is heard. Either the mind remains closed and the ears send the message "chaotic crap" to the brain, or there's this moment of extreme surprise: "wow, I heard this 'modern' piece, and I actually liked it!!" Well, yeah. There's a lot of really cool music out there. Some of it you might like, if you ever get a chance (which you rarely do) to hear it. You might even get to the point of realizing that "modern music" is not a uniform, homogeneous bunch of equally noisy and chaotic crap. You might even get to the point of realizing that what you've been calling noisy and chaotic is possibly quite beautiful and makes perfect sense. It's happened to other listeners, why not to you, too?
> 
> I always wonder the same thing when topics like this arise. What do you have to lose?
> 
> Far as I can see, you have only your deaf prejudices to lose. What do you have to gain? The whole world. Fortunately, in spite of the best efforts of programmers and musical organizations everywhere, people do keep making new things. They are out there. They can, with effort, be found. They can, with money and with praise, be encouraged. They could, if we could figure out how to refurbish our attitudes, be an incredibly rewarding source of beauty and delight. It will take some work, but to those of us who already love this stuff, it will be work we think is worth doing.


You are being too simplistic and more than a little chippy. I'm sure I'm not the only person who is open to new music, but can't really get a handle on who or what to listen to from the last 30 years or so.

Rather than constantly denigrating your fellow members, you may find that posts spreading your knowledge of this music will receive some positive feedback.

For those who are not on the same page, then fine, let them be but we do not all have 'deaf prejudices'.

How about you start a regular thread called 'Some Guy's Tuesday Recording' where each week you introduce us to a key modern recording most of us do not know, plus a few notes on the composer etc.

You might be surprised by the response.


----------



## Polyphemus

At the risk of repeating myself we the public are at the mercy of commercial enterprises. The concert halls want bums on seats, the radio stations want listeners and the associated sales outlets want marketable product which will have a short shelf life.
Look at the Classic FM favourites list kindly supplied by Taggart. Where are the major works, are there no operas or oratorio's that qualify as favourites. I confess I do not know all of the works mentioned in the list but of the ones I am aware of they fit nicely into a radio stations playlist. I am working on the assumption that Classic FM is a commercial enterprise. In Ireland we got a Classical music radio station which is pretty dire. Single movements from symphonies, concerti etc. The on laudable thing it does however is that it broadcasts the Friday night subscription concert from the National Concert Hall each Friday night. Other than that its more like a commercial pop station.
In the U K at least the BBC seems to keep the flag flying.
So i do not think I will see a performance of Penderecki's 'Utrenja' in Dublin anytime soon, whereas I do know with absolute certainty that Messiah will play to packed houses throughout the country later in the year.


----------



## KenOC

Polyphemus said:


> At the risk of repeating myself we the public are at the mercy of commercial enterprises. The concert halls want bums on seats, the radio stations want listeners and the associated sales outlets want marketable product which will have a short shelf life.


Well, people who make music do want to be paid. But perhaps a different model is called for. We might look back to the USSR for an example that produced some pretty good music. Any takers?


----------



## Winterreisender

some guy said:


> One can see what's going on by looking at what happens when a particular piece or other is heard. Either the mind remains closed and the ears send the message "chaotic crap" to the brain, or there's this moment of extreme surprise: "wow, I heard this 'modern' piece, and I actually liked it!!"


What about the third reaction: one approaches the piece with open mind but still decides it is "chaotic crap." Or are you assuming that, when someone doesn't like a modern piece, the fault is always with the listener?


----------



## Levanda

KenOC said:


> Well, people who make music do want to be paid. But perhaps a different model is called for. We might look back to the USSR for an example that produced some pretty good music. Any takers?


Just for interest forgive me for silly question why USSR produced good music, is that because paid by State or maybe Russia just more intellectual country.


----------



## KenOC

Levanda said:


> Just for interest forgive me for silly question why USSR produced good music, is that because paid by State or maybe Russia just more intellectual country.


Possibly over-simplistic answer: Because they had some good composers.


----------



## Mahlerian

Winterreisender said:


> What about the third reaction: one approaches the piece with open mind but still decides it is "chaotic crap." Or are you assuming that, when someone doesn't like a modern piece, the fault is always with the listener?


Disliking something and thinking it's "chaotic crap" are separate things.


----------



## Bulldog

Winterreisender said:


> What about the third reaction: one approaches the piece with open mind but still decides it is "chaotic crap." Or are you assuming that, when someone doesn't like a modern piece, the fault is always with the listener?


I trust you would agree that the listener is never at fault.


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> As for sense of entitlement, how about the modern composers who rely on money from the government to fund their composition, as if their music is so important that they should be paid to write it, even if no-one wants to pay to hear it?


Your assertions without examples are loaded with all kinds of political baggage that I'm cautious of getting into because it will open a bag of explosives that will tear apart the musical conversation. The politest I can manage is to refuse to go further with you by appealing to the words that Bertrand Russell sent to Sir Oswald Mosley (obviously not the fascistic parts - just the avoidance of conversation with someone whose ideology is too far-flung to result in fruitful conversation):












Bulldog said:


> I think the market is certainly capable, but let's assume for the moment that you are correct. What's your proposed solution to the problem? Is there really any problem to solve?


I'm not in the business of social engineering, and I'm not here preaching how to run the music industry. I made a post pointing out a common fallacy in the way listeners think about other listeners, and as a community of listeners I hope to encourage us all to adopt a less assuming, less contemptuous attitude towards others.



Partita said:


> You seem to be suggesting that listeners, radio stations, and recording companies and concert programmers are guilty of a conspiracy against modern music.


No, I'm not.



Partita said:


> If they do not want to listen to modern material


You don't know what the average listener wants (I'm going to have to start counting how many times I say this!).



Partita said:


> Radio stations cannot simply programme classical music against what their market research tells then that their audiences expect and require. They are not normally run by stupid ill-informed people, as you glibly seem to assume.


Why do you continually invent and attribute thoughts to me that I don't hold? I've said nothing of stupidity.

Just like I said of the attitude earlier, market research is a self-fulfilling endeavour - when you have already provided listeners with nothing but common practice harmony, they're going to tell you that that's all they want. Even they underestimate their own taste for exploration because of the sheer monotony of cultural experience! The whole notion of reliable markets is undermined by suppositions that are untrue: people are not well-informed (they don't have sufficient exposure to many varieties of music), they are not rational (no humans are) and they don't always act in their own self-interest, yet these are the pillars that are used to justify appeals to bunk like market research and benevolent capitalism. They don't work.



Partita said:


> Nor do radio stations exist to promote the interests of modern composers.


I don't suggest they do, but part of the problem - part of the contemporary cultural malaise - is the framing of _everything_ in terms of _who it serves_. How about _what_ it serves? Like the improvement of a shared cultural commons? No, you're right, I'm being fanciful - after all that talk of music not being a commodity, it turns out that all our aesthetic experiences are still mediated by money.



Partita said:


> Any apparent gap does not mean bias exists, but rather that there is inadequate demand to justify performance or stocking, as the case may be.


It doesn't matter how you justify it, it is still a bias. Whether it's because of the conspiracy that isn't part of my imagination or because of reliable market forces that are only a figment of yours, a bias is a bias.


----------



## quack

KenOC said:


> Possibly over-simplistic answer: Because they had some good composers.


All these questions about the audience for modern music tend to ignore one huge factor: the rise of popular music. Western popular music and jazz was discouraged in the Soviet Union at various times leaving more space for classical composers. The US might have had Copland, Bernstein and Cage but more importantly they had Louis Armstrong, Glen Miller and Elvis, the UK might have had Britten and Birtwistle but more importantly they had the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.

When people decry how little modern music is programmed they are focusing on the classical music/art music genre deliberately avoiding how much modern music _is_ being listened to. This is where the real competition is, not the next new version of Beethoven's symphonies but the popular music that isn't attempting to be high culture.

Classical music is a niche in the 21st century listening habits and modern classical is a niche in the niche. Classical is a deliberately backwards looking genre with even a name that looks backwards. It is called classical because it is imitating classical civilisation, even though at the time and still now we know little of ancient music. Lots of genres look backwards, they heyday of jazz and blues were long ago despite both still being made, the same with classic rock, even hip hop had a golden age over 20 years ago. It is little wonder that classical is largely fossilised around the 18th/19th centuries. The biggest growth in recent years in the classical world hasn't been spectralism, or something similar, it has been HIP baroque.

Programming isn't really about "wants" it is more about "expectations". When classical can supposedly span all the way from gregorian chant to electro-acoustic works, concert expectations are managed by giving people the expected centre ground of classical, which usually isn't even classical it is romantic. If the audience suddenly wanted Xenakis, because they heard him on a cat food commercial and there was a general Xenakis buzz then concert promoters would jump at the chance to snare some audience, they wouldn't tut and say that Xenakis isn't good art and not good for us. When programming does creep forward though into modern works it is usually romantic pastiche film scores.

Yes the whole thing is a vicious circle but it isn't utterly controlled by modern music haters. There are gatekeepers of taste trying to keep us rooted in Beethoven and we perhaps unwittingly become those gatekeepers when we discuss Dudamel's new Beethoven cycle rather than Pierluigi Billone's latest work. But people are never going to be mainly drawn to classical for its forward looking inventiveness, despite there being plenty of that, people come to classical for the established certainty of quality. They get that certainty in the warhorses not the early music archeology, the 19th century hinterlands or the unknown territory of the late 20th century neo-classical, post-romantic, postmodern, avant-garde whatevers.

The anti-modern bias in classical music is part of what classical music is and part of its appeal. Trying to rid classical of that bias will most likely break apart the unwieldy genre.


----------



## PetrB

Levanda said:


> Just for interest forgive me for silly question why USSR produced good music, is that because paid by State or maybe Russia just more intellectual country.


Same reason there is great music from other nations that embrace classical music -- with enough of an audience and enough of a general population, talent is nearly irrepressible, so, with millions of citizens, a few are bound to be really fine artists.


----------



## BurningDesire

Winterreisender said:


> Modern composers shouldn't just expect to be programmed alongside Beethoven in large concert venues, as if we modern audiences somehow owe them a living. Although critics and academics may wish to write their favourite modern composers into the same tradition as the "great masters", it is clear that many audiences aren't buying it. Modern classical composers, like all other modern musicians, should have to earn a fanbase the hard way, without sulking about audiences being too stupid / too conservative to understand them.


Yeah... no. You can't say that when the problem is more that the music isn't programmed simply because it is modern. Most orchestras will rarely play anything new, regardless of whether its some ultra-modern atonal work or some tonal, neo-Romantic work. You can't say that its just composers being to crap to succeed when they're not even given a chance.


----------



## arpeggio

*I have no idea*

I really do not know the answer to this issue.

Some carry on as if the audience is flawless in its judgments. I am sure we can come up with many situations where there was a negative reaction from the audience when a great work was premiered. I think this occurred at the premier of Tchaikovsky's _Swan Lake_. I am sure that many of you can confirm this and come up with other examples.

An other inconsistency I have observed is how many use the audience to support their positions toward modern music. Since the majority of audiences prefer Bach to Elliot Carter, Carter must be bad and anyone who enjoys listening to his music is wasting their time.

Yet in another thread, in spite of his popularity, there are members who are unmercilessly trashing Mahler. I do not understand how one can use the judgment of the audience to support their animus toward modern music but if the audience happens to approve of the music of an extremely popular composer like Mozart or Wagner or Mahler their opinions are invalid.


----------



## KenOC

In the US, at least, it all starts with money. That $60 million hall has to be paid for, the orchestra wants its $100K/year salaries, and the conductor is expecting his million or so. So...cash flow. That comes from pretty much *exactly* two sources: Donors (maybe 60%) and ticket-buyers (maybe 40%). There's about nil in government money.

Donors tend to donate when the orchestra is reaching the community, most easily determined by those seats being filled. So the ticket buyers have a whole lot to say about what gets programmed! If you want to keep your orchestra's head above water, you have to program what your audience wants to hear.

If that isn't what *you* want to hear, well...that's a shame.


----------



## dgee

Don't forget programming is only one part of the concert experience. Research suggests soloists and conductors are a lot more important than programme - familiar soloists are great for revenue (that's why so many has-beens keep trundling along well past use by dates, especially noticeable for singers!) and some rapport with a MD can reap dividends (I'm a big fan of them talking before the piece!). Concerts with choirs do well because the choirs tend to be semi-pro at best so lots of friends and family like to come to see chums in concert. Oldies (and that's most concert goers, let's face it) like comfy seats, good climate control and ample parking and that will definitely affect crowds for some venues. 

What does this mean for programming? I'd like to think it means you can look after your audience with some of the above and then take some "risks" - which is great for the musicians cos then they can play some a bit out of the ordinary (and most of them love that!)


----------



## Guest

quack said:


> The anti-modern bias in classical music is part of what classical music is and part of its appeal. Trying to rid classical of that bias will most likely break apart the unwieldy genre.


Well, the first part is certainly true. And has been ever since 1810 (though the debate about the relative merits of new and old would last for another sixty years at least).

The second part? Roll on that day.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> In the US, at least, it all starts with money. That $60 million hall has to be paid for, the orchestra wants its $100K/year salaries, and the conductor is expecting his million or so. *So...cash flow.* That comes from pretty much *exactly* two sources: Donors (maybe 60%) and ticket-buyers (maybe 40%). There's about nil in government money.
> 
> Donors tend to donate when the orchestra is reaching the community, most easily determined by those seats being filled. So the ticket buyers have a whole lot to say about what gets programmed! If you want to keep your orchestra's head above water, you have to program what your audience wants to hear.
> 
> If that isn't what *you* want to hear, well...that's a shame.


Yes it's a matter of cash flow.

The only minor quibble I might have is that it's not the $60 million hall that comes first, and then a matter of finding audiences to justify the expenditure. It's more likely the other way round with a business group estimating prospective demand for concert seats based on programmes they reckon listeners want to hear in order to fill the seats, and then considering the capital outlays necessary to meet the demand. If that's what you meant, fine.

It all boils down to the same conclusion that no one is going to risk a costly investment going sour by systematically programming material that lies outside the original model, unless of course listeners' taste change unexpectedly.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> Just like I said of the attitude earlier, market research is a self-fulfilling endeavour - when you have already provided listeners with nothing but common practice harmony, they're going to tell you that that's all they want. Even they underestimate their own taste for exploration because of the sheer monotony of cultural experience! The whole notion of reliable markets is undermined by suppositions that are untrue: people are not well-informed (they don't have sufficient exposure to many varieties of music), they are not rational (no humans are) and they don't always act in their own self-interest, yet these are the pillars that are used to justify appeals to bunk like market research and benevolent capitalism. They don't work.


I guessed it was a set of opinions like this that lurked behind this thread. It's quite a confession of how ignorant you consider the typical music listener to be, and how sadly exploitative you reckon the capitalist system is in taking advantage of this alleged ignorance.


----------



## Guest

quack said:


> All these questions about the audience for modern music tend to ignore one huge factor: the rise of popular music. Western popular music and jazz was discouraged in the Soviet Union at various times leaving more space for classical composers. The US might have had Copland, Bernstein and Cage but more importantly they had Louis Armstrong, Glen Miller and Elvis, the UK might have had Britten and Birtwistle but more importantly they had the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.
> 
> etc


It is obviously correct that listeners' tastes in music have changed over the past century or so, but much more so in favour of completely different genres. This therefore gives the lie to the suggestion that consumers lack the ability to explore other musical genres, and by implication may need to to spoon-fed the kind of more esoteric modern classical material that some people apparently believe should be more highly valued.

The problem, if any, is not rigidity or inflexibility in consumers' musical tastes.The fact that contemporary classical music is not as popular as some advocates would like has nothing whatsoever to do various alleged failures of the capitalist system causing an under-emphasis on the presentation of this form, but the fact that most consumers don't want it and far prefer other styles completely, and/or earlier classical music.

Even among the sub-group of dedicated classical music afficionados, there can't be many that haven't sampled some of the new offerings, but have decided that it's not for them, and never likely to be. I have tried it, like some but am either indifferent or not keen on most. Life is too short to worry about exploring every possible musical avenue that might conceivably provide more overall enjoyment than the mix I enjoy at present. This is the more so when one factors in the opportunity cost of time spent searching, and the acquisition cost of new material, that may all be a waste.


----------



## Nereffid

quack said:


> All these questions about the audience for modern music tend to ignore one huge factor: the rise of popular music. Western popular music and jazz was discouraged in the Soviet Union at various times leaving more space for classical composers. The US might have had Copland, Bernstein and Cage but more importantly they had Louis Armstrong, Glen Miller and Elvis, the UK might have had Britten and Birtwistle but more importantly they had the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.
> 
> When people decry how little modern music is programmed they are focusing on the classical music/art music genre deliberately avoiding how much modern music _is_ being listened to. This is where the real competition is, not the next new version of Beethoven's symphonies but the popular music that isn't attempting to be high culture.
> 
> Classical music is a niche in the 21st century listening habits and modern classical is a niche in the niche. Classical is a deliberately backwards looking genre with even a name that looks backwards. It is called classical because it is imitating classical civilisation, even though at the time and still now we know little of ancient music. Lots of genres look backwards, they heyday of jazz and blues were long ago despite both still being made, the same with classic rock, even hip hop had a golden age over 20 years ago. It is little wonder that classical is largely fossilised around the 18th/19th centuries. The biggest growth in recent years in the classical world hasn't been spectralism, or something similar, it has been HIP baroque.
> 
> Programming isn't really about "wants" it is more about "expectations". When classical can supposedly span all the way from gregorian chant to electro-acoustic works, concert expectations are managed by giving people the expected centre ground of classical, which usually isn't even classical it is romantic. If the audience suddenly wanted Xenakis, because they heard him on a cat food commercial and there was a general Xenakis buzz then concert promoters would jump at the chance to snare some audience, they wouldn't tut and say that Xenakis isn't good art and not good for us. When programming does creep forward though into modern works it is usually romantic pastiche film scores.
> 
> Yes the whole thing is a vicious circle but it isn't utterly controlled by modern music haters. There are gatekeepers of taste trying to keep us rooted in Beethoven and we perhaps unwittingly become those gatekeepers when we discuss Dudamel's new Beethoven cycle rather than Pierluigi Billone's latest work. But people are never going to be mainly drawn to classical for its forward looking inventiveness, despite there being plenty of that, people come to classical for the established certainty of quality. They get that certainty in the warhorses not the early music archeology, the 19th century hinterlands or the unknown territory of the late 20th century neo-classical, post-romantic, postmodern, avant-garde whatevers.
> 
> The anti-modern bias in classical music is part of what classical music is and part of its appeal. Trying to rid classical of that bias will most likely break apart the unwieldy genre.


This is it.
While I have plenty of sympathy for the idea that the majority of people are unconsciously dissatisfied with the culture they consume and would ultimately be a lot happier if they were exposed to more innovation, more originality, more challenging art, there's a part of me that doesn't believe that for a second.
It's the same with _every_ cultural activity - why don't the multiplexes show art movies? why don't science fiction authors win the Booker Prize? why does Justin Bieber sell more records than The Handsome Family? why do people watch reality TV instead of proper thoughtful documentaries? etc etc
Why doesn't The Public like the stuff we like?
To which the answer is, there _is_ no "The Public". There is no "the audience", just multiple overlapping audiences of varying sizes. Classical music is a big enough concept to have many different audiences, and the particular audience you like to be in might not be the audience that has lots of money and resources.

(Incidentally, anyone who in 2014 thinks that the recording industry doesn't do enough for modern or niche classical music is probably certifiably insane.)


----------



## BurningDesire

Partita said:


> I guessed it was a set of opinions like this that lurked behind this thread. It's quite a confession of how ignorant you consider the typical music listener to be, and how sadly exploitative you reckon the capitalist system is in taking advantage of this alleged ignorance.


Not really. If a person isn't exposed to something, they will likely not seek it out on their own, unless they're a particularly obsessive lover of music, and even then, if they don't know there is a thing out there, they will only happen upon it by chance. The argument of this thread is that programmers of concerts and radio (and TV too, and producers of pretty much any media) heavily underestimate audiences and/or make huge assumptions about what will be popular, and flood the market with that, to the detriment of diverse art. If you never ever heard Bach, would you seek his music out? It doesn't matter how amazing something is if its basically kept from you by arbiters like concert programmers.


----------



## Taggart

quack said:


> All these questions about the audience for modern music tend to ignore one huge factor: the rise of popular music. Western popular music and jazz was discouraged in the Soviet Union at various times leaving more space for classical composers. The US might have had Copland, Bernstein and Cage but more importantly they had Louis Armstrong, Glen Miller and Elvis, the UK might have had Britten and Birtwistle but more importantly they had the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.
> 
> When people decry how little modern music is programmed they are focusing on the classical music/art music genre deliberately avoiding how much modern music _is_ being listened to. This is where the real competition is, not the next new version of Beethoven's symphonies but the popular music that isn't attempting to be high culture.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The anti-modern bias in classical music is part of what classical music is and part of its appeal. Trying to rid classical of that bias will most likely break apart the unwieldy genre.


There has always been "popular" music; there has always been "art" music. Thing is they cross-fertilised - look at Folia for example or L'homme armé. Purcell is tied in with all sorts of folk and dance music. Bach used folk tunes in his dance suites. Chopin used them too. The aim of the "folk revival" composers of the late 19th and early 20th century wasn't to find a "new language" but rather to restore the old one. Folk tunes are often eminently hummable, catchy and allow a degree of subtlety so that they can be varied to suit the development of the story in a song or ballad.

I don't think classical music has an anti-modern bias. Yes, we like our standards - the things we know and love and return to; but we also like the thrill of the new - something shiny and bright and catchy to entertain us and make us think.


----------



## Andolink

While my musical tastes are very far from mainstream, I too resent the assumption that the listening public is unable to decide for themselves what they want to hear and need some sort of government directed arm-twisting because the music marketplace is somehow "broken". I've been amazed at how much the availability of esoteric and avant garde music has grown since I first got into "weird" music in the late '70's. It's true, I'm talking mostly about recorded music but still, the amount of choice in the realm of new modernist types of music is astounding and it's the music marketplace that makes it economically viable to produce and sell it or it wouldn't be out there at all.


----------



## Winterreisender

BurningDesire said:


> Yeah... no. You can't say that when the problem is more that the music isn't programmed simply because it is modern. Most orchestras will rarely play anything new, regardless of whether its some ultra-modern atonal work or some tonal, neo-Romantic work. You can't say that its just composers being to crap to succeed when they're not even given a chance.


Well that's not quite true as there are some modern composers whose work is regularly programmed, e.g. Arvo Part, James MacMillan, John Rutter, John Williams, Karl Jenkins and Einaudi. But as I said in the "What's wrong wth this picture?" thread, any modern composer who achieves popular appeal is destined to be damned by critics and academics.


----------



## DavidA

As concert going is expensive, I will only go to programmes I know I'm going to enjoy. I just refuse to spend £40 upwards to hear some atonal racket that masquerades as music. And I'm not against 'modern' composers as the last concert we attended was Beitten's War Requiem which we really enjoyed. Just the experience has to be enjoyable for me to part with my money.
As I expect 90% of the concert going public feel the same way, that is why managements are reluctant to programme music which people are not going to come to hear.


----------



## Guest

BurningDesire said:


> Not really. If a person isn't exposed to something, they will likely not seek it out on their own, unless they're a particularly obsessive lover of music, and even then, if they don't know there is a thing out there, they will only happen upon it by chance. The argument of this thread is that programmers of concerts and radio (and TV too, and producers of pretty much any media) heavily underestimate audiences and/or make huge assumptions about what will be popular, and flood the market with that, to the detriment of diverse art. If you never ever heard Bach, would you seek his music out? It doesn't matter how amazing something is if its basically kept from you by arbiters like concert programmers.


I am not clear what exactly you are proposing by way of concert programmers and other media presenters changing the way they do things presently, other than a vague complaint that potentially great music is being denied to the public because of over-conservative myopia.

If we take a hypothetical concert or radio broadcast, would you be prepared to under-write the cost of any losses that might ensue from departing from the original schedule and inserting something unknown and modern, assuming the losses could be quantified? If not, who should bear this cost?


----------



## DavidA

BurningDesire said:


> Not really. If a person isn't exposed to something, they will likely not seek it out on their own, unless they're a particularly obsessive lover of music, and even then, if they don't know there is a thing out there, they will only happen upon it by chance. The argument of this thread is that programmers of concerts and radio (and TV too, and producers of pretty much any media) heavily underestimate audiences and/or make huge assumptions about what will be popular, and flood the market with that, to the detriment of diverse art. If you never ever heard Bach, would you seek his music out? It doesn't matter how amazing something is if its basically kept from you by arbiters like concert programmers.


'To the detriment of diverse art' - if by diverse you mean music that is enjoyable and non-enjoyable, I'll stick to what I enjoy. I have an aversion to being made to listen to something because someone somewhere says it is art. If I do not enjoy the experience I turn it off. The same with idiot operatic producers. I do not see why I should pay to see their 'vision' of the work when it does not accord with that of the composer. 
We have the radio so if radio 3 want to broadcast modern stuff then fine. I have the off switch when I don't like it. Sometimes a modern piece will catch the fancy of listeners like Taverner's Protecting Veil did. Then managers will be willing to chance a performance.


----------



## Guest

I often think that the most vociferous element proclaiming the need for reform in the way concerts/radio programmes are organised is not coming from aggrieved listeners who want to hear more of this contemporary music, but far more so from the composers of the stuff or their stooges. 

It would seem to me that their true aim is to make the ordinary classical music listener feel like some kind of "Philistine", while they occupy the high ground of musical sophistication. All manner of very dubious arguments have been conjured up in attempt to make us feel guilty, some of the advocates even daring to suggest that our lives will be enhanced if we follow their path to a new musical Nirvana. 

It's nothing more than sophistry, and cuts absolutely no ice with me. The chances are that some of them reckon that the world owes them a living merely because they have composed a few pieces of music that they reckon are wonderful. Even if they are "wonderful" in some sense, there is likely an over-supply of this kind of material, and is thus commercially worthless.


----------



## Freischutz

There have been some good points made overnight - it's a shame not everyone wants to read or understand them!


----------



## DavidA

Partita said:


> I often think that the most vociferous element proclaiming the need for reform in the way concerts/radio programmes are organised is not coming from aggrieved listeners who want to hear more of this contemporary music, but far more so from the composers of the stuff or their stooges.
> 
> It would seem to me that their true aim is to make the ordinary classical music listener feel like some kind of "Philistine", while they occupy the high ground of musical sophistication. All manner of very dubious arguments have been conjured up in attempt to make us feel guilty, some of the advocates even daring to suggest that our lives will be enhanced if we follow their path to a new musical Nirvana.
> 
> It's nothing more than sophistry, and cuts absolutely no ice with me. The chances are that some of them reckon that the world owes them a living merely because they have composed a few pieces of music that they reckon are wonderful. Even if they are "wonderful" in some sense, there is likely an over-supply of this kind of material, and is thus commercially worthless.


I can remember a Sir Peter Hall, when director of the National Theatre, moaning about lack of subsidy and audience support. The fact is the plays he wanted to put on were dire and no-one wanted to see them!


----------



## Wood

Partita said:


> I guessed it was a set of opinions like this that lurked behind this thread. It's quite a confession of how ignorant you consider the typical music listener to be, and how sadly exploitative you reckon the capitalist system is in taking advantage of this alleged ignorance.


Nevertheless, a free market depends, among other things, on perfect information. When this doesn't exist, the audience experience will not be optimised.

'Ignorant' is a loaded word. 'Under informed' is a better way to describe the lack of perfect knowledge most audience members have.

So the issue is whether the benefits of public money being spent on improving this knowledge, eg by subsidising composers, performers and teaching establishments outweigh alternative uses of this money.


----------



## Wood

DavidA said:


> 'To the detriment of diverse art' - if by diverse you mean music that is enjoyable and non-enjoyable, I'll stick to what I enjoy.


Somehow I don't think s/he meant that.



> I have an aversion to being made to listen to something because someone somewhere says it is art.


Can you provide an example of when you were made to do this?


----------



## PetrB

Taggart said:


> OK Classic FM gets excoriated but if we look at it's list of top 300 favourites for 2013, chosen by the listeners, the top 50 has quite a few early 20th century works:
> 
> 49 Spiegel im Spiegel - Arvo Pärt
> 48 Five Variants of Dives and Lazarus Vaughan Williams, Ralph
> 36 The Ashokan Farewell Ungar, Jay
> 35 Rhapsody in Blue Gershwin, George
> 34 Piano Concerto No.2 in F major Opus 102 Dmitri Shostakovich
> 32 Concierto de Aranjuez Joaquín Rodrigo
> 20 The Lord of The Rings Shore, Howard
> 17 Adagio for Strings Barber, Samuel
> 16 The Armed Man Jenkins, Karl
> 14 The Planets Holst, Gustav
> 5 The Elder Scrolls Series Soule, Jeremy
> 4 Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis Vaughan Williams, Ralph
> 3 Final Fantasy Series Uematsu, Nobuo
> 2 The Lark Ascending Vaughan Williams, Ralph
> 
> Umm, that's 15 out of 50 in the 20th century, and I've missed out some Elgar and Rachmaninov
> 
> Other points
> 
> Dambusters - Eric Coates 293
> Sleep - Eric Whitacre 286
> Divenire - Ludovico Einaudi 278
> Violin Concerto - Philip Glass 276


I guess this entry gets added to the list of excoriations heaped upon such pops classical stations...

This list is a near travesty when it comes to 20th century "Modern" or more contemporary classical. It's a very slight and pretty dreadful showing, and I think very much a truth about the general pop-classical taste. If you subtracted from those in the top fifty those which are _not really_ earnest classical pieces, including the most easy listening new-age-ish / spiritual minimalist fare which some call classical, there is very little to show other than some screamingly conservative earlier 20th century works.

I find that list / sample more discouraging than encouraging.


----------



## aleazk

I rarely attend to the concerts of my local orchestra. The same romantic repertoire again and again... when I was a teenager, I used to attend those concerts and enjoyed them. But now, "I have seen it all there"... there's nothing for me in those concerts now.

From time to time there's some modern music, or some other interesting programing (medieval/renaissance music, etc.). I go to those concerts. Generally, these concerts are performed by guest ensembles or touring musicians. Last year the local Goethe-Institut held one such concerts. The thematic was modern german, and related to german, music. They played some Webern and some other german composers (some of them alive!, in fact, one of the composers was attending the concert, Mathias Spahlinger; they played this piece, which was very good). I have not attended to any concert since then...


----------



## PetrB

Winterreisender said:


> Modern composers shouldn't just expect to be programmed alongside Beethoven in large concert venues, as if we modern audiences somehow owe them a living.


This is riotously funny... as if any of the consumers of CDs or concert seats are actively "providing a living" for the dead composers whose works they consume. Most of the dead composers' music this sort of audience listens to was supported by forward looking and adventurous patrons of the arts who commissioned those works into existence. "The composers should not have any kind of subsidization" argument is deeply uninformed. That attitude is also a sort of oblique implication making of those consumers _patrons_ of the arts, where they are no such thing in the true sense of the word -- they are merely consumers whose money goes toward performing musicians.



Winterreisender said:


> Modern classical composers, like all other modern musicians, should have to earn a fanbase the hard way, without sulking about audiences being too stupid / too conservative to understand them.


Another glib comment having little base in the reality of history:

.....Bach -- never popular in his lifetime, chronically struggling for commissions and paying posts, and chronically aching for greater recognition. His music plummeted completely out of general public circulation right after his death for about 70 years. His music might still be only known to a handful of cognoscenti musicians to this day if it had not been pushed upon the public by Mendelssohn, that concert mounted at Mendelssohn's expense, perhaps with the help of others.

.....Mozart's music might have gone to a quick and long obscurity if it were not for his sister, who dedicated much of the remainder of her life to gathering up all existing manuscripts while urging upon people that the music still be performed.

.....Beethoven's music rapidly faded into obscurity immediately after his death (because through that era, only new music was, generally, the thing  and it is due to Liszt and a few others doggedly championing his works, urging those in the business to program and perform Beethoven, that Beethoven remained in circulation.

All those composers were 'subsidized' in one way or another -- Beethoven and Mozart popular enough in their own lifetime, while the concert works of each began to immediately drop off the charts after their death.

After their initial subsidies and commissions and subsequent popularity in their lifetime, the works of each of these composers, all now part of the canon of classical literature, nearly dropped off the musical map the moment they were deceased. It was further subsidy / and urging -- after their deaths, which brought back or kept those dead composer's music in circulation. _*Ergo, contrary to popular belief, those composers are not not staples of the classical music canon based solely upon their continual general popularity, not "in place because the public declared it."*_

_*So much for the relying upon the general public taste to keep the finer of fine artworks in circulation, "back then," as it is now.*_ Whether or not John / Jane doe concert goer thinks it condescending -- someone has to take steps, acquire and allocate subsidies, make choices (often choices not in agreement with the most populist tastes) and support what they believe is really good work, the general tastes of the public be damned. (No one has to like that set of conditions, but to imagine it has not always been that way, that the concert-going public has determined what is now in the canon of the older repertoire, is mass delusion 

*If general public taste as the yardstick had been the rule back then, it is more than possible much of what is now revered as 'the good old stuff,' including Bach, Mozart an Beethoven, would not be here with us now as the good old stuff so many adore.*[/I]

Someone, then, has to be not short-sighted, adventurous, and in the present day with its near mythic belief in the consumer is always right, that someone must be ready to be criticized as condescending, elitist, not at all populist / social, etc. and do what the Patrons of yore did, and continue to program and advocate performing music "no one seems to want" if we are to have a continuation of great classical music as a living part of the tradition.

P.s. I am more than prepared for this post being less than popularly received, LOL.


----------



## apricissimus

Well, at least you're honest about being condescending. The snobbery rubs me the wrong way though.


----------



## Taggart

The OP said:



Freischutz said:


> The music industry has a problem that all its demographics are guilty of. Listeners are guilty, recording companies are guilty, concert organisers are guilty, and the list goes on.
> 
> Our problem is assuming that it's intuitively obvious what kind of concert programmes "The Public" wants as though this knowledge is innate in us without exploration or research.
> 
> Of course, the kinds of programmes we all imagine Mr. and Mrs. Average hope for are ones whose composers have been dead for at least 150 years. Anything more modern than that is just _bound_ to put them off no matter how good it is, isn't it?


So to say



PetrB said:


> The list is a near travesty when it comes to 20th century "Modern" or more contemporary classical. It's a very slight and pretty dreadful showing, and I think very much a truth of general pop-classical taste. If you subtracted from those in the top fifty those which are _not really_ earnest classical pieces, including the most easy listening new-age-ish / spiritual minimalist fare which some call classical, there is very little to show other than some screamingly conservative earlier 20th century works.


is not relevant. The OP talked of music whose composers had been dead for over 150 years. The point I was making was that a lot of more recent music gets a lot of airtime. It may not be "modern" but Coates and Vaughan Williams died in the 1950's, Elgar and Holst in the 1930's, Rachmaninoff in the 1940,s Shostakovich in the 1970's, Rodrigo in 1999 so they are all examples of music by composers after the OP's period. The fact that they are "screamingly conservative" is irrelevant.


----------



## aleazk

Taggart said:


> The OP said:
> 
> So to say
> 
> is not relevant. The OP talked of music whose composers had been dead for over 150 years. The point I was making was that a lot of more recent music gets a lot of airtime. It may not be "modern" but Coates and Vaughan Williams died in the 1950's, Elgar and Holst in the 1930's, Rachmaninoff in the 1940,s Shostakovich in the 1970's, Rodrigo in 1999 so they are all examples of music by composers after the OP's period. The fact that they are "screamingly conservative" is irrelevant.


It's clear that the OP was particularly thinking in "modern" not only in the chronological sense, but also in the style... at least that's my take on it.


----------



## Ingélou

PetrB said:


> I guess this entry gets added to the list of *excoriations* heaped upon such pops classical stations...
> 
> Thelist is *a near travesty* when it comes to 20th century "Modern" or more contemporary classical. It's *a very slight and pretty dreadful showing*, and I think *very much a truth of general pop-classical taste*. If you subtracted from those in the top fifty those which are _not really_ earnest classical pieces, including *the most easy listening new-age-ish / spiritual minimalist fare *which some call classical, there is *very little to show* other than *some screamingly conservative* earlier 20th century works.
> 
> I find that list / sample *more discouraging than encouraging.
> (My italics.)
> *


It can be hard, sometimes, being a pleb; but you have a nice day too!


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> I often think that the most vociferous element proclaiming the need for reform in the way concerts/radio programmes are organised is not coming from aggrieved listeners who want to hear more of this contemporary music, but far more so from the composers of the stuff or their stooges.


To a certain degree, I think you are correct: _but this cuts both ways,_ in that there are just as many sophists writing 'conservative tonal music' who also think that 'just because they made something' that those works should be subsidized, performed, etc.
There is just as much relatively worthless and uninteresting music being written by those in that particular camp. (The Canadian composer who started the now defunct retro-reactionary AAtonal site, which pretty much advocated that all music went steeply downhill post J.S. Bach, comes to mind. He set up the site because "No one in Canada had any interest in performing my work." LOL.)



Partita said:


> It would seem to me that their true aim is to make the ordinary classical music listener feel like some kind of "Philistine", while they occupy the high ground of musical sophistication.


But "The ordinary classical music listener" -- a good number of them, anyway, are Philistines in a way, granted, readily truly liking, loving and understanding some truly great (and sophisticated) music, _but that music was first commissioned, then later lobbied for being performed after the composers death when that music had dropped into obscurity, only brought back into circulation by the efforts of 'the cognoscenti elitists.'_ "The ordinary classical music listener" can take little or no credit at all for those earlier great works now being popular.


----------



## PetrB

Ingélou said:


> It can be hard, sometimes, being a pleb; but you have a nice day too!


I suppose I should have said that pleb or non, _too many are being kept in the dark because of what is not programmed._ I recall recommending to you Robert Moran's _Requiem: Chant du Cygne,_ and your finding it more than a little worthwhile 

If I had not advocated it as a fine work I thought worthy of attention, you might have lived and died without ever having heard it -- and it is that absence of being exposed to newer (and less conservative?) music which I think has many of 'the plebs' knowing what they like, but only from that which they have been shown.

Until the 1900's, most concerts were nothing but new music


----------



## Crudblud

With the advent of social networking, crowdfunding, streaming etc. composers and musicians are now effectively able to go DIY, forgoing the establishment either in part or entirely. I think, or at least hope, this will be the phenomenon which dominates the music of my generation, a greater level of direct interaction between composer and audience facilitated by the internet, engendering in turn a real sense of community which we presently seem to be lacking somehow. 

We are ready to go punk.


----------



## Freischutz

Taggart said:


> The OP talked of music whose composers had been dead for over 150 years.


150 is a suspiciously round number used for effect - I think it's fair to be loose with it in the spirit of my OP.


----------



## PetrB

apricissimus said:


> Well, at least you're honest about being condescending. The snobbery rubs me the wrong way though.


If it is condescending to point out some facts, including bursting the bubble of a modern half-myth that the public has and does wholly determine what is the best of any of the fine arts, so be it.

It is as highly unpopular to say the people do not determine what is what in the fine arts as it is to point out the fact that no government is wholly representational of the people's desires, no matter to what degree of "democratic" that government is.

I think the presence of the internet has only furthered the somewhat charming and poignant wish that "the people" determine much of anything, but it is not the reality, in art or politics -- yet, at any rate, and I believe we are all "plebes" when it comes to having a say.

Unless one or more TC members are actually in one of those circles of the high and mighty elite who do determine both what art we are shown and what kind of governments we have, the rest of us are mere 'voters,' and I can not think of any situation in music or government where it is "one man one vote." So much for the populist belief in populism.

I said the facts would not be well received.


----------



## Ingélou

PetrB said:


> I suppose I should have said that pleb or non, _too many are being kept in the dark because of what is not programmed._ I recall recommending to you Robert Moran's _Requiem: Chant du Cygne,_ and your finding it more than a little worthwhile
> 
> If I had not advocated it as a fine work I thought worthy of attention, you might have lived and died without ever having heard it -- and it is that absence of being exposed to newer (and less conservative?) music which I think has many of 'the plebs' knowing what they like, but only from that which they have been shown.
> 
> Until the 1900's, most concerts were nothing but new music


I wasn't arguing with what you said; simply having some difficulty with your patrician mode of utterance. 
:tiphat: Thanks for Chant du Cygne, and the many other beautiful 'modern' links that you've sent me.


----------



## apricissimus

PetrB said:


> If it is condescending to point out some facts, including bursting the bubble of a modern half-myth that the public has and does wholly determine what is the best of any of the fine arts, so be it.


I never said anything about "best". By the way, what are the best kinds of classical music?



PetrB said:


> It is as highly unpopular to say the people do not determine what is what in the fine arts as it is to point out the fact that no government is wholly representational of the people's desires, no matter to what degree of "democratic" that government is.
> 
> I think the presence of the internet has only furthered the somewhat charming and poignant wish that "the people" determine much of anything, but it is not the reality, in art or politics -- yet, at any rate, and I believe we are all "plebes" when it comes to having a say.
> 
> Unless one or more TC members are actually in one of those circles of the high and mighty elite who do determine both what art we are shown and what kind of governments we have, the rest of us are mere 'voters,' and I can not think of any situation in music or government where it is "one man one vote." So much for the populist belief in populism.
> 
> I said the facts would not be well received.


I don't think that people will suddenly open up to more modern music if only some magnanimous and enlightened person (such as yourself, perhaps?) would just show the little people what they're missing.

It's great that you feel strongly about new music, but it's a mistake to assume that everyone else ought to feel the same way. People's tastes differ, and that's fine. Really.


----------



## apricissimus

With the advent of the Internet, it's probably easier for people who are interested in new music to hear it than ever before. (Or am I wrong about that?)


----------



## Freischutz

apricissimus said:


> I don't think that people will suddenly open up to more modern music if only some magnanimous and enlightened person (such as yourself, perhaps?) would just show the little people what they're missing.


This has everything back to front and upside down, but I'm at a loss of how better to explain what we're getting at because the two sides of this discussion appear to be living in different universes. The whole point of urging people to _stop_ assuming that they know what other people want to hear is so that we can encourage expanded _opportunities_ to hear a broad spectrum of music - this has _nothing_ to do with top-down impositions of taste on other people.

The problem with the way you perceive our intentions is that you believe in a fantasy - as I stated earlier - that all people are free and well-informed to develop a rich cultural life from all the music that is available to them, so any proposal we make that their "choices" are "wrong" looks to you like snobbery. But I deny these suppositions. People don't have that freedom because of the various social forces that limit the experiences they have access to. I'm not arguing against taste, I'm arguing against monotony, and I think those who are quick to assume that the majority of people _do_ want monotony and are averse to new music are the ones who are contemptuous and snobbish about musical taste, especially if they themselves listen to repertoire beyond the 19th century.


----------



## PetrB

Ingélou said:


> I wasn't arguing with what you said; simply having some difficulty with your patrician mode of utterance.
> :tiphat: Thanks for Chant du Cygne, and the many other beautiful 'modern' links that you've sent me.


All the classical works of yore which you love and enjoy are in existence because of choices and actions taken by 'patricians.' The advocating of 'The People' being the new patricians is a just a current and very popular notion. Look at all those lists determined by 'the folk,' the Classic FM popular classical lists, for example. I'm one who thinks if that list was compiled when Ralph Vaughan Williams' works were new, none of his music would be on that list.

With a lifetime of being in music, and from childhood on having been trained by nothing but 'patricians,' I suppose I should / could take some sensitivity lessons as to my approach when addressing the general listening public, but in the face of so many postings antithetical to that patrician sensibility -- especially when there seems to be a general thought that what is good and great of classical music was solely determined by 'the folk,' I chose to be more blunt than tactful.

Without the bluntness, I see no other way to penetrate "the myth," and provoke people into thinking maybe all in and about the classical rep we hold dear _is not with us due to the votes of the general public_. Instead, it is in place due to the patricians, the cognoscenti, etc.

If you look at any other "fine" art form I believe you will see the same phenomena: the public are not anywhere near the first in line in what is considered good or great. ("The folk" did not bring Lully to prominence, for example  After the fact of its initial appearance, "the public" is a huge factor in further keeping those works in circulation.

*A good deal of the argument against 'the people's choice' in this thread is to this point. The general public really cannot know all that is good of the new, especially if the good is not programmed at all, or as relatively seldom as is most generally the case.*

The place where the public wholly determines from the get-go what is good and what becomes popular is of course in the folk and popular music genres: I would have that no other way, thank you very much. _But as much as social trends would have it that the public are the first wave or final say arbiters of taste in the fine arts just ain't entirely so._ It is the composers, then the musicians, the cognoscenti and cognoscenti critics who are all de facto part of an elite cadre, who first determine "what is worthwhile," the public last, but not by any means the least, in that line of declension.

I completely believe that if classical music is left solely to the general public to determine what is good, great, of real merit and value, etc, that the current state of classical music would rapidly tumble to a taste level of the lowest common denominator -- again, the classic FM station's popularity poll list as very concrete evidence of that. There are 'good works' on there, but they are the easiest to like, and nowhere near what needs to be put front and center if the newer classical music is to be held anywhere near to a standard of excellence of the older great works. (I.e. Einaudi? Video game scores -- the most popular being the most utterly derivative? ("The People's Choice" all the way, those.) I doubt if any earnest classical music lover would agree that is the way to go


----------



## mmsbls

Wood said:


> So the issue is whether the benefits of public money being spent on improving this knowledge, eg by subsidising composers, performers and teaching establishments outweigh alternative uses of this money.


If classical music is considered a social good, then society must consider the issue above and determine how to allocate funds for increasing the public's awareness of modern music or even to ignore the public's choices and support modern music for the overall good of society. The public demand for physics is likely in the same range as the demand for modern music, but society (governments) have decided that significant investments in physics pays off substantially with products and benefits to the public.


----------



## mmsbls

As in all markets, there is some uncertainty about consumer preference in classical music. Each of us makes some assumptions on how much demand there is or would be for modern music. We know the demand is not zero, but we don't know if the demand could reach similar levels as seen for older classical music. Radio station and orchestra programmers presumably try to estimate the modern music demand using more than guesses, but I don't have a good feel for their practices.

In one way, audiences today have the enormous benefit of access to essentially all classical music (old and new). They can listen to youtube videos, listen on Spotify or other streaming sites, and they can purchase CDs. While it's true as many have said that the relative lack of modern music in performance might bias audience knowledge of their choices, the availability of all music for consumption allows people to estimate true demand for old versus newer music. I don't know to what extent music programmers have taken advantage of this data to determine their programs.

How do modern music CD sales compare to older music sales? How do hits on modern music youtube videos or Spotify tracks compare to older music? If older music dominates, then programmers presumably ought to program older music to maximize revenue. Yes, revenue might not be the total bottom line, but I assume it's considered more important that other factors. Another confusing issue is that people who do not have the money to purchase orchestra tickets can easily listen to youtube or Spotify, and to a lesser extent they can purchase CDs. So programmers who must determine the demand _from those with the purchasing power to buy tickets_ must factor in that bias in the available data.


----------



## apricissimus

Freischutz said:


> This has everything back to front and upside down, but I'm at a loss of how better to explain what we're getting at because the two sides of this discussion appear to be living in different universes. The whole point of urging people to _stop_ assuming that they know what other people want to hear is so that we can encourage expanded _opportunities_ to hear a broad spectrum of music - this has _nothing_ to do with top-down impositions of taste on other people.
> 
> The problem with the way you perceive our intentions is that you believe in a fantasy - as I stated earlier - that all people are free and well-informed to develop a rich cultural life from all the music that is available to them, so any proposal we make that their "choices" are "wrong" looks to you like snobbery. But I deny these suppositions. People don't have that freedom because of the various social forces that limit the experiences they have access to. I'm not arguing against taste, I'm arguing against monotony, and I think those who are quick to assume that the majority of people _do_ want monotony and are averse to new music are the ones who are contemptuous and snobbish about musical taste, especially if they themselves listen to repertoire beyond the 19th century.


If people are not free to form their own musical tastes, how did you and I (and everyone else here) manage it?

I think underlying all this is the idea that if people were just exposed to the kind of music that _I_ like, well, then they can't help but be just as impressed as I am. That's false. I used to have similar feelings, but then I came to realize that I'd been overestimating my own inborn insight and sensitivity, and underestimating capability of others to judge for themselves what fulfills them artistically.

It's arrogance, in a nutshell.


----------



## PetrB

apricissimus said:


> With the advent of the Internet, it's probably easier for people who are interested in new music to hear it than ever before. (Or am I wrong about that?)


BINGO.

Apart from the rip-off aspect of pirated no royalties paid Youtube links (I peruse them _a lot,_ the internet is a treasure trove of any and all recorded classical music from the earliest plainchant on through to music written yesterday. It may even have a slow trickle effect if enough listeners get off their chairs, step away from the computer, spend the money to attend concerts and let the program directors know they are wanting to hear, say, Georg Friedrich Haas' _In Vain_ on a program 






ADD: I hasten to add, and should have, that without knowing where to go, how would anyone find the works which are new and exciting to them? Most people still need and want some guide to direct them, better if that guide has an idea of 'where they are at' musically.


----------



## Ingélou

PetrB said:


> All the classical works of yore which you love and enjoy are in existence because of choices and actions taken by 'patricians.' The advocating of 'The People' being the new patricians is a just a current and very popular notion. ...
> 
> With a lifetime of being in music, and from childhood on having been trained by nothing but 'patricians,' I suppose I should / could take some sensitivity lessons as to my approach when addressing the general listening public, but in the face of so many postings antithetical to that patrician sensibility -- especially when there seems to be a general thought that what is good and great of classical music was solely determined by 'the folk,' I chose to be more blunt than tactful.
> 
> Without the bluntness, I see no other way to penetrate "the myth," and provoke people ...
> 
> If you look at any other "fine" art form I believe you will see the same phenomena: the public are not anywhere near the first in line in what is considered good or great. ("The folk" did not bring Lully to prominence, for example  After the fact of its initial appearance, "the public" is a huge factor in further keeping those works in circulation.
> 
> *A good deal of the argument against 'the people's choice' in this thread is to this point. The general public really cannot know all that is good of the new, especially if the good is not programmed at all, or as relatively seldom as is most generally the case.*


I am sorry; this is in a sense my fault for not choosing to be as blunt as you. I used 'patrician' when really I meant 'unduly dismissive' & even 'unjustly scornful'. I have no quarrel with the idea that appreciating art - any art - is not a matter of democracy or acclamation by 'the folk'. How could I, when I've spent a lifetime trying to persuade surly teenagers that because Shakespeare bores them, it doesn't mean that the Bard is no good?

You certainly do 'provoke people' with your bluntness - consider me 'provoked' for the afternoon - but I honestly believe your point would have been better made with just a modicum of urbanity*.

But let it go; pax! My protest has been made.

(*Edit: Even in the patrician days of Jane Austen, civility was expected. I love Elizabeth Bennet's final words to Darcy after his misplaced proposal: "You are mistaken, Mr. Darcy, if you suppose that the mode of your declaration affected me in any other way, than as it spared the concern which I might have felt in refusing you, had you behaved in a more gentlemanlike manner.")


----------



## Freischutz

mmsbls said:


> In one way, audiences today have the enormous benefit of access to essentially all classical music (old and new). They can listen to youtube videos, listen on Spotify or other streaming sites, and they can purchase CDs. While it's true as many have said that the relative lack of modern music in performance might bias audience knowledge of their choices, the availability of all music for consumption allows people to estimate true demand for old versus newer music. I don't know to what extent music programmers have taken advantage of this data to determine their programs.


Here, I want to mark an important distinction between *access* and *awareness*. It's no good saying that music is available and pointing to it as available if people don't know it's there. If you've never heard the names of any composers who are alive, what pressures or motivations are going to make you look for them? It's the same as when we all first learned about the established greats - I didn't one day go looking for Beethoven because it popped into my mind by accident or I stumbled on some resource without thinking, it was part of the culture, it was suggested by friends. These extra social layers are required for access to have any meaning or utility, and they simply don't exist in the same way for new music.



apricissimus said:


> If people are not free to form their own musical tastes, how did you and I (and everyone else here) manage it?
> 
> I think underlying all this is the idea that if people were just exposed to the kind of music that _I_ like, well, then they can't help but be just as impressed as I am. That's false. I used to have similar feelings, but then I came to realize that I'd been overestimating my own inborn insight and sensitivity, and underestimating capability of others to judge for themselves what fulfills them artistically.
> 
> It's arrogance, in a nutshell.


I've done my best to avoid ad hominem, so this will be my last response to you.

People are not free in the sense that everyone is a product of their culture and circumstances. For starters, I don't listen to classical music because I have sampled or read about _every_ kind of music in existence and decided that was the one for me. If I had been born in Indonesia, it's likely I'd be listening to something else. But I was born in Western Europe. I also happened to get a fairly good education etc. These are non-musical influences on musical taste and there are many of them. When these restrictions exist, it is sensible to say that both availability and awareness of new music is important so that people can overcome these restrictions should they want to. The world you inhabit is small and short-sighted.


----------



## PetrB

apricissimus said:


> If people are not free to form their own musical tastes, how did you and I (and everyone else here) manage it?
> 
> I think underlying all this is the idea that if people were just exposed to the kind of music that _I_ like, well, then they can't help but be just as impressed as I am. That's false. I used to have similar feelings, but then I came to realize that I'd been overestimating my own inborn insight and sensitivity, and underestimating capability of others to judge for themselves what fulfills them artistically.
> 
> It's arrogance, in a nutshell.


If not arrogant, it is more de facto insular thinking. Most disagreement between people could boil down to a simple, "why are you not like me," and that applies equally to recommending repertoire.

I am certain that a careful assessment of the individual listener's taste and listening habit is essential in best determining what might 'be next' in recommending exploring music, i.e. what might be next _which would take with that listener._ Having some experience in this, "bringing someone to modern / contemporary" music is then a matter of perhaps choosing the earlier 20th century works which still deal with a clear motive, some similar to the past form of development, etc. This can be quite an 'in,' for someone who has not yet found anything to like of what they think of as modern music. It can though happen any way. Some who are predisposed to think of all classical as stuffy and irrelevant works of dead white Europeans have the cobwebs blown away by, say, an Elliott Carter string quartet. Again, that individual assessment before choosing what to recommend is the key.

It is a whole other problem, and one rift with the near impossibility of avoiding something akin to condescension, when one has to determine / guess the collective tastes and listening habits of a larger general audience. With an individual, it is easier to get a grasp of "where they are at," and if done right, then recommending pieces which will be welcomed -- often enough, I've found myself recommending music I don't care for at all, or "don't believe in," because that particular piece was I thought the one to most effectively open the door for that listener, and that does very much require 'stepping outside of yourself' in order to successfully communicate with and accommodate "the pupil." When guesstimating a general audience, I would probably defer to the more conservative choices of modern music first, then wait to see what results.

Whether this particular highly individuated approach is innate or trained, this sort of pedagogy for individuals, or intelligent programming for the public, does not, it seem, grow on trees 

That said, this forum has for me (and many others have said it) been a bounteous boon of pieces either directly recommended, or those found by looking at the "current listening" thread. I've learned of many composers and pieces, from all eras, of which I was unaware and more than happy to 'discover.'


----------



## PetrB

Blancrocher said:


> However, judging by my reading of 18th-century correspondence involving composers and their patrons, at least patricians in the old days had the grace to speak like louts and ignoramuses.


It is more than unfortunate that TC's ToS do not allow much latitude for speaking like a lout or ignoramus before one gets penalized or banned -- or believe me, I wouldn't need to constantly suppress that pair of more than vulgar loaded six shooters I keep on me, holsters well-oiled, all the time.


----------



## Wood

mmsbls said:


> How do modern music CD sales compare to older music sales?


This is another important point when considering the under representation of modern music. I have just purchased a box of 87 Beethoven CDs for £28 including intercontinental postage. I purchased the 157(?) CD box of Bach for about the same.

It is not possible for modern compositions to compete on price against these issues. So the default position for a new collector will always be to investigate the old stuff first. For many, these old pieces become a benchmark against which the new stuff is measured.

In other words, it is another barrier to entry in the not so free market for the composers and performers of modern music.


----------



## Wood

Another way in which the 'free' market system of 'bums on seats' falls short and disproportionately disadvantages the moderns, is that the audience for classical compositions is mostly in the future. 

This means that those of the compositions of the current era which eventually become part of the repertory will generate most of their income after the death of the composer.

A precondition for the free market to be optimal is that it can only work over the long term. However, in this case, the long term is too great for such a market to make any sense.

I do not think it is too difficult to conclude that in order for art music to thrive in any current generation investment is required from public and private benefactors.


----------



## PetrB

Crudblud said:


> With the advent of social networking, crowdfunding, streaming etc. composers and musicians are now effectively able to go DIY, forgoing the establishment either in part or entirely. I think, or at least hope, this will be the phenomenon which dominates the music of my generation, a greater level of direct interaction between composer and audience facilitated by the internet, engendering in turn a real sense of community which we presently seem to be lacking somehow.
> 
> We are ready to go punk.


I think that many of the most accessible (i.e. derivative and conservative) works will still "top the popularity charts," but the medium is a potential boon to any who are making interesting music -- the possibility that what institutions are reluctant or loathe to program being potentially demonstrated as wanted by a large listening audience could be very influential, and instrumental in bringing those works to the public not only within the medium of the web, but could lead to new works found and then programmed on the live classical venues.

But I am pretty much an eternal optimist


----------



## Guest

Taggart said:


> OK Classic FM gets excoriated but if we look at it's list of top 300 favourites for 2013, chosen by the listeners, the top 50 has quite a few early 20th century works:
> 
> 49 Spiegel im Spiegel - Arvo Pärt
> 48 Five Variants of Dives and Lazarus Vaughan Williams, Ralph
> 36 The Ashokan Farewell Ungar, Jay
> 35 Rhapsody in Blue Gershwin, George
> 34 Piano Concerto No.2 in F major Opus 102 Dmitri Shostakovich
> 32 Concierto de Aranjuez Joaquín Rodrigo
> 20 The Lord of The Rings Shore, Howard
> 17 Adagio for Strings Barber, Samuel
> 16 The Armed Man Jenkins, Karl
> 14 The Planets Holst, Gustav
> 5 The Elder Scrolls Series Soule, Jeremy
> 4 Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis Vaughan Williams, Ralph
> 3 Final Fantasy Series Uematsu, Nobuo
> 2 The Lark Ascending Vaughan Williams, Ralph
> 
> Umm, that's 15 out of 50 in the 20th century, and I've missed out some Elgar and Rachmaninov
> 
> Other points
> 
> Dambusters - Eric Coates 293
> Sleep - Eric Whitacre 286
> Divenire - Ludovico Einaudi 278
> Violin Concerto - Philip Glass 276
> 
> It's a fairly catholic collection and I think those who want "more up to date music" may not be listening because they feel Classic FM is too vox pop. We've also had people on here pushing for game music on the list, so if you *do *want to see "more up to date music" a) vote for it and b) lobby for it.


I don't think that the above list of modern/contemporary music is anything remotely like what these people, who raise threads of this nature, are talking about.

The material listed above is positively tame and innocuous compared with the kind of modern "classical music" they're going on about. Most classical music fans simply wouldn't recognise it as classical, even assuming they accepted it as music of any description. Admittedly not all, but some of the material they are recommending sounds like an electronic drain noise simulator, and all kinds of other weirdo-stuff.

Anyone who is mainly into music by the likes of Bach, Rameau, Beethoven would probably think you were having a laugh at their expense if they were told that this modern material is a definitely part of a proper classical musical education, which they can ignore only a their peril.


----------



## PetrB

Wood said:


> This is another important point when considering the under representation of modern music. I have just purchased a box of 87 Beethoven CDs for £28 including intercontinental postage. I purchased the 157(?) CD box of Bach for about the same.
> 
> It is not possible for modern compositions to compete on price against these issues. So the default position for a new collector will always be to investigate the old stuff first. For many, these old pieces become a benchmark against which the new stuff is measured.
> 
> In other words, it is another barrier to entry in the not so free market for the composers and performers of modern music.


I'm sure there is a minority of the new collectors who are not choosing repertoire to explore or own merely based upon price, but a minority it more than likely is. I find it rather a pity that personal expense should so determine what a listener goes for. If you think about the pleasure / reward of listening to music which does it for you, I think you might be less likely to wait for newer music to 'be on sale at reduced price,' or wait for something to come into public domain to lower the cost.

When I was younger and began consuming LP's regularly, I purchased almost solely modern and contemporary music in new releases, and have no later thoughts, let alone regrets, about the money spent. Ditto for the world-class concerts I attended.

To a true devotee, there is no 'sacrifice,' in spending, even though they may well be doing without a lot of other things they might consume. The recording, the seat to a particular concert, and the expenses, are a high priority; it is "just what they do."


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> I don't think that the above list of modern/contemporary music is anything remotely like what these people, who raise threads of this nature, are talking about.
> 
> The material listed above is positively tame and innocuous compared with the kind of modern "classical music" they're going on about. Most classical music fans simply wouldn't recognise it as classical, even assuming they accepted it as music of any description.
> 
> Anyone who is mainly into music by the the likes of Bach, Rameau, Beethoven would probably think you were having a laugh at their expense if they were told that this modern material is a definitely part of a proper classical musical education, which they can ignore only a their peril.


They would also have a very difficult time believing that the newer music is solidly based upon the antique musics you cited. I think, very strongly, that a lot of the clinging to the old and rejection of the new is not only a matter of lack of understanding, but a deeply entrenched sort of sentimental tourism -- loving the notion of a (falsely) glorious past, and preferring to visit and re-visit that phantasy local only


----------



## apricissimus

PetrB said:


> I'm sure there is a minority who are not choosing repertoire to explore or own merely upon price, but a minority it more than likely is. I find it rather a pity that personal expense should so determine what a listener goes for. If you think about the pleasure / reward of listening to music which does it for you, I think you might be less likely to wait for newer music to 'be on sale at reduced price,' or wait for something to come into public domain to lower the cost.
> 
> When I was younger and consuming LP's regularly, I purchased almost solely modern and contemporary music in new releases, and have no later thoughts, let alone regrets, about the money spent. Ditto for the world-class concerts I attended.
> 
> To a true devotee, there is no 'sacrifice,' in spending, even though they may well be doing without a lot of other things they might consume. The recording, the seat to a particular concert, and the expenses, are a high priority; it is "just what they do."


What's the sense in fretting over who are "true devotees" and who are not?


----------



## Freischutz

Partita said:


> The material listed above is positively tame and innocuous compared with the kind of modern "classical music" they're going on about. Most classical music fans simply wouldn't recognise it as classical, even assuming they accepted it as music of any description. Admittedly not all, but some of the material they are recommending sounds like an electronic drain noise simulator, and all kinds of other weirdo-stuff.


Out comes the bogeyman. I don't think I've seen many recommendations of particular music in this thread - we've just been talking about the idea of _new_ music as a principle. It's worrying that it frightens you so much!



Partita said:


> Anyone who is mainly into music by the likes of Bach, Rameau, Beethoven would probably think you were having a laugh at their expense if they were told that this modern material is a definitely part of a proper classical musical education, which they can ignore only a their peril.


I was wondering when I'd get to say it again; you didn't disappoint: you're not entitled to assume what other people want to listen to.


----------



## Nereffid

Freischutz said:


> Here, I want to mark an important distinction between *access* and *awareness*. It's no good saying that music is available and pointing to it as available if people don't know it's there. If you've never heard the names of any composers who are alive, what pressures or motivations are going to make you look for them? It's the same as when we all first learned about the established greats - I didn't one day go looking for Beethoven because it popped into my mind by accident or I stumbled on some resource without thinking, it was part of the culture, it was suggested by friends. These extra social layers are required for access to have any meaning or utility, and they simply don't exist in the same way for new music.
> 
> ....
> 
> People are not free in the sense that everyone is a product of their culture and circumstances. For starters, I don't listen to classical music because I have sampled or read about _every_ kind of music in existence and decided that was the one for me. If I had been born in Indonesia, it's likely I'd be listening to something else. But I was born in Western Europe. I also happened to get a fairly good education etc. These are non-musical influences on musical taste and there are many of them. When these restrictions exist, it is sensible to say that both availability and awareness of new music is important so that people can overcome these restrictions should they want to. The world you inhabit is small and short-sighted.


I'm just puzzled as to why you think it's a huge leap for someone to go from point (a) listening to music they already know, to point (b) listening to music they hadn't previously heard of.
What pressures or motivations are there to look for composers who are alive? Curiosity, surely. Do you think "people" or "audiences" are so unaware of the reality of classical music that it hasn't even occurred to them to seek out new/modern works? Presumably not!
There are people in the world who love exploring, constantly hearing new music (whether modern or obscure). And there are some with no interest in that, who "know what they like" and are happy to stick with it.
I absolutely agree that today's (or, indeed, the last hundred years') music doesn't have the cultural cachet that earlier classical does, and I agree that it would be nice/better if it did, but it seems to me that there's a kind of wishful thinking going on here, a desire for some sort of "magic formula" - _if you build it they will come_ - that I'm not convinced is possible.


----------



## Wood

PetrB said:


> I'm sure there is a minority who are not choosing repertoire to explore or own merely upon price, but a minority it more than likely is. I find it rather a pity that personal expense should so determine what a listener goes for. If you think about the pleasure / reward of listening to music which does it for you, I think you might be less likely to wait for newer music to 'be on sale at reduced price,' or wait for something to come into public domain to lower the cost.
> 
> When I was younger and consuming LP's regularly, I purchased almost solely modern and contemporary music in new releases, and have no later thoughts, let alone regrets, about the money spent. Ditto for the world-class concerts I attended.
> 
> To a true devotee, there is no 'sacrifice,' in spending, even though they may well be doing without a lot of other things they might consume. The recording, the seat to a particular concert, and the expenses, are a high priority; it is "just what they do."


Yes, my 'always' should have been 'most often'.

Re money, you are right about the 'true devotee' but modern music is also great for more general listeners and I see this cost as an additional constraint on its appreciation by people in this much larger group.


----------



## Winterreisender

PetrB said:


> I think, very strongly, that a lot of the clinging to the old and rejection of the new is not only a matter of lack of understanding, but a deeply entrenched sort of sentimental tourism -- loving the notion of a (falsely) glorious past, and preferring to visit and re-visit that phantasy local only


But the majority of listeners who don't like modern "classical" music do like other forms of modern music, whether it is jazz, rock or something else. So all this talk about people being afraid to try new things is clearly wrong. I also mentioned earlier that there are many modern "classical" composers such as Arvo Part, Karl Jenkins and John Rutter, who can attract a large audience. Having read through this thread, it just seems to me that certain individuals simply aren't happy because their favourite composers are generally ignored by the public.


----------



## apricissimus

Is it true that a huge variety of music falls under the rubric "classical". Maybe it's even an artificial category if it lumps it all together.


----------



## PetrB

apricissimus said:


> What's the sense in fretting over who are "true devotees" and who are not?


Guitars are fretted.

I simply expressed the sad thought that some people limit their pleasures due to an unwarranted sense of frugality.

Who is fretting?


----------



## PetrB

apricissimus said:


> Is it true that a huge variety of music falls under the rubric "classical". Maybe it's even an artificial category if it lumps it all together.


All classical music is one humongous artifice. Once accepted, people will, if for no other reason than convenience, divide it into categories to better access this or that, because it is now, all of it, a huge body of works.


----------



## apricissimus

PetrB said:


> Guitars are fretted.
> 
> Who is fretting?


I think it's better not to bother about making distinctions about who are "true devotees". Sure, some people may enjoy music differently than I do, spend less money on music than I do, but I'm in no position to say whether I'm a "truer" devotee than someone else.


----------



## Freischutz

Nereffid said:


> I'm just puzzled as to why you think it's a huge leap ...


I'm puzzled as to why you think _I_ think it's a "huge leap" because that's certainly not what I said! What I said is that exploration is best mediated by social exchange.

I don't know how old you are, but I'd encourage you to engage in a popular activity for hip young internet-age folks: 'check your privilege'. It actually takes quite a bit of privilege to have the time, inclination and education to go searching for new music in a way that will be fruitful rather than aimless. I'm sure _you_ are perfectly capable of it without help (I'd give myself the same credit), but we are not representative of everyone. The process is not universally intuitive and I think the industry could be friendlier for people who know less about this stuff than we do. The point is that it would be nice to encourage that adventurous attitude in people who don't already have it but see something and go "Wow!" instead of just providing resources for people who already have that inborn music-lust. And before I'm accused of snobbery again, I'm not _judging_ people because they know less, I'm trying to suggest that we all do things to help them know more!


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


> Nevertheless, a free market depends, among other things, on perfect information. When this doesn't exist, the audience experience will not be optimised.
> 
> 'Ignorant' is a loaded word. 'Under informed' is a better way to describe the lack of perfect knowledge most audience members have.
> 
> So the issue is whether the benefits of public money being spent on improving this knowledge, eg by subsidising composers, performers and teaching establishments outweigh alternative uses of this money.


You do not need anything like "perfect information" to create the minimum conditions for efficient markets to exist.

Old textbooks used to specify an infinitely large number of suppliers in order to create the required conditions for "perfect competition." All that kind of stuff was jettisoned after the 1950/60s when concepts of "effective" or "workable" competition were introduced, under which it was found that the number of suppliers could be cut right down to a few only, provided they actually competed and didn't collude.

The same applies to another of the old-fashioned requirements, "perfect knowledge." This also is unnecessary. All it requires is a few key players who know what is going on, and the benefits to the rest of us should trickle down eventually. For example, in foreign exchange markets, the number of people who have the relevant knowledge about how this market works is small, and yet when you or I buy foreign exchange from appropriate sources we can be assured that it's at a fair market price, with no monopoly element.

As for subsiding the Arts, I am aware of the various claims that have been made to justify such action, but I am not aware of any serious studies where any clear benefits to society have ever been shown. Certainly, I have seen nothing concerning classical music composers. Are you aware of any studies?


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> I guess this entry gets added to the list of excoriations heaped upon such pops classical stations...
> 
> This list is a near travesty when it comes to 20th century "Modern" or more contemporary classical. It's a very slight and pretty dreadful showing, and I think very much a truth about the general pop-classical taste. If you subtracted from those in the top fifty those which are _not really_ earnest classical pieces, including the most easy listening new-age-ish / spiritual minimalist fare which some call classical, there is very little to show other than some screamingly conservative earlier 20th century works.
> 
> I find that list / sample more discouraging than encouraging.


A most discouraging list! Music people actually enjoy listening to. Shouldn't be allowed!


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> They would also have a very difficult time believing that the newer music is solidly based upon the antique musics you cited. I think, very strongly, that a lot of the clinging to the old and rejection of the new is not only a matter of lack of understanding, but a deeply entrenched sort of sentimental tourism -- loving the notion of a (falsely) glorious past, and preferring to visit and re-visit that phantasy local only


I would question seriously whether some of the material that I have listened to which the composers attempt to pass off as "classical" is actually classical. It sounds very peculiar to me.


----------



## Winterreisender

Partita said:


> I would question seriously whether some of the material that I have listened to which the composers attempt to pass off as "classical" is actually classical. It sounds very peculiar to me.


Yes, it seems that many composers wish to write themselves into a classical tradition a) because there is a fairly large, pre-existing audience for classical music, and b) because classical music is deemed "culturally important" and the government might pay them to write it (as no-one else will).


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> .
> 
> Without the bluntness, I see no other way to penetrate "the myth," and provoke people into thinking maybe all in and about the classical rep we hold dear _is not with us due to the votes of the general public_. Instead, it is in place due to the patricians, the cognoscenti, etc.


Well, friend, thanks for enlightening us as to what we should like! But you still won't covert me to listening to 'music' that consists of jangling, scraping and generally unpleasant noise.


----------



## Tristan

I've skimmed through this thread and I'm sure I will be saying things that have already been said, but I just wanted to add my input:

There are fine lines between "people just need to hear new music" and "if people heard new music, they would like it", and "if you don't like it, something's wrong with you". All programming new music into performances would do is satisfy the first quote. Make it available to hear, that is. It doesn't imply anything about people liking it or becoming "musically enlightened" upon hearing it. I think there were a lot of assumptions by people in this thread that this was another one of those "[post]modernism über alles" threads where people are saying or implying that people who don't like modern music are simply _too stupid_ to appreciate it and need to be told what to like by elitists and intellectuals who _truly understand_ the music in question (and thus the third quote was being implied, which I don't think it was at ll). That is not what this thread was supposed to be about, from my reading of it. It was about hearing it in the first place.

To me, this thread was just about putting more new music out there so that people can make choices about whether they like it or not and want to hear more, because if it is not being performed, a lot of people (people who will not go looking for it on their own), will not hear it and will never be exposed to it. As someone else pointed out, this happened a lot with "the greats"! This does not mean that they must like it or love it. It just means that they at least have the opportunity to hear it. I fully support and agree with that. Why not allow more people to hear new music if this is the only way people are going to hear it? How would we know whether we are going to like it if we do not even hear it?

The idea of liking it and not liking it should not really even have been brought up much, to be honest. Sure, there does seem to be a tendency among those who tout the splendor of new music to think that those who don't like it (claim to not like it, that is) simply haven't heard it. And that may be true for some, and I agree that if we perform more of it, we will find out who truly does and does't like it. But that said, pre-20th century music and contemporary music are different enough to the point where we can't just assume because people like one, they must like the other. Sure, let them hear it, but don't be so taken aback if people don't react positively to it, because they really are that different and someone who loves 19th century music might not find much to like in contemporary classical.

Anyway, I agree with the basic point: give people the opportunity to hear and it judge it for themselves. There shouldn't be any implications that people must love it or are somehow deficient. Or there shouldn't be any implications that people can't form their own tastes.


----------



## DavidA

PetrB said:


> It is more than unfortunate that TC's ToS do not allow much latitude for speaking like a lout or ignoramus before one gets penalized or banned -- or believe me, I wouldn't need to constantly suppress that pair of more than vulgar loaded six shooters I keep on me, holsters well-oiled, all the time.


Don't worry, my friend! Those you are using now are quite sufficient! :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

Winterreisender said:


> ...Arvo Part, Karl Jenkins and John Rutter, who can attract a large audience.


Whether labeled so or not, those composers are all in the 'easy listening' bin. Is that a criticism? I think not, just a statement of fact: late Beethoven is far more challenging to the listener than Part's later spiritualist minimalism phase (from which are the only works of his which are popular), or Jenkins or Rutter. Yeah, they date from the latter half of the 20th century, but as retro-conservatives each and all, they are hardly representative of contemporary classical in general.


----------



## Freischutz

Partita said:


> As for subsiding the Arts, I am aware of the various claims that have been made to justify such action, but I am not aware of any serious studies where any clear benefits to society have ever been shown.


That depends what you mean by "benefits to society". According to some people's standards, no classical music of _any_ era has bestowed anything useful upon the world. You (I presume) and I would disagree with that, but then when we forge our own definitions, we have to be careful to make sure that they can be justified by means other than appeals to our own personal taste - it would be a little too convenient if everything useful to society happened to match exactly what we liked.



Partita said:


> I would question seriously whether some of the material that I have listened to which the composers attempt to pass off as "classical" is actually classical. It sounds very peculiar to me.


Perhaps you should free yourself from the drive to genre-ify everything.


----------



## Vaneyes

Old Music, Intermission, New Music. Without exception. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> I would question seriously whether some of the material that I have listened to which the composers attempt to pass off as "classical" is actually classical. It sounds very peculiar to me.


Charles Ives' father admonished him that he must learn to stretch his ears. I'd recommend it, of course done without failing your self integrity, that is.


----------



## Guest

Well, I have just spent many discouraging minutes getting caught up on this thread.

What I will never understand is why it is so very important for some people to express dismay at how horrible new music is.

Especially given that enough time has passed (over two hundred years) so that quite a good portion of horrible new music has had time to become the very solid repertoire that puts bums in the seats--an expression so appallingly condescending and cynical that even PetrB at his most blunt (love you, Petr!!) could hardly compete. Enough time, too, one would hope, to figure out that what _you_ find weird or peculiar might be the very thing that your great grandchildren are going to want to pay good money for, the stuff that is "music people want to listen to," as opposed to all this new crap in 2114 that's not even "classical" music.

It could happen. It's happened before, over and over and over and over and over again.

If the counterparts of today's anti-modernists had had their way in 1810 or 30 or 60 or 90, then quite a lot of the music that the anti-modernists favor above all others, the music that thrills them to their very souls, the music that is normal and good and pure--that music would not even exist for their benefit. On the other hand, I do know some people who do actually manage to survive quite nicely on a steady diet of Dittersdorf and Meyerbeer and Raff, so maybe these people would do quite well without their Beethoven and Chopin and Mahler.

But guess what? They didn't.

Neither will you, Gott sei dank.


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> As for subsiding the Arts, I am aware of the various claims that have been made to justify such action, but I am not aware of any serious studies where any clear benefits to society have ever been shown. Certainly, I have seen nothing concerning classical music composers. Are you aware of any studies?


Your call for studies tossed aside, I am aware that most nations believe they have a cultural heritage, and silly / elitist / impractical or not, that cultural heritage seems to those nations to be worth both preserving and perpetuating. Not every nation wants to be known only as farmers and manufacturers of durable goods.

Many people in business think that just about everything runs better on the bottom-line profit margin practical business model, all departments showing a profit each quarter. Some things really do not work that way. It would certainly be far more practical to let the the antique wood panels and pigments of all the antique Bruegels and Michelangelos, the fabric of ancient cathedrals, just be left alone to disintegrate.

So, like money, the culture thingie, preserving and perpetuating it, is an idea it seems many people have decided to agree upon.


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> This is riotously funny... as if any of the consumers of CDs or concert seats are actively "providing a living" for the dead composers whose works they consume. Most of the dead composers' music this sort of audience listens to was supported by forward looking and adventurous patrons of the arts who commissioned those works into existence. "The composers should not have any kind of subsidization" argument is deeply uninformed. That attitude is also a sort of oblique implication making of those consumers _patrons_ of the arts, where they are no such thing in the true sense of the word -- they are merely consumers whose money goes toward performing musicians.
> 
> Another glib comment having little base in the reality of history:
> 
> .....Bach -- never popular in his lifetime, chronically struggling for commissions and paying posts, and chronically aching for greater recognition. His music plummeted completely out of general public circulation right after his death for about 70 years. His music might still be only known to a handful of cognoscenti musicians to this day if it had not been pushed upon the public by Mendelssohn, that concert mounted at Mendelssohn's expense, perhaps with the help of others.
> 
> .....Mozart's music might have gone to a quick and long obscurity if it were not for his sister, who dedicated much of the remainder of her life to gathering up all existing manuscripts while urging upon people that the music still be performed.
> 
> .....Beethoven's music rapidly faded into obscurity immediately after his death (because through that era, only new music was, generally, the thing  and it is due to Liszt and a few others doggedly championing his works, urging those in the business to program and perform Beethoven, that Beethoven remained in circulation.
> 
> All those composers were 'subsidized' in one way or another -- Beethoven and Mozart popular enough in their own lifetime, while the concert works of each began to immediately drop off the charts after their death.
> 
> After their initial subsidies and commissions and subsequent popularity in their lifetime, the works of each of these composers, all now part of the canon of classical literature, nearly dropped off the musical map the moment they were deceased. It was further subsidy / and urging -- after their deaths, which brought back or kept those dead composer's music in circulation. _*Ergo, contrary to popular belief, those composers are not not staples of the classical music canon based solely upon their continual general popularity, not "in place because the public declared it."*_
> 
> _*So much for the relying upon the general public taste to keep the finer of fine artworks in circulation, "back then," as it is now.*_ Whether or not John / Jane doe concert goer thinks it condescending -- someone has to take steps, acquire and allocate subsidies, make choices (often choices not in agreement with the most populist tastes) and support what they believe is really good work, the general tastes of the public be damned. (No one has to like that set of conditions, but to imagine it has not always been that way, that the concert-going public has determined what is now in the canon of the older repertoire, is mass delusion
> 
> *If general public taste as the yardstick had been the rule back then, it is more than possible much of what is now revered as 'the good old stuff,' including Bach, Mozart an Beethoven, would not be here with us now as the good old stuff so many adore.*[/I]
> 
> Someone, then, has to be not short-sighted, adventurous, and in the present day with its near mythic belief in the consumer is always right, that someone must be ready to be criticized as condescending, elitist, not at all populist / social, etc. and do what the Patrons of yore did, and continue to program and advocate performing music "no one seems to want" if we are to have a continuation of great classical music as a living part of the tradition.
> 
> P.s. I am more than prepared for this post being less than popularly received, LOL.


This is my favorite post you've ever posted. <3


----------



## Wood

Partita said:


> You do not need anything like "perfect information" to create the minimum conditions for efficient markets to exist.
> 
> Old textbooks used to specify an infinitely large number of suppliers in order to create the required conditions for "perfect competition." All that kind of stuff was jettisoned after the 1950/60s when concepts of "effective" or "workable" competition were introduced, under which it was found that the number of suppliers could be cut right down to a few only, provided they actually competed and didn't collude.
> 
> The same applies to another of the old-fashioned requirements, "perfect knowledge." This also is unnecessary. All it requires is a few key players who know what is going on, and the benefits to the rest of us should trickle down eventually. For example, in foreign exchange markets, the number of people who have the relevant knowledge about how this market works is small, and yet when you or I buy foreign exchange from appropriate sources we can be assured that it's at a fair market price, with no monopoly element.
> 
> As for subsiding the Arts, I am aware of the various claims that have been made to justify such action, but I am not aware of any serious studies where any clear benefits to society have ever been shown. Certainly, I have seen nothing concerning classical music composers. Are you aware of any studies?


LIBOR manipulation, short selling, price fixing, long term unemployment, Ponzi schemes in banking, food banks etc makes your post seem incredibly naive.


----------



## Tristan

some guy said:


> Well, I have just spent many discouraging minutes getting caught up on this thread.
> 
> What I will never understand is why it is so very important for some people to express dismay at how horrible new music is.
> 
> Especially given that enough time has passed (over two hundred years) so that quite a good portion of horrible new music has had time to become the very solid repertoire that puts bums in the seats--an expression so appallingly condescending and cynical that even PetrB at his most blunt (love you, Petr!!) could hardly compete. Enough time, too, one would hope, to figure out that what _you_ find weird or peculiar might be the very thing that your great grandchildren are going to want to pay good money for, the stuff that is "music people want to listen to," as opposed to all this new crap in 2114 that's not even "classical" music.
> 
> It could happen. It's happened before, over and over and over and over and over again.
> 
> If the counterparts of today's anti-modernists had had their way in 1810 or 30 or 60 or 90, then quite a lot of the music that the anti-modernists favor above all others, the music that thrills them to their very souls, the music that is normal and good and pure--that music would not even exist for their benefit. On the other hand, I do know some people who do actually manage to survive quite nicely on a steady diet of Dittersdorf and Meyerbeer and Raff, so maybe these people would do quite well without their Beethoven and Chopin and Mahler.
> 
> But guess what? They didn't.
> 
> Neither will you, Gott sei dank.


There does seem to be some thought that new music is just an update to old music and that it is easy for people who like old music to come to like new music. Maybe the new music of today will become classic and revered the way Mozart, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky are now, who knows.

But I'm going to have to stick the idea that some new music is simply so different from "old music" that is almost an entirely different genre. That is not a bad thing. But it does mean that this idea that people will simply "come to like" it is not necessarily true. There is not always even that big of a connection 19th century music and some contemporary classical. So the idea that this music is just "the next step" is not _necessarily_ true. It might be. But it might not be--it could be that this music comes to create an entirely new genre itself which has far departed from "classical".

I guess some people would see that as a really bad thing. I don't, personally.


----------



## Winterreisender

PetrB said:


> Someone, then, has to be not short-sighted, adventurous, and in the present day with its near mythic belief in the consumer is always right, that someone must be ready to be criticized as condescending, elitist, not at all populist / social, etc. and do what the Patrons of yore did, and continue to program and advocate performing music "no one seems to want" if we are to have a continuation of great classical music as a living part of the tradition.


The only thing is that my earlier post was specifically talking about government subsidising. Rich and influential patrons can do what they like with their money, but it is a little embarrassing that some "classical" composers must rely on government handouts to survive. I don't see any rock bands getting "arts" grants. The arts council will probably go along with the tastes of music academics in deciding which composers to fund, and academics will probably just choose themselves. And academics have a track record of writing pretty uninspired music, in my opinion. One can become professor of compositions with a good technical knowledge, but one needs more that that to become a great composer.


----------



## Wood

Tristan said:


> But I'm going to have to stick the idea that some new music is simply so different from "old music" that is almost an entirely different genre.


That is partly a misconception based on the fact that where modern music is programmed with mass audiences, eg at the Proms, it is often as a 'world premiere'. This is fine, except that the music of the previous 50 years doesn't get a look in. As such, new music can seem to come from nowhere, even if it follows a continual line of development from the CPP.


----------



## Tristan

Wood said:


> That is partly a misconception based on the fact that where modern music is programmed with mass audiences, eg at the Proms, it is often as a 'world premiere'. This is fine, except that the music of the previous 50 years doesn't get a look in. As such, new music can seem to come from nowhere, even if it follows a continual line of development from the CPP.


That is true; you can trace a line of development through most of the sub-genres of classical music. But I do think that "rapid development" (as a very general concept) is a feature of the past century. No century differs more (in everything) from its beginning and end than the 20th (looking at history), so it could be there is a higher (exponential) difference between music at the beginning of the century and music at the end, than say music in 1800 vs. music in 1899.


----------



## apricissimus

I guess my position comes down to: I'd rather let people prefer what they prefer without others telling them, "No, your tastes are not refined enough, or adventurous enough. Trust me, I know better. Here, listen to this instead." Appreciation of art should be done in a spirit of welcomeness, and not with such an adversarial stance. Don't waste the mental energy.


----------



## Guest

Winterreisender said:


> ...it is a little embarrassing that some "classical" composers must rely on government handouts to survive.


Well, maybe a little. Certainly not nearly as embarrassing as major automobile manufacturers having to rely on government handouts, however. Or "red" states relying on the very programs they want to destroy. Or ueber-wealthy people relying on outrageous tax breaks. Not to mention.

Not to get into a political debate or anything. Just offering up a bit of perspective.

As for the "academics," which you continue to treat as a homogenous group of people, it seems a trifle off to criticize people for "relying" on government handouts but then turn right around and criticize people for supporting themselves with jobs at universities. Wanting to still have your cake after you've eaten it just seems greedy, eh?


----------



## mmsbls

Freischutz said:


> Here, I want to mark an important distinction between *access* and *awareness*. It's no good saying that music is available and pointing to it as available if people don't know it's there. If you've never heard the names of any composers who are alive, what pressures or motivations are going to make you look for them? It's the same as when we all first learned about the established greats - I didn't one day go looking for Beethoven because it popped into my mind by accident or I stumbled on some resource without thinking, it was part of the culture, it was suggested by friends. These extra social layers are required for access to have any meaning or utility, and they simply don't exist in the same way for new music.


I agree strongly with this. When I was young, I listened exclusively to popular music. I found music I liked by listening to the radio. Once I liked a performer, song, or maybe several songs from an album, I would be motivated to buy the music. Because classical radio does not in general play modern music I must look to other sources. But I am _very_ motivated to hear new music while most people I suspect are vastly less motivated.

So you are correct that listeners won't hear the vast majority of new music unless they look for it. Unfortunately the few times someone goes to a concert probably doesn't expose people to enough new music (even if all the music played were modern) for them to get a good feel for what's available. The "best" solution would be modern/contemporary classical on the radio, but I think that's just not happening.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

apricissimus said:


> I guess my position comes down to: I'd rather let people prefer what they prefer without others telling them, "No, your tastes are not refined enough, or adventurous enough. Trust me, I know better. Here, listen to this instead." Appreciation of art should be done in a spirit of welcomeness, and not with such an adversarial stance. Don't waste the mental energy.


Did you read Tristan's post? That's _never_ what this thread was about, and I never saw any posts suggesting anything close to what you just wrote.

People get so sensitive about this stuff. Sheesh.


----------



## PetrB

Vaneyes said:


> Old Music, Intermission, New Music. Without exception. :tiphat:


You forgot the piece after the intermission and then the new music, the unfailing chestnut of old repertoire -- so cliche a standard of programming it is called the modern music sandwich


----------



## Winterreisender

some guy said:


> As for the "academics," which you continue to treat as a homogenous group of people, it seems a trifle off to criticize people for "relying" on government handouts but then turn right around and criticize people for supporting themselves with jobs at universities. Wanting to still have your cake after you've eaten it just seems greedy, eh?


The problem is that the BBC decides it needs to promote some "classical" composers in order to appear culturally relevant. So they look to see which composers have the top jobs at universities and assume these composers have some great music in virtue of them having the top jobs (not always the case). So then the BBC executives will promote people like Julian Anderson as if they were much-loved establishment figures when in reality, very few people care for their music. I find it worrying when the establishment is so out of touch with what people actually want to hear.


----------



## PetrB

apricissimus said:


> I guess my position comes down to: I'd rather let people prefer what they prefer without others telling them, "No, your tastes are not refined enough, or adventurous enough. Trust me, I know better. Here, listen to this instead." Appreciation of art should be done in a spirit of welcomeness, and not with such an adversarial stance. Don't waste the mental energy.


INSTEAD? Who said anything about instead?


----------



## PetrB

Winterreisender said:


> The problem is that the BBC decides it needs to promote some "classical" composers in order to appear culturally relevant. So they look to see which composers have the top jobs at universities and assume these composers have some great music in virtue of them having the top jobs (not always the case). So then the BBC executives will promote people like Julian Anderson as if they were much-loved establishment figures when in reality, very few people care for their music. I find it worrying when the establishment is so out of touch with what people actually want to hear.


If you are willing to buy the Beeb's TELEVISION and RADIO PRODUCERS as the musical establishment, you are well into deep doodoo.


----------



## Tristan

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Did you read Tristan's post? That's _never_ what this thread was about, and I never saw any posts suggesting anything close to what you just wrote.
> 
> People get so sensitive about this stuff. Sheesh.


I think the problem is, even though that's not what this thread was about, it's too easy to imply or infer that. There are fine lines between "you might like this/you could add this to your tastes", "your tastes are clearly lacking", and finally (and hopefully not) "your tastes are inferior". I guess it's just too easy for people to jump from the first to the last.


----------



## apricissimus

SilenceIsGolden said:


> Did you read Tristan's post? That's _never_ what this thread was about, and I never saw any posts suggesting anything close to what you just wrote.
> 
> People get so sensitive about this stuff. Sheesh.


I'm seeing quite a lot of condescension and adversarial tone. As if the rubes can't be trusted to figure out what they like best on their own, so let's make sure they listen to music the way it _ought_ to be experienced. (And this is coming from someone who likes listening to new music.)


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> Well, friend, thanks for enlightening us as to what we should like! But you still won't covert me to listening to 'music' that consists of jangling, scraping and generally unpleasant noise.


I recommended not one piece of repertoire in that post, have yet to directly tell anyone 'what they should like.' If you take anyone's disagreement about what you like as a directive to stop liking it, or someones enthusiasm for music you do not care for as a command to 'like this instead,' you need to take counsel with someone, methinks.

Your list of adjectives of type used to describe what you think of (some?) contemporary music, ala "jangling, scraping and generally unpleasant noise," is already thoroughly well known via its myriad duplications in many of your posts.

One could say that people who read TC regularly are very aware of where each of us stands


----------



## apricissimus

PetrB said:


> INSTEAD? Who said anything about instead?


There's only a finite amount of time in the day, and I suspect the average listener doesn't listen as much as you do. (And of course that's _fine_.)


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


> LIBOR manipulation, short selling, price fixing, long term unemployment, Ponzi schemes in banking, food banks etc makes your post seem incredibly naive.


Most of what you refer to was due to inadequate regulation by the relevant Regulatory Authorities in financial markets where the number of operators was naturally limited. I thought this was common knowledge. Given effective regulation, everything that I said is perfectly valid, and makes your post look ill-informed.

Your reference to "long term unemployment" is obviously irrelevant to the issue under discussion. This is a macroeconomic issue that has little if anything to do with the existence of "perfect information". The matter of "information" in the labour market is relevant mainly to short term "frictional" unemployment, where there is mismatch between supply and demand in specific sub-markets.

Referring back to your post #93, you raised the issue of whether a public subsidy of composers, performers and teaching establishments outweighs alternative uses of this money. I noted that I am not aware of any studies that have demonstrated any such advantage. I am not clear what your view is on the matter of subsidy? Do you have one?


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

apricissimus said:


> I'm seeing quite a lot of condescension and adversarial tone. As if the rubes can't be trusted to figure out what they like best on their own, so let's make sure they listen to music the way it _ought_ to be experienced. (And this is coming from someone who likes listening to new music.)


I'm reading the same posts you are, and I haven't seen any of that. Honestly. Suggesting a wider variety of music be made available to concert audiences is not condescending. The only adversarial tones I've seen are from members who are getting incredibly defensive and misinterpreting the spirit of the message.


----------



## Arsakes

What music industry (audiences) want:
Pop: Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, Byonce
Country: Taylor Swift, whatever pop-rock, etc.

*facepalm*


----------



## mmsbls

Freischutz said:


> I'm not _judging_ people because they know less, I'm trying to suggest that we all do things to help them know more!


I think that many of us here would like to see modern/contemporary music as a greater part of the classical music environment. Personally, I have no good ideas on how to increase contemporary music in concerts, on the radio, or in other venues such that "average" listeners will be better exposed.

I know there are ways to organize and push preferences, but I'm just skeptical about the likelihood of success. Maybe I shouldn't be.


----------



## Guest

Tristan said:


> Anyway, I agree with the basic point: give people the opportunity to hear and it judge it for themselves. There shouldn't be any implications that people must love it or are somehow deficient. Or there shouldn't be any implications that people can't form their own tastes.


Can you be more precise about the exact means by which you consider that people should be given the opportunity "to hear it and judge it for themselves"?

Are you, for example, suggesting that there should be some compulsory substitution of a modern piece that is hardly known for another piece that audiences might typically expect to hear? Can you please explain the mechanics involved, as I would like to know and I genuinely have no idea what you may have in mind.


----------



## mmsbls

Winterreisender said:


> The only thing is that my earlier post was specifically talking about government subsidising. Rich and influential patrons can do what they like with their money, but it is a little embarrassing that some "classical" composers must rely on government handouts to survive. I don't see any rock bands getting "arts" grants. The arts council will probably go along with the tastes of music academics in deciding which composers to fund, and academics will probably just choose themselves. And academics have a track record of writing pretty uninspired music, in my opinion. One can become professor of compositions with a good technical knowledge, but one needs more that that to become a great composer.


Why is it embarrassing that some composers rely on government funding (I think handout is the wrong term since the funding requires work on the composer's part)? The vast majority of scientists I know including myself depend to some extent on public funding. Society has determined that public funding of certain activities provides benefits that exceed the outlays. Why couldn't classical music fall into the same category?


----------



## Winterreisender

mmsbls said:


> Why is it embarrassing that some composers rely on government funding (I think handout is the wrong term since the funding requires work on the composer's part)? The vast majority of scientists I know including myself depend to some extent on public funding. Society has determined that public funding of certain activities provides benefits that exceed the outlays. Why couldn't classical music fall into the same category?


Because I don't know how much the public actually is benefiting from music being composed which they have no interest in hearing.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> A most discouraging list! Music people actually enjoy listening to. Shouldn't be allowed!


The point is not whether the Classical FM list of "modern music" is or is not mainly rubbish, but whether it is typical of the kind of modern/contemporary music that underpins threads of this nature, where someone comes along from time and claims that the market is not working properly in some way such that "new music" is not being a given a fair chance to succeed. They do not mean the kind of material contained in the CFM list, except perhaps the odd flukey one or two, but rather material that hardly anyone listens to.


----------



## Freischutz

mmsbls said:


> I think that many of us here would like to see modern/contemporary music as a greater part of the classical music environment. Personally, I have no good ideas on how to increase contemporary music in concerts, on the radio, or in other venues such that "average" listeners will be better exposed.
> 
> I know there are ways to organize and push preferences, but I'm just skeptical about the likelihood of success. Maybe I shouldn't be.


I'm pessimistic too, though in the current musical environment, I think a greater chance of success lies with a bottom-up change in listeners' perspectives rather than top-down programming. _Both_ would be welcome, but I was careful to say that all demographics are guilty of the oversight I described in the OP because it will probably be more productive if communities like ours have conversations like this that help people, little by little, at least recognise their biases and assumptions about other people even if not actually altering their musical preferences. But of course even that is very difficult!


----------



## mmsbls

Winterreisender said:


> Because I don't know how much the public actually is benefiting from music being composed which they have no interest in hearing.


Yes, but we all could say the same about the vast majority of similar public funding. Many times public funding is expected to benefit future generations. I think the issue is simply whether there is a reasonable argument that public funding spent on a particular item will benefit the present or future public. I have never tried to make the argument for classical music, but I know art in general has been considered especially valuable by societies throughout history.


----------



## Vaneyes

PetrB said:


> INSTEAD? Who said anything about instead?


I think that's what the big hang-up is for many on this and other threads. They imagine the "pre-imagined" germs from one sector are contagious and will do them and their music harm. Oldphobia. Newphobia. Never shall the two meet. Like hell.


----------



## arpeggio

*Arrogance*

I recall the times I have been called "arrogant" because I said something the other guy disagreed with. :scold:


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> Partita said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is mainly into music by the likes of Bach, Rameau, Beethoven would probably think you were having a laugh at their expense if they were told that this modern material is a definitely part of a proper classical musical education, which they can ignore only a their peril.
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering when I'd get to say it again; you didn't disappoint: you're not entitled to assume what other people want to listen to.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I am perfectly entitled to make a guess about what I think their reaction might be in the circumstances posited.

There is huge gulf separating the kind of music I referred to by Bach etc, if that is where their main priority lies, and the kind of contemporary music that I suspect this thread is mainly about. It has been very clearly demonstrated in poll after poll concerning composer favourites that contemporary composers are typically very far down the list, if they appear at all, which is by no means guaranteed.

You have not given any examples of the kind of music that you think is under-performed in concerts etc. Can you provide a few specific instances? About 20 or so across the main areas would be very nice to see, if you can manage it. Perhaps you could also illustrate the corresponding types of work that you consider should be displaced in order to make way for your suggested changes. This should be interesting. You never know, I might find the suggestions quite appealing, but I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## Nereffid

Freischutz said:


> I'm puzzled as to why you think _I_ think it's a "huge leap" because that's certainly not what I said! What I said is that exploration is best mediated by social exchange.


Well, I'm just extrapolating from the OP: "so long as we keep modern music out of programmes, people are deprived of the opportunity to come to appreciate it."
I infer from that that you mean that if people don't have the opportunity to hear modern music on a concert programme, they won't have the opportunity to hear it at all.



> I don't know how old you are, but I'd encourage you to engage in a popular activity for hip young internet-age folks: 'check your privilege'. It actually takes quite a bit of privilege to have the time, inclination and education to go searching for new music in a way that will be fruitful rather than aimless. I'm sure _you_ are perfectly capable of it without help (I'd give myself the same credit), but we are not representative of everyone. The process is not universally intuitive and I think the industry could be friendlier for *people who know less about this stuff than we do*. The point is that it would be nice to encourage that adventurous attitude in people who don't already have it but see something and go "Wow!" instead of just providing resources for people who already have that inborn music-lust. And before I'm accused of snobbery again, I'm not _judging_ people because they know less, I'm trying to suggest that we all do things to help them know more!


Well, yes, but there was a time when I knew nothing, and it didn't take much effort on my part to change that.
More to my point, I didn't mind making the effort because it _wasn't_ an effort, because it was something I wanted to do. I would argue though that this is _not_ what some listeners want to do. Of course exploration isn't universally intuitive but on the other hand it's not universally interesting to people either. It _is_ effort to some people, because that's the sort of people they are, either generally or they're specifically not interested in being adventurous in this particular area. Just as, for example, I have chosen not to be interested in jazz. Jazz afficionados may gather on their Internet forums fretting about how they can get more people interested in modern jazz, but no matter what brilliant and worthy solutions they come up with, they won't reach me because I'm not interested in being reached. And for "jazz" you can substitute millions of other minority pursuits from field hockey to heroin to skydiving to embroidery...

(Again, perhaps your OP is clouding the issue... if we're specifically talking about people who go to classical concerts, then "check your privilege" is an odd thing to bring up. Who are these people who have the time, inclination and education to go to classical concerts but not necessarily the time, inclination and education to spend an hour or two on the Internet or in a library, CD store, or bookshop?)


----------



## Freischutz

Nereffid said:


> Well, I'm just extrapolating from the OP: "so long as we keep modern music out of programmes, people are deprived of the opportunity to come to appreciate it." ....


Effort doesn't come into it.

Let me put this another way that you may find easier to relate to. Think about how diverse human musical culture is. If you're listening to classical music, you're probably fairly educated about it. You know you like classical, you know you don't like jazz. You know about a lot of popular genres - maybe you like some, maybe you don't. You know about the badly named, amorphous mass of "world music" - stuff from other cultures and times you don't grow up with. We were talking about (mainly European) folk music on another thread; there's also raga and gamelan and the list goes on, not to mention all that modern music that turns people's stomachs!

There are more musical styles than you or I or anyone else on here knows about personally and none of us can claim to have sampled and explored bits of everything in order to say that, of _all_ human musical culture, _this and only this_ is the music we enjoy. So this raises an interesting question: isn't it _possible_ that there might be a type of music unknown to you that you would appreciate learning about?

If you answered yes, go and find it. Go on. There's some music out there you think you'd like to explore, so go and listen! But wait a minute: how can you? You know it makes sense that there's probably _some_ music you know nothing about but would appreciate, but how can you possibly find it if you've never heard of it before? And if it's only distantly related to the music you already know, you can't even work outwards from knowledge you already have... Well, how are you ever going to find this stuff? You could Google for every type of music there is and start from A heading towards Z, but you know that would take more than your lifetime. You might not ever find this music, but if it happens, it's probably going to be because you went to a concert with a piece you knew nothing about; you heard something on the radio that was totally new; or a friend knew something you didn't know and shared it with you. Individual exploration is great, but it isn't the answer to everything - some things have to come from having a presence in wider society because no individual can navigate the whole of human musical output on their own. We need people - orchestras, presenters and friends - to say, "Hey, look at this."

What you have to generously imagine is that there are many people to whom contemporary music, or some subset of it, is that _thing_ out there they know nothing about and won't come to on their own because their cultural experiences would never lead them to it, yet they'd enjoy it if they were ever exposed to it. I suggested checking your privilege because it seems so obvious to you because of your background that this kind of music is just out there and known and available to people if they want it - that isn't true for everyone and it's important to see that it's only because of your social background that you feel that way.

And as a final thought, what about turning your initial premise on its head: when libraries and the internet already provide such brilliant access to masses upon masses of music, are they not the better avenue for exploring what we already know? Why should it be obvious that concerts should be the venue for known music while we're left to our own devices to discover the unknown? Maybe it'd be more useful and enriching for everyone if it were the other way around...


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> Effort doesn't come into it.
> 
> etc


I trust that you will make the effort to answer the last paragraph of my post #136.

I am anxious to find out what kind of music you think is typically under-presented in concerts etc, and by definition the music that you think is over-represented since they can't extend the length.

Ideally, I would like to see say 20 pairs of music, identifying in each case what's "in" and what's "out".


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> the kind of contemporary music that I suspect this thread is mainly about.


I think I've seen the word "suspect" in a number of your posts in this thread. Pray, do tell....



Partita said:


> You have not given any examples of the kind of music that you think is under-performed in concerts etc. Can you provide a few specific instances? About 20 or so across the main areas would be very nice to see, if you can manage it.


20 or so? LOL, standard quasi-bullying / intimidation tactic, that, and I'm neither bullied nor intimidated.
_ Rest assured, if I have not listed "20 or so" works, I could easily "manage it." _

I am not the one addressed in your post, but let me take a crack at this:

Any of a number of less-performed early 20th century works by the likes of Stravinsky, Ravel, 




Honegger




Milhaud




Prokofiev, 
Vittorio Rieti,




etc. would do for starters, (there are dozens more by composers of various nationalities I am not going to take the time to list, anyone who wants will catch the drift here), and those might make quite a good start since they are still much beholden to more 'traditional' ways of music making and forms. There is a host of fine music prior and up to the 1950's and '60s which is still relatively 'conservative' and could (and I think should) be programmed, one being 
William Schuman's Symphony no. 6, no less conservative and I think no less great than the better of Shostakovich.




None of this fare is now, anyway, remotely avant-garde, what there is of it which is atonal sounds nearly tonal by comparison to later serial works. Works by Hans Werner Henze, or hosts of others active in the latter half of the 20th century, Berio, et alia, could also be presented (Berio mentioned because his music is not only fine, but has a recognizably lyric quality.)

Having lived in major metropolitan areas my entire sixty-five years with very fine orchestras that programmed a moderate amount of contemporary music, and some with specialized contemporary subscription series, I've only had the opportunity to hear Stravinsky's _Oedipus Rex_ live once -- a work by a quite dead composer which needs more airing. The Bartok _Cantata Profana,_ well, it has not yet shown up on a concert program where I have lived, 
ditto Ives' symphony no. 4, a very "accessible" masterwork.




















More current musics -- take your pick. Something by John Adams other than his very frequently played five-minute long overture 'Short ride in a fast machine,' for example, the violin concerto, or the 2nd violin concerto _Dharma at big sur_, which has a growing consensus of both musicians and general audiences saying, "masterpiece."








...or his piano concerto _Century rolls,_ his Eros, for piano and chamber orchestra -- all highly tonal, fine pieces of music, pretty damned 'accessible.

Going further, I would love to find a good ensemble programming Georg Friedrich Haas' _Hyperion_




or his _In Vain_





I would love to hear a live performance of Lucia Dlugoszewski's _Fire Fragile Flight_, written in 1977 (now thirty seven years old)




as well as a myriad of other more contemporary pieces, by both living and the recently deceased.
I'd like to hear Ligeti's _Lontano_ live,




or Beat Furrer's _piano concerto,_




etc.

What you 'bump' from the subscription concert with three works all by dead composers for those more recently deceased and living composers? Simple. Any of the too regularly running as often as buses programmed Beethoven symphonies -- because they will be on the program next year, anyway, just as the same later romantic symphonic buses run so often, or the more forgettable 'second tier' late romantic fare, and you place one modern / contemporary work out of the three on the program for the evening. [I advise following the practice of Pierre Boulez in his programming plans, i.e. the contemporary work first, because it puts it and the other pieces in better perspective.]

Further, there need not be a new work on every week's program throughout the season, but for many a concert organization, one a month would already be a tremendous start. Compared to some of the tastes and what is advocated by some of my colleagues both on and outside of TC, the general suggestions I've given are on the conservative side of modern and contemporary. My personal taste notwithstanding, I think 'conservative' as an introduction is probably a better bet in getting a good response.

Some might readily complain they are not getting their money's worth, i.e. they are short-changed by one third of the ticket price, because that newer work is on the program. I remind anyone objecting that this is very much like that saying about wanting:
A great job
A great residence
A great lover
to which the standard response is, "Two out of three is doing really well."


----------



## Nereffid

Freischutz said:


> Effort doesn't come into it.
> 
> Let me put this another way that you may find easier to relate to. Think about how diverse human musical culture is. If you're listening to classical music, you're probably fairly educated about it. You know you like classical, you know you don't like jazz. You know about a lot of popular genres - maybe you like some, maybe you don't. You know about the badly named, amorphous mass of "world music" - stuff from other cultures and times you don't grow up with. We were talking about (mainly European) folk music on another thread; there's also raga and gamelan and the list goes on, not to mention all that modern music that turns people's stomachs!
> 
> There are more musical styles than you or I or anyone else on here knows about personally and none of us can claim to have sampled and explored bits of everything in order to say that, of _all_ human musical culture, _this and only this_ is the music we enjoy. So this raises an interesting question: isn't it _possible_ that there might be a type of music unknown to you that you would appreciate learning about?
> 
> If you answered yes, go and find it. Go on. There's some music out there you think you'd like to explore, so go and listen! But wait a minute: how can you? You know it makes sense that there's probably _some_ music you know nothing about but would appreciate, but how can you possibly find it if you've never heard of it before? And if it's only distantly related to the music you already know, you can't even work outwards from knowledge you already have... Well, how are you ever going to find this stuff? You could Google for every type of music there is and start from A heading towards Z, but you know that would take more than your lifetime. You might not ever find this music, but if it happens, it's probably going to be because you went to a concert with a piece you knew nothing about; you heard something on the radio that was totally new; or a friend knew something you didn't know and shared it with you. Individual exploration is great, but it isn't the answer to everything - some things have to come from having a presence in wider society because no individual can navigate the whole of human musical output on their own. We need people - orchestras, presenters and friends - to say, "Hey, look at this."
> 
> What you have to generously imagine is that there are many people to whom contemporary music, or some subset of it, is that _thing_ out there they know nothing about and won't come to on their own because their cultural experiences would never lead them to it, yet they'd enjoy it if they were ever exposed to it. I suggested checking your privilege because it seems so obvious to you because of your background that this kind of music is just out there and known and available to people if they want it - that isn't true for everyone and it's important to see that it's only because of your social background that you feel that way.
> 
> And as a final thought, what about turning your initial premise on its head: when libraries and the internet already provide such brilliant access to masses upon masses of music, are they not the better avenue for exploring what we already know? Why should it be obvious that concerts should be the venue for known music while we're left to our own devices to discover the unknown? Maybe it'd be more useful and enriching for everyone if it were the other way around...


Ultimately the difference between us is, I think, that the possibility that "there might be a type of music unknown to you that you would appreciate learning about" is something I find completely and utterly irrelevant. I'm absolutely certain there is such music out there. But so what? I feel in no way deprived by my failure to find this music, because I've _already_ found so much music by so many varied means. So there's more out there; I'm curious; I keep exploring. If I find it, I find it. If I don't, how does this affect me? It doesn't. Only if I'm deep-down dissatisfied with all the music I already know will I feel any need to go find this mysterious Music X about which I know _nothing_. That's where I'm coming from, so unless you're saying that liking only "composers have been dead for at least 150 years" is actually dissatisfying to the people who like such music, I'm not really sure where the problem is supposed to be, other than that you think there aren't mechanisms in place for people who want to be adventurous to actually go and be _so_ adventurous that they can't gradually get from where they are (the 19th century) to where you think they might want to be (the 21st century) (the clue, I think, is in the missing number!).


----------



## PetrB

Winterreisender said:


> ...it is a little embarrassing that some "classical" composers must rely on government handouts to survive.
> 
> Sibelius fans around the world _hang their heads in shame,_ then
> 
> 
> 
> Winterreisender said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any rock bands getting "arts" grants.
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up and smell the coffee: pop music is popular and it sells like hotcakes, no need to subsidize a market already glutted with highly competitive strong talents -- there, let the chips fall where they may, there is no shortage of either talent or 'product.'
Click to expand...


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Wake up and smell the coffee: pop music is popular and it sells like hotcakes, no need to subsidize a market already glutted with highly competitive strong talents -- there, let the chips fall where they may, there is no shortage of either talent or 'product.'


It's hard for me to see why we should subsidize composers who are unable to interest audiences in their music. A good gardener both nourishes and prunes. (signed, Charles Robert Darwin, Fellow of the Royal Society etc.)


----------



## Serge

Just a wild guess, but audiences want to be entertained, pretty much. When they are not hungry, that is.


----------



## Freischutz

Nereffid said:


> Ultimately the difference between us is, I think, that the possibility that "there might be a type of music unknown to you that you would appreciate learning about" is something I find completely and utterly irrelevant. I'm absolutely certain there is such music out there. But so what? I feel in no way deprived by my failure to find this music, because I've _already_ found so much music by so many varied means. So there's more out there; I'm curious; I keep exploring. If I find it, I find it. If I don't, how does this affect me? It doesn't.


I don't care how it does or doesn't affect _you_. I'm interested in the cultural provisions we share as a society and how they can best serve a large and diverse audience. So to return to the original thesis of the thread: the characteristics of our own preferences cannot be used to predict others' preferences or to justify restricted musical programming. We should always expect and hope that programming should be _more_ diverse than we need it to be or would want to listen to because society is more diverse than we are as individuals.



Nereffid said:


> other than that you think there aren't mechanisms in place for people who want to be adventurous to actually go and be _so_ adventurous that they can't gradually get from where they are (the 19th century) to where you think they might want to be (the 21st century) (the clue, I think, is in the missing number!).


I'm not talking about being adventurous because that again brings it back to the question of individual exploration. The whole point is that the music should be so readily available or promoted that it _isn't_ adventurous to listen to it!!! For the nth time, _I'm talking about people who might like this music when they might not otherwise have the means or knowledge to experience it through personal exploration_. Unfortunately, you seem determined to not recognise that such people exist because apparently everyone shares your education and understanding of music history.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> Effort doesn't come into it.
> 
> Let me put this another way that you may find easier to relate to. Think about how diverse human musical culture is. If you're listening to classical music, you're probably fairly educated about it. You know you like classical, you know you don't like jazz. You know about a lot of popular genres - maybe you like some, maybe you don't. You know about the badly named, amorphous mass of "world music" - stuff from other cultures and times you don't grow up with. We were talking about (mainly European) folk music on another thread; there's also raga and gamelan and the list goes on, not to mention all that modern music that turns people's stomachs!
> 
> There are more musical styles than you or I or anyone else on here knows about personally and none of us can claim to have sampled and explored bits of everything in order to say that, of _all_ human musical culture, _this and only this_ is the music we enjoy. So this raises an interesting question: isn't it _possible_ that there might be a type of music unknown to you that you would appreciate learning about?
> 
> If you answered yes, go and find it. Go on. There's some music out there you think you'd like to explore, so go and listen! But wait a minute: how can you? You know it makes sense that there's probably _some_ music you know nothing about but would appreciate, but how can you possibly find it if you've never heard of it before? And if it's only distantly related to the music you already know, you can't even work outwards from knowledge you already have... Well, how are you ever going to find this stuff? You could Google for every type of music there is and start from A heading towards Z, but you know that would take more than your lifetime. You might not ever find this music, but if it happens, it's probably going to be because you went to a concert with a piece you knew nothing about; you heard something on the radio that was totally new; or a friend knew something you didn't know and shared it with you. Individual exploration is great, but it isn't the answer to everything - some things have to come from having a presence in wider society because no individual can navigate the whole of human musical output on their own. We need people - orchestras, presenters and friends - to say, "Hey, look at this."
> 
> What you have to generously imagine is that there are many people to whom contemporary music, or some subset of it, is that _thing_ out there they know nothing about and won't come to on their own because their cultural experiences would never lead them to it, yet they'd enjoy it if they were ever exposed to it. I suggested checking your privilege because it seems so obvious to you because of your background that this kind of music is just out there and known and available to people if they want it - that isn't true for everyone and it's important to see that it's only because of your social background that you feel that way.
> 
> And as a final thought, what about turning your initial premise on its head: when libraries and the internet already provide such brilliant access to masses upon masses of music, are they not the better avenue for exploring what we already know? Why should it be obvious that concerts should be the venue for known music while we're left to our own devices to discover the unknown? Maybe it'd be more useful and enriching for everyone if it were the other way around...


I find all this contains two main problems:

First, there seems to be a presumption that concert organisers, radio stations etc, have an obligation to perform/play every single type of music that is currently available, regardless of popularity, merely on the possibility that it might introduce someone to a new style of music they happen to like. This would cause far more harm than good if audiences were expected to sit through programmes comprising all manner of different material. Most people simply would not bother to listen to a ragbag of styles in any one event, especially if some types were unknown. Even if someone happened to be introduced to a new style they like, there would be no gain if the cost was boredom to most others who then become disinclined to attend any further events of the same kind.

Second, contrary to your suggestion, artists/orchestras would not have the incentive to perform/record works merely because they exist. It would likely prove to be uneconomic for any commercially oriented organisation to record/perform little known, or unknown, works in this manner. Businesses do not normally operate on this basis as there must be the expectation of a benefit to result in order to justify the outlay.

In summary, I do not believe that what you propose is remotely feasible.


----------



## Freischutz

Partita said:


> First, there seems to be a presumption that concert organisers, radio stations etc, have an obligation to perform/play every single type of music that is currently available, regardless of popularity, merely on the possibility that it might introduce someone to a new style of music they happen to like.


Nope. In order to explain the point, I described that there is a huge amount of extant music, but did not imply in any way that such venues should try to cover it comprehensively. It merely provides a setting in which they should aspire for a greater degree of diversity than we see today. Exactly how much cannot be prescriptively quantified, but current programming is obviously not representative of the musical culture we inhabit.



Partita said:


> Second, contrary to your suggestion, artists/orchestras would not have the incentive to perform/record works merely because they exist.


I don't believe that is a sufficient criterion either. Where did you pull that one from?


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> I think I've seen the word "suspect" in a number of your posts in this thread. Pray, do tell....
> 
> 20 or so? LOL, standard quasi-bullying / intimidation tactic, that, and I'm neither bullied nor intimidated.
> _ Rest assured, if I have not listed "20 or so" works, I could easily "manage it." _
> etc


I'm not trying to "bully" anyone, but merely asking for examples of the type of music that the OP considers to be under-represented in concerts and radio shows.

This was intended to be a reasonable request, as we can't be sure what type of music is being talked about in this thread. I am pretty sure it is nothing like the Classic FM list that was put up earlier. Like it or not, it's pretty bog-standard stuff, especially if one listens to CFM.

I have a reasonable idea of the style that some members might be thinking of, but this may not reflect the interests of the OP. I don't know whether he is referring to contemporary composers only, or to some more distant 20th Century ones who were less successful than others.

My suggestion of 20 works was an arbitrary number, but since the OP has referred to many different musical styles I didn't wish him to feel in any way restricted, so I thought I would give him space in which to elaborate fully his ideas.

As for your suggestions, interesting though they are, I don't think they qualify as if I had wanted random thoughts I could have generated some quite easily myself. Besides, many of yours are obviously not little known works, unless one happens to live in Botswana or some other remote, god-forsaken place.


----------



## Mahlerian

Winterreisender said:


> I also mentioned earlier that there are many modern "classical" composers such as Arvo Part, Karl Jenkins and John Rutter, who can attract a large audience. Having read through this thread, it just seems to me that certain individuals simply aren't happy because their favourite composers are generally ignored by the public.


Actually, Schoenberg is performed more often than any of the above, and though he's only ever scored one Billboard hit CD, vastly more often recorded as well (despite a smallish oeuvre). Do you admit that he's more popular now (at least with musicians who want to play the music)?


----------



## Freischutz

Partita said:


> Besides, many of yours are obviously not little known works, unless one happens to live in Botswana or some other remote, god-forsaken place.


I'm wondering how to parse this sentence: does the set of god-forsaken places include or exclude Botswana?


----------



## Winterreisender

Mahlerian said:


> Actually, Schoenberg is performed more often than any of the above, and though he's only ever scored one Billboard hit CD, vastly more often recorded as well (despite a smallish oeuvre). Do you admit that he's more popular now (at least with musicians who want to play the music)?


I thought pretty much every choral society in existence sings stuff from John Rutter. But nevertheless, not sure if it is a fair comparison as Schoenberg was composing 100 years ago. I'm not sure if there are many living composers who are performed more than Arvo Part.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> Nope. In order to explain the point, I described that there is a huge amount of extant music, but did not imply in any way that such venues should try to cover it comprehensively. It merely provides a setting in which they should aspire for a greater degree of diversity than we see today. Exactly how much cannot be prescriptively quantified, but current programming is obviously not representative of the musical culture we inhabit.
> 
> I don't believe that is a sufficient criterion either. Where did you pull that one from?


On both issues, it is a perfectly respectable interpretation of your post that you expect orchestras/artists to be able to perform a wide range works merely because they exist, and that the media should provide opportunity for these works to be played regardless of demand, on the chance that some of these works may be of appeal to someone who has not heard them previously.

I have simply clarified your post to bring out these implications, which you evidently find uncomfortable.


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> As for your suggestions, interesting though they are, I don't think they qualify as if I had wanted random thoughts I could have generated some quite easily myself. Besides, many of yours are obviously not little known works, unless one happens to live in Botswana or some other remote, god-forsaken place.


... you were not born with the cumulative knowledge of repertoire you now have, nor was it obtained via some accident. Even if you did explore, there were resources you knew of or found out about, found accessible to you, including, one might imagine, finding others with similar interests and asking for recommendations.

There are plenty here on TC who have heard of but some of the names of the composers I mentioned and have not yet gotten around to those whose names they do know -- or have not gotten past Stravinsky and "The firebird," and the suite at that -- and that is the TC crowd, one I think a slight cut above the knowledge curve from a lot of average concert-goers and those who own a few classical CDs.

ADD: P.s. if you want to take over my TC membership appointed crown of patrician elitist snobbery, the above quoted paragraph I think is a very fine opening bid


----------



## Freischutz

Partita said:


> On both issues, it is a perfectly respectable interpretation of your post that you expect orchestras/artists to be able to perform a wide range works merely because they exist, and that the media should provide opportunity for these works to be played regardless of demand, on the chance that some of these works may be of appeal to someone who has not heard them previously.
> 
> I have simply clarified your post to bring out these implications, which you evidently find uncomfortable.


I don't find them uncomfortable, I just didn't intend them, so I'm glad you identified them so I could dispel them. Now you can find something else to disagree with!


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> I'm wondering how to parse this sentence: does the set of god-forsaken places include or exclude Botswana?


I'm wondering when you are going to clarify the specific problems that you envisage. Which types of music and which composers are you talking about?


----------



## Mahlerian

Winterreisender said:


> I thought pretty much every choral society in existence sings stuff from John Rutter. But nevertheless, not sure if it is a fair comparison as Schoenberg was composing 100 years ago. I'm not sure if there are many living composers who are performed more than Arvo Part.


Well, he's more performed than Holst, Schmidt, or Suk (who were born the same year), and more often recorded than the latter two by a considerable margin. Take out The Planets and Verklarte Nacht both, and the rest of Schoenberg's oeuvre is more often recorded than the rest of Holst's.


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> I'm wondering when you are going to clarify the specific problems that you envisage. Which types of music and which composers are you talking about?


While the board awaits, with equal anticipation and bated breath, the list of your usual 'suspects.'


----------



## Freischutz

Partita said:


> I'm wondering when you are going to clarify the specific problems that you envisage. Which types of music and which composers are you talking about?


What was wrong with PetrB's response? I answer by proxy with that!


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Take out The Planets and Verklarte Nacht both, and the rest of Schoenberg's oeuvre is more often recorded than the rest of Holst's.


Well, that seems an odd way to look at it. Schoenberg's most popular piece is certainly Verklarte Nacht. Typing it into Amazon's music search yields 206 hits. The Planets yields 9,418...

Even typing in "Schoenberg" yields just 1,771. So maybe The Planets is 5.3 times more popular than Schoenberg's entire output!


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> ... you were not born with the cumulative knowledge of repertoire you now have, nor was it obtained via some accident. Even if you did explore, there were resources you knew of or found out about, found accessible to you, including, one might imagine, finding others with similar interests and asking for recommendations.
> 
> There are plenty here on TC who have heard of but some of the names of the composers I mentioned and have not yet gotten around to those whose names they do know -- or have not gotten past Stravinsky and "The firebird," and the suite at that -- and that is the TC crowd, one I think a slight cut above the knowledge curve from a lot of average concert-goers and those who own a few classical CDs.


I didn't ask for your suggestions about the kind of music that seems underperformed.

The fact that you have provided them may be of interest to some people but they are not to me. As far as I am concerned, they are mostly well-known pieces that I hear performed on radio quite often. I think the "Firebird" has been played at least twice over the past month.

As I have attempted to explain, it is the OP's opinions that I wish to learn about, so that his concerns can be more properly addressed than by mere guesswork as to which he sees as the problem areas.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> Well, that seems an odd way to look at it. Schoenberg's most popular piece is certainly Verklarte Nacht. Typing it into Amazon's music search yields 206 hits. The Planets yields 9,418...
> 
> Even typing in "Schoenberg" yields just 1,771. So maybe The Planets is 5.3 times more popular than Schoenberg's entire output!


Typing in Holst yields 1,502.

Strange what cherry-picking can do to results...


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> Typing in Holst yields 1,502.


Eh, you're right. Obviously The Planets is so popular that the composer's name goes without mention! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Wood said:


> That is partly a misconception based on the fact that where modern music is programmed with mass audiences, eg at the Proms, it is often as a 'world premiere'. This is fine, except that the music of the previous 50 years doesn't get a look in. As such, new music can seem to come from nowhere, even if it follows a continual line of development from the CPP.


I must confess I always brace myself when I see the words 'world premiere' for what is likely to follow!


----------



## DavidA

"I advise following the practice of Pierre Boulez in his programming plans, i.e. the contemporary work first, because it puts it and the other pieces in better perspective." 

Yes, at least it gets it over with and makes us feel lucky we have at least some listenable music in the rest of the programme!


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> "I advise following the practice of Pierre Boulez in his programming plans, i.e. the contemporary work first, because it puts it and the other pieces in better perspective."
> 
> Yes, at least it gets it over with and makes us feel lucky we have at least some listenable music in the rest of the programme!


It would simply encourage people to come late to the concert.

If you want to force folks to listen to something contemporary, program it second after a mainstream symphony or overture with the promise of a very popular work in the third position.


----------



## Guest

This thread has been an excellent exemplar of why I started the "Getting beyond likes and dislikes" thread awhile back.

Framing the discussion in terms of likes and dislikes will put the advantage to the familiar music every time.

I say that those of us who want to promote new music, to argue for its value generally to the vitality of music now and in the future, should give over trying to convince people that they'll like "it" if only they get a chance to hear it. Sure, that will happen from time to time, but liking or disliking is as may be. Liking and disliking implies that the current reality is the only reality, that neither the past (when there were things that you like now that you used to dislike) nor the future (when you will discover new things to like) really counts. Status quo.

And even if you acknowledge that there are things you used to dislike or might some day be able to like, framing the discussion in terms of likes and dislikes is futile. What any given person may or may not be able to like right away, what any given person may or may not dislike right away, what any given person may or may not be able to change vis-à-vis liking or disliking, is hardly a basis for a discussion of ideas. Too capricious. Too volatile. Too personal. Your personal views on anything may be very interesting to and important for you--I know mine are )), but to carry on a conversation about the issues raised in the OP of this thread that does more than go around in circles (nice though hamster wheels are, for hamsters), we need to get beyond our own personal likes and dislikes so that we can talk intelligently and dispassionately about worth and value.

It is clear that many listeners, perhaps most listeners, want to hear the pieces that they already know they like. Beyond that, they may be willing (even eager, in some cases) to hear other pieces that are similar to the ones they already know they like. This may indeed suffice for any given listener. It does not suffice for a basis of keeping an art form alive and viable. For that, there must be a willingness to go outside one's current likes and dislikes. Willing and even eager. After all, if something is genuinely new (in any way besides simply recent), it is, *by definition,* unfamiliar, so talking about it in terms of liking or disliking completely misses the point. New means new. It's not that hard. To compare recent music with past music, to argue either that recent music cannot compete or that recent music is every bit as good, is to completely ignore the whole meaning of new.

Are things that are (relatively) unfamiliar as good as things that are familiar is simply the wrong question. Let future generations decide, if that's what they want, whether any one thing from 2014 is "as good as" any one thing from 1814--never mind that pieces that far separated in time are very unlikely to be trying to accomplish anywhere near the same kinds of things. To audiences in the eighteenth century, it was taken for granted that new was better than old. Think of that for a moment. Some of the music most revered today was written in a time when revering the past was pretty much not even a thing. It took most of the nineteenth century to change the mindset from "new is better than old" to "old is better than new." And that's the mindset we are dealing with today.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Eh, you're right. Obviously The Planets is so popular that the composer's name goes without mention! :lol:


Ha! Recall that member who said you knew a composer was relatively obscure because they had typed _Piston_ into Google search and page after page yielded nothing about the composer? (Well, it is a name the nature of which, but still


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> It would simply encourage people to come late to the concert.
> 
> If you want to force folks to listen to something contemporary, program it second after a mainstream symphony or overture with the promise of a very popular work in the third position.


"force" is antithetical to any kind of positive approach. Let them come late. Eventually, they might wonder -- or hear reports -- about what they missed


----------



## moody

hpowders said:


> It would simply encourage people to come late to the concert.
> 
> If you want to force folks to listen to something contemporary, program it second after a mainstream symphony or overture with the promise of a very popular work in the third position.


That's exactly what the BBC do at the Proms---so they lost out because I wouldn't go to such concerts.


----------



## Freischutz

some guy said:


> After all, if something is genuinely new (in any way besides simply recent), it is, *by definition,* unfamiliar, so talking about it in terms of liking or disliking completely misses the point.


Everyone should let this sentence get under their skin.



moody said:


> That's exactly what the BBC do at the Proms---so they lost out because I wouldn't go to such concerts.


They lost you... but maybe they gained someone else? There's a lot of egocentrism going around this thread. "_I_ am public taste!"


----------



## PetrB

moody said:


> That's exactly what the BBC do at the Proms---so they lost out because I wouldn't go to such concerts.


I've never let one thing I know I have no interest in being on the program stop me from going to hear that which I did want to hear of the program. I either listen through that piece for the simple pleasure of hearing great musicians play, or edit the concert, just step out between numbers, then come back.

You may have missed some tremendous concerts and playing by doing the avoid the whole program due to one piece on it routine. Yeah, it is "one third less for your money." I still consider two out of three a pretty good value (with the seats to many of the subsidized European orchestras a bargain compared to 'the same' in the States) especially if you're happy with the two out of three.


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> They lost you... but maybe they gained someone else? There's a lot of egocentrism going around this thread. "_I_ am public taste!"


No more egocentric than "_my_ obscure tastes should become public taste."


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> No more egocentric than "_my_ obscure tastes should become public taste."


Have you not read any of my posts in this thread yet? Did you just see "modern music" in the OP and then blindly go RANT, RANT, RANT, RANT, RANT? My tastes aren't all that obscure compared to people who are _really_ into modern music; I haven't talked about my own personal tastes in this thread; I haven't advocated people adapt to my taste; and I in fact advocated that we should _all_ be in favour of programs that do _not_ match our tastes (so that includes subverting my own).

But what does it matter what people are _really_ saying here? ...


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> I didn't ask for your suggestions about the kind of music that seems underperformed.
> 
> The fact that you have provided them may be of interest to some people but they are not to me. As far as I am concerned, they are mostly well-known pieces that I hear performed on radio quite often. I think the "Firebird" has been played at least twice over the past month.
> 
> As I have attempted to explain, it is the OP's opinions that I wish to learn about, so that his concerns can be more properly addressed than by mere guesswork as to which he sees as the problem areas.


Yes, I'm sure your local FM broadcast the Firebird Suite several times last month, the least modern style of all those best known first three Stravinsky Ballet scores. I doubt if it has, within the past year, broadcast Threni, Les Noces, In Memoriam Dylan Thomas, let alone Agon or even the very beautiful and accessible Apollo. LOL.

But you do have much to learn about fora, and consequent expectations of privacy in solely two-way communication when your posit is made in a general thread, is all I have to say to _that_.

Anyhoo, the OP has returned their reply, letting my response be theirs by granted proxy. So perhaps you will now deem to bestow upon us humble peasants what you would '_suspect_' that repertoire from the 20th century and later which is worthy of and awaiting further exposure is? (I suspect you are near to busting to give us an astounding display of what you know... don't hold back, now. Lay it on us


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> Have you not read any of my posts in this thread yet? Did you just see "modern music" in the OP and then blindly go RANT, RANT, RANT, RANT, RANT? My tastes aren't all that obscure compared to people who are _really_ into modern music; I haven't talked about my own personal tastes in this thread; I haven't advocated people adapt to my taste; and I in fact advocated that we should _all_ be in favour of programs that do _not_ match our tastes (so that includes subverting my own).
> 
> But what does it matter what people are _really_ saying here? ...


But the problem is, as has already been pointed out several times, that there are thousands of modern composers and it is neither practical nor desirable for the public to sit through every single one of them. Therefore someone must decide which composers should be spoonfed to the public (who are apparently too stupid to decide for themselves what to listen to), and that must mean favouring a small elitely chosen group over all others. When I have pointed out that the public does like modern music, "classical" or otherwise, the response seems to be "no not _that_ sort of music." So it is clear that certain individuals on this thread want to dictate to the public what they should and shouldn't listen to.


----------



## moody

PetrB said:


> I've never let one thing I know I have no interest in being on the program stop me from going to hear that which I did want to hear of the program. I either listen through that piece for the simple pleasure of hearing great musicians play, or edit the concert, just step out between numbers, then come back.
> 
> You may have missed some tremendous concerts and playing by doing the avoid the whole program due to one piece on it routine. Yeah, it is "one third less for your money." I still consider two out of three a pretty good value (with the seats to many of the subsidized European orchestras a bargain compared to 'the same' in the States) especially if you're happy with the two out of three.


You miss the point,it's the principal that I will not be forced to listen to what I don't want to hear.
Let me tell you that they don't try this nonsense with the really big-name concerts ,incidentally it is my choice !!


----------



## hpowders

moody said:


> That's exactly what the BBC do at the Proms---so they lost out because I wouldn't go to such concerts.


I've removed you from the mailing list! :lol:


----------



## Blancrocher

PetrB said:


> I doubt if it has, within the past year, broadcast Threni, Les Noces, In Memoriam Dylan Thomas, let alone Agon or even the very beautiful and accessible Apollo. LOL.


Or Orpheus: why this work isn't more popular is beyond me.


----------



## Mahlerian

PetrB said:


> Yes, I'm sure your local FM broadcast the Firebird Suite several times last month, the least modern style of all those best known first three Stravinsky Ballet scores. I doubt if it has, within the past year, broadcast Threni, Les Noces, In Memoriam Dylan Thomas, let alone Agon or even the very beautiful and accessible Apollo. LOL.


My local FM has played Apollo in the past, as well as a few other Neoclassical Stravinsky scores like Four Norwegian Moods. They'll never play Les Noces, Renard, or Requiem Canticles, of course, and the majority of their fare does consist of Baroque, Classical, and Romantic repertoire, but they branch out a little once in a while.


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> Therefore someone must decide which composers should be spoonfed to the public


Why must you always resort to such loaded terms? Why can't you just say, "Therefore someone must decide which composers should be programmed"? That's a perfectly valid question and it's a genuine problem that we could have a discussion about. Yes, it is something of a conundrum how we prioritise certain styles of music, and we do have to be concerned about the criteria that concert organisers use in order to prioritise certain composers over others because their decisions must necessarily reflect certain biases and we need to be aware of whether or not we agree with them. There's the starter of an intelligent conversation! But instead you assume that we're looking down on everyone when we've spent the last 12 pages trying to argue that people should simply have better means to live a more interesting musical life, such as with this deliberately misleading comment:



Winterreisender said:


> (who are apparently too *stupid* to decide for themselves what to listen to)


_They are not stupid, they are under-informed and under-served by a music industry with vested interests that are at odds with the success of a diverse musical culture_.

So much for us continually coming in for accusations about our "adversarial" tone and desires to "force" people to listen to music. Although you may absolutely, staunchly disagree with what we have said on this thread, we have really been nothing but congenial, while it seems that every other post you make is fierily antagonistic.



Winterreisender said:


> When I have pointed out that the public does like modern music, "classical" or otherwise, the response seems to be "no not _that_ sort of music." So it is clear that certain individuals on this thread want to dictate to the public what they should and shouldn't listen to.


Now, if someone does say, "no not _that_ sort of music", I would probably disagree with them because of what I just set out in the first paragraph of this post. We do need to come to some kind of understanding about what we choose. If I remember rightly, you (or someone) posted some list that had a variety of 20th century music on it. I _would_ respond "no, not that sort" to that, but it's my own fault it was brought up because my OP was badly worded. I shouldn't have said anything about composers dead for 150 years, I should have talked simply about living and dead composers. Most of those 20th century ones listed (if not all) were dead, so I feel they are irrelevant to the conversation. I have to accept responsibility for misleading the discussion.

Now, if we were instead considering someone like Arvo Part, I personally find his music uninteresting, but I think it's perfectly reasonable that his music should be programmed (and that's really irrespective of whether people like it or not, though it's great that they do) and it would indeed contribute to the hopes that I've outlined in this thread. But programming people like Part still leaves a lot for the industry to do before it becomes even a shade of what music is today.


----------



## Vaneyes

moody said:


> You miss the point,it's the principal that* I will not be forced to listen to what I don't want to hear.*
> Let me tell you that they don't try this nonsense with the really big-name concerts ,incidentally it is my choice !!


What is your line of demarcation? 1913? Or earlier?


----------



## PetrB

Blancrocher said:


> Or Orpheus: why this work isn't more popular is beyond me.


aYep, another stunningly beautiful score from a master composer, the Bach of the 20th century.

Sigh... as has been said many times in this thread, unless programmed, on live concerts, repeatedly with some years' interval in between appearances, and played more often on FM classical stations (ditto, and in full) it will wait the now forumlaic proscribed seventy-five to eighty years before it gains a wider audience, _just as many a great work from the more distant past has done._

Pity, that means _nearly three generations of concert goers are just missing out on a gorgeous piece _-- why that is, the resistance to such fare, with the royalty costs being the least of the problem, well, go figure.


----------



## PetrB

moody said:


> You miss the point,it's the principal that I will not be forced to listen to what I don't want to hear.
> Let me tell you that they don't try this nonsense with the really big-name concerts ,incidentally it is my choice !!


Really, you're speaking as if someone had kidnapped you and tied you into a chair, hands restrained so you cannot cover your ears, and made you listen to _________. Too funny, really


----------



## hpowders

When I lived in NYC, there was a station that would play anything and everything, 24/7. Sadly it became a hard rock station.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Pity, that means _nearly three generations of concert goers are just missing out on a gorgeous piece _-- why that is, the resistance to such fare, with the royalty costs being the least of the problem, well, go figure.


There's a rather huge difference. All these works are available to anyone, any time, for the price of a CD or, more likely, for free via streaming. They get no lack of exposure, unlike the works of yesteryear that sometimes disappeared and went unheard for decades.

If despite the broad and cheap availability of these works to just about everybody, there's still be no clamor for their inclusion in that next concert with its hundred-buck tickets, then it's reasonable to ask why. To assume that it's "ignorance" (as some here seem to do) seems MOST unlikely.


----------



## PetrB

PetrB said:


> Really, you're speaking as if someone had kidnapped you and tied you into a chair, hands restrained so you cannot cover your ears, and made you listen to _________. Too funny, really


I live in VeryBigCity U.S.A. which has one of the arguably top ten performing orchestras in the world, and there are plenty of 'big name' concerts in that orchestra's home which include a modern or more contemporary work. I think very few subscribers have boycotted those particular programs, or dropped their subscriptions because of that sort of programming.

I "edit" near the opposite things from the programs that you would, I think: I went, heard I forgot what first (it was common practice something -- pleasant enough), then the goal piece by Takemitsu, and left before the Pines of Rome started. You might be one to take a leave of absence for the Takemitsu and revel in the Resphigi. Too bad we did not know each other back then, we might have been able to split share a seat, each have our pleasures, and save some expenses  But, back to some relevance to the OP, you and I are very much in a marketing demographic envelope of those 'about to die off,' and are not practically worth cultivating or catering toward as far as what is currently programmed or recorded. That is a harsh but basic fact.

Without an organization going 'pops,' I do think that whether you like it or not, more contemporaneous works may more readily speak to the younger generations, and I am all for programming those, with some good measure of prudence as to those selected works having a fairly high degree of "merit," (and not being all squishy pops-classical, either) and pulling in the younger audience who will remain an audience through to when they are 'our age.'

If it isn't growing, it is dying; and those older audiences ("us"), and some of the older repertoire, are both beginning to look and sound pretty grey and ashen, and that repertoire is not drawing newer audiences in.

Just as there is not a great massive general audience for Renaissance classical music, because of a shift of public taste over several hundreds of years, I do believe we are near a cusp of baroque, classical and some romantic repertoire going toward some sort of sunset, not to die, but truly becoming the more recent 'antique music.' It is a known and quite natural development, (every era moving over one place) and I don't think one should find that either alarming or sad.

To me, much of the music from 1890 to the 1960's is already the 'new - old music,' and unless general audiences are wanting to devote more and more of their time to this additional century on top of the previous centuries of classical music, and unless there is a surge of interest and a flood of money to support both the old and the newer, one or the other will give.


----------



## hpowders

One can't compare the informed, sophisticated concert goer from NYC or Boston with those from Des Moines or Tampa.

I used to subscribe to the NY Philharmonic concerts and contemporary works were frequently programmed; perhaps with a few more coughs than usual, but not many empty seats.

Try the same thing in Tampa, where half the auditorium is empty for an all Beethoven concert and classical music could disappear entirely.


----------



## superhorn

Programming concerts is one of the most difficult and thankless jobs in existence . Those responsible for it are
damned if they do, and damned if they don't .
No matter what music directors of orchestras and those in administration choose , someone will
always complain bitterly . It's impossible to please everyone who attends an orchestra's concerts ,
whether audience members or critics . 
What audiences want ? Not everyone who attends concerts wants the same things .
Unfortunately,too many have closed minds when it comes to programming works by living or
recently deceased composers . They've already made up their minds before they even hear the music .
These people need their repertory staples by Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky & Rachmaninov
the way some small children need their security blankets . 
Of course, by no means all concert goers are like this , but too many are . Many people are
horrified at hearing works by Schoenberg, Berg and Webern which were written about a century ago .
Despite this , a considerable number of new worls HAVE been premiered by a wide variety of
composers writing in diverse styles in recent years ,so the repertoire has not become stagnant by
any means . Don't despair ! All is not lost !


----------



## Tristan

hpowders said:


> When I lived in NYC, there was a station that would play anything and everything, 24/7. Sadly it became a hard rock station.


The classical station around here became a Top 40 mainstream station. Eventually the classical station came back with three new numbers depending on what county you're in with really weak signals. It's sad 

Like, off the top of my head I can think of at least three different "top 40" stations in my area. It's so dumb there are almost no words for it...


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> One can't compare the informed, sophisticated concert goer from NYC or Boston with those from Des Moines or Tampa.
> 
> I used to subscribe to the NY Philharmonic concerts and contemporary works were frequently programmed; perhaps with a few more coughs than usual, but not many empty seats.
> 
> Try the same thing in Tampa, where half the auditorium is empty for an all Beethoven concert and classical music could disappear entirely.


*Gasp!* That is _soooo_ elitist, ha haaaa haaaaaaaaaaaa.

But it is too true, and it needs blunt recognition as a general current truth....

Only a handful of orchestras the world round, those almost always in one of the greater metropolitan areas or the greater megalopolis (megalopolii?) have the orchestra with the chops _and_ the audience with the listening chops to put on modern and conemporary fare and and have it well recieved.

Ergo, if there is some concern for contemporary music, _"Houston, we have a problem."_


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Ergo, if there is some concern for contemporary music, _"Houston, we have a problem."_


Again, there seems to be a perception that the apparently limited demand for some contemporary (or even not-so-contemporary) music is due to its not being programmed in orchestral concerts. And again, this music is broadly and cheaply available to anybody who wants to hear it. And still the peasants aren't flocking to Orchestral Hall with pitchforks and torches. Is there a message here?


----------



## Serge

KenOC said:


> Is there a message here?


That the market economy is sick?


----------



## PetrB

Tristan said:


> The classical station around here became a Top 40 mainstream station. Eventually the classical station came back with three new numbers depending on what county you're in with really weak signals. It's sad
> 
> Like, off the top of my head I can think of at least three different "top 40" stations in my area. It's so dumb there are almost no words for it...


Time to look into WFMT.com, the free online streamed, available to anyone worldwide, 24/7, classical radio station, one of the best to be found anywhere. It is partially listener funded, so once in a while there is a funding drive. I recommend even the smallest of contributions to keep it going if you find it at all worth your while.

They play it all, complete pieces, music from all eras, and do not shirk from the vocal and opera genres (so many do.) Pieces are announced prior and after being played; the announcers are very well versed in classical, their commentary often informative and very friendly without a hint of condescension. You can look them up and see what the programming is right now. Their midnight to six a.m. slot (U.S. Central time) is all free-flow repertoire as chosen by the DJ.

This is well worth your looking into.

With best regards.


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> ...it's the princip[le] that I will not be forced to listen to what I don't want to hear.


One, no one is forcing you to attend any concert, ever. And that will never happen, ever.

Two, there is a difference (haven't we had this conversation before?) between public and private. In private, you can listen to whatever you want, whenever you want to. In public, the rules change. In public, there are other people. And your principles don't seem to want to consider other people at all, people who might just possibly want to listen to something you don't want to hear. If you don't want to hear it, no one gets to hear it? Nah. Can't be. You're in public, now, at a concert. You canna carry your private world into public. That's just not on.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> Again, there seems to be a perception that the apparently limited demand for some contemporary (or even not-so-contemporary) music is due to its not being programmed in orchestral concerts. And again, this music is broadly and cheaply available to anybody who wants to hear it. And still the peasants aren't flocking to Orchestral Hall with pitchforks and torches. Is there a message here?


Again, there is that blind perception that all readily are aware of it, have been 'exposed' to it, and know of it and where to look to find more. The insular sight of those already in the circle. A huge part of the market are those who have only a bit of this and that, all common practice music. Radio programming is the first place many hear of and hear the newer music -- I'd consider it the near first front; the internet -- again if one knows of it and where to look --the second wave; the concert halls, maybe always so, where the least amount of people, collectively, now partake in listening to classical.

For those of us more than a bit familiar, it might surprise that many who know of a bit of or more than a bit of Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are unaware of Aaron Copland, let alone John Adams, Arvo Part, to name three of the most populist and "accessible" of modern and contemporary composers.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Again, there is that blind perception that all readily are aware of it, have been 'exposed' to it, and know of it and where to look to find more.


If they care, they certainly can find it! Most, of course, don't care. Perhaps we should nail them to their seats down at Orchestral Hall? BTW I'm interested in what a "blind perception" is. Sounds exotic.


----------



## Guest

Ken, have you not seen any of numerous posts of people who are keen to learn but don't know where to start?

Surely you have seen those. 

You've probably even defended their requests against my ill-natured criticisms of people who rely on others to do their work for them. Yes. Probably have.


----------



## mmsbls

I don't disagree with anyone who has suggested that programming contemporary works would help introduce listeners to new music. I'm just not sure that's enough. People I know might attend a few concerts a year. If they heard a new work every concert, they would still only hear contemporary music several times a year. I had to hear modern/contemporary music many more times than that to become accustomed to the language and appreciate much of the music. I'm sure some people would respond more quickly than I, but I think I'm more adventurous than many.

For contemporary music to grow a bigger market, there must be more exposure. Obviously no one will force another to listen so there must be other ways of making the music available such that more people will be drawn in. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how to do that. I still think the best way is classical radio stations playing a healthy dose of contemporary music, but modern music on the radio is much rarer than modern music in concert. It's really a dilemma.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> ...but modern music on the radio is much rarer than modern music in concert. It's really a dilemma.


Sadly, the worst thing that can happen on radio is for a listener to change the station. So radio pretty much avoids music, no matter how excellent, that has "negatives" for some listeners (in my experience anyway). Concert programming is actually a lot more adventurous, because it takes more energy to stamp out of the hall in dudgeon, be it high or low.  Plus, you've got a significant investment in those tickets...


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> Sadly, the worst thing that can happen on radio is for a listener to change the station.


I don't disagree with their rationale, and I expect that they might very well maximize their listening base by excluding modern/contemporary. As I said, it's a dilemma.


----------



## Guest

I pick up on several of your comments in your post #181 in response to Winterreisender's post #176. I select these because they appear to be central to the discussion of this thread.



Freischutz said:


> Why must you always resort to such loaded terms? Why can't you just say, "Therefore someone must decide which composers should be programmed"? *That's a perfectly valid question and it's a genuine problem that we could have a discussion about.* Yes, it is something of a conundrum how we prioritise certain styles of music, and we do have to be concerned about the criteria that concert organisers use in order to prioritise certain composers over others because their decisions must necessarily reflect certain biases and we need to be aware of whether or not we agree with them. There's the starter of an intelligent conversation!


The bolded sentence is a big understatement. I have been trying to find out from you how you would propose to change programming at concerts or in broadcasts, but you have never come up with anything. All you say is that it needs changing, without offering any ideas about what should replace what. By now admitting that you have no ideas, and that the matter deserves further discussion, illustrates the problem that fundamentally flaws your whole argument.



Freischutz said:


> They [the public]are not stupid, they are under-informed and under-served by a music industry with vested interests that are at odds with the success of a diverse musical culture.


This comment is the main one of your premises that I disagree with. It is a baseless assertion.



Freischutz said:


> Now, if someone does say, "no not _that_ sort of music", I would probably disagree with them because of what I just set out in the first paragraph of this post. We do need to come to some kind of understanding about what we choose. If I remember rightly, you (or someone) posted some list that had a variety of 20th century music on it. I _would_ respond "no, not that sort" to that, *but it's my own fault it was brought up because my OP was badly worded.* I shouldn't have said anything about composers dead for 150 years, I should have talked simply about living and dead composers. Most of those 20th century ones listed (if not all) were dead, so I feel they are irrelevant to the conversation. I have to accept responsibility for misleading the discussion. !


This admission that your OP was badly worded is no surprise. Even though the OP was indeed unclear, I had a good idea that the Classic FM list furnished by Taggart was not the kind of music you were referring to, as that material is popular by definition. You now confirm, at this late stage, that this is not the sort of material you had in mind. However, it is still not clear what type of music you were actually referring to, as you didn't specify anything and seemed reluctant to offer any examples when asked. In the meantime, PetrB offered his suggested list, to which you have agreed. It seems strange how his list just happens to meet your concerns.

In view of all this, I am of the view that your ideas are not well thought out, and do not stand up to inspection.


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> Yes, I'm sure your local FM broadcast the Firebird Suite several times last month, the least modern style of all those best known first three Stravinsky Ballet scores. I doubt if it has, within the past year, broadcast Threni, Les Noces, In Memoriam Dylan Thomas, let alone Agon or even the very beautiful and accessible Apollo. LOL.
> 
> But you do have much to learn about fora, and consequent expectations of privacy in solely two-way communication when your posit is made in a general thread, is all I have to say to _that_.
> 
> Anyhoo, the OP has returned their reply, letting my response be theirs by granted proxy. So perhaps you will now deem to bestow upon us humble peasants what you would '_suspect_' that repertoire from the 20th century and later which is worthy of and awaiting further exposure is? (I suspect you are near to busting to give us an astounding display of what you know... don't hold back, now. Lay it on us


The tone of your last paragraph is a problem.


----------



## Nereffid

Freischutz said:


> I don't care how it does or doesn't affect _you_.


Well, your lack of concern is deeply touching! :lol:

OK, let's try this one for size: Your statement "The whole point is that the music should be so readily available or promoted that it isn't adventurous to listen to it!!!" is something I wholeheartedly agree with.
But I don't think the fact that this isn't the case in reality is due to a "a deep and cancerous contempt".
And when you say "the characteristics of our own preferences cannot be used to predict others' preferences or to justify restricted musical programming", I agree with the first part but dispute the pejorativeness inherent in the word "restricted".
And I also am bemused by your focusing on concert programmes as the means by which people come to unfamiliar music, because (although you're not interested in my experiences) this is _so incredibly far from_ my own experience. 
To clarify, it's not that I don't think people who don't have my experiences exist (duh, FFS), it's just that I'm querying what I think is a caricature on your part, what I've previously described as "these people who have the time, inclination and education to go to classical concerts but not necessarily the time, inclination and education to spend an hour or two on the Internet or in a library, CD store, or bookshop" (to which I should probably also add "but not necessarily the time, inclination and education to go to a concert of contemporary classical music"). I'm not _challenging_ you (in the sense of trying to win points in a debate) but I am genuinely curious about what you think the audience you're talking about actually _is_. The audience I think _I'm_ talking about is one that's a mix of people with little interest in musical experiences outside of whatever mainstream classical concert they're at (because this is the music they like and they feel no curiosity about other music, or because they don't like the other music), and people who do have such interest and are able to get those musical experiences elsewhere.

(edited to add/clarify: although they _can_ get such experiences elsewhere, I don't mean they _should_ go elsewhere)


----------



## DavidA

A couple of people I knew were in London on business and decided to gain some culture by going to a Prom concert. They didn't know much if anything about classical music but thought they'd try it. Sadly, it was one of those concerts devoted to avant-garde music, with much tuneless scraping and banging, etc.. They said much of the audience were distracted and some even laughing. People were walking out so in the end they joined them. Now, they'd obviously been 'enlightened' by the experience - never to go near a classical concert again!


----------



## moody

Vaneyes said:


> What is your line of demarcation? 1913? Or earlier?


I can manage quite a lot of Bartok and up to mid-period Stravinsky.


----------



## moody

PetrB said:


> Really, you're speaking as if someone had kidnapped you and tied you into a chair, hands restrained so you cannot cover your ears, and made you listen to _________. Too funny, really


No,the opposite because I wouldn't be there !
Can we leave this now????


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> ...with much tuneless scraping and banging, etc.


Not very descriptive.

If indeed this actually happened, and if it happened to people you know, why not tell us what they listened to? What exactly was the "avant-garde" music? Was it Varese? Britten? Janacek? Liebermann?* Xenakis? Lachenmann? Mamlock? Tell us what they heard, beyond "tuneless scraping and banging," that is, which are criticisms that have been leveled at everyone, from Beethoven to Bizet, from Tchaikovsky to Debussy. Truly, they have. Tuneless scraping and banging does not tell us what your friends heard, not even within two hundred years.

*Some of the most rabid reactions I have heard recently, live, in the lobbies of concert halls, have been about Britten, Janacek, and Liebermann. Really angry, disgusted reactions.

'The symphony has no business forcing anyone to listen to this modern crap' angry reactions.

To Britten.

To Janacek.

To Liebermann (the most recent but also the most innocuous of those three).

So be prepared for as much snark as the moderators will allow if you give us any names like those.


----------



## moody

some guy said:


> One, no one is forcing you to attend any concert, ever. And that will never happen, ever.
> 
> Two, there is a difference (haven't we had this conversation before?) between public and private. In private, you can listen to whatever you want, whenever you want to. In public, the rules change. In public, there are other people. And your principles don't seem to want to consider other people at all, people who might just possibly want to listen to something you don't want to hear. If you don't want to hear it, no one gets to hear it? Nah. Can't be. You're in public, now, at a concert. You canna carry your private world into public. That's just not on.


Of course I can.


----------



## Guest

moody said:


> No,the opposite because I wouldn't be there !
> Can we leave this now????


As soon as you explain why you are complaining so bitterly about a concert you would not attend. Which you are free to not attend.

And why your tastes should perhaps override those of other people in the audience who might like what you're complaining about. Are their needs of no value at all?

Answer those questions, and then maybe we'll talk about the whole leaving this now thing.

[Edit: this just in--"Of course I can." Well OK then. Never mind.]


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> _They [the public] are not stupid, they are under-informed and under-served by a music industry with vested interests that are at odds with the success of a diverse musical culture_.


Although you reject the term "spoonfeeding," it is clear that that is the sort of programmer-audience relationship you are suggesting. By talking about an audience that is "under-informed," you are implying that the audience needs to be dictated from the powers from on high what to listen to. If an audience member has interest in a particular style of modern music, there are countless online resources for them to explore, as well as several specialist music festivals, which is quite frankly where specialist music belongs. If a specialist genre does attract a large following, then it is welcome to move to the large concert venues, but the music by no means automatically belongs alongside Beethoven simply by virtue of its calling itself classical. As it is, your tendency of talking about the audience as if they are not capable of thinking for themselves is highly patronising.


----------



## science

In case anyone who puts together musical events in Seoul is canvasing this thread, what audiences want is a performance of Tallis' _Spem in Alium_ with the performers spread around the room the way they're supposed to be. Listeners are willing to pay good dinero for the privilege of hearing that.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## Guest

As this badly conceived thread rambles on into further irrelevant areas, I would simply repeat that it is complete folly to suggest that music fans in any genre will be any better off by overriding the commercial interests of concert programmers and radio broadcasters, and obliging them, by some means or other, to broaden the range they present to the public.

There is no remotely sensible logic to it. The whole idea is preposterous and seems to be based on a misconception about the way capitalist systems operate, and the ways in which consumer welfare is maximised through the price mechanism and the maintenance of effective competition. 

The proposition that some kind of external influence should be brought to bear on the free choices of the media operators is as ill-conceived as proposing that the major supermarket chains should widen the range of products they stock merely because there exist a number of minor brands that haven't caught on yet. Or another loony example might be that, in the interests of promoting third world tourism, tour operators should be obliged to put in their catalogues new venues (however dubious they may be in terms of health and safety etc) that might possibly appeal to some customers, even though it would lengthen the size of the catalogue and probably cause some proven destinations to be deleted completely.

This is very simple economics. I can see why some members with narrow musical blinkers might think it's sensible to override market forces in this crude way, but I am surprised that some of the more influential members, especially those in authority, aren’t coming out stronger than they appear to be in rejecting all this bunk, which they must know is embarrassingly silly, and merely leading to a lot of futile discussion.


----------



## DavidA

There seems to be an assumption among our more modern-inclined posters that some of us are against them listening to modern music. I am not against that at all. Please, guys, listen all you like - as long as I don't have to listen as well!
As for concerts - have as many as you like - but don't expect Moody and me to go!


----------



## science

There is a further assumption that while most of us want to hear CPP music and a few of us want modern music, apparently _none_ of us want Renaissance music.

Of course - let's be honest - the whole point of a discussion like this is to broadcast how superior we who want something other are to those who want more of the same. It's fun, and I indulge in it myself. But the fact is that concerts of all sorts exist and we can find what we want, pretty much whatever it is, and we probably could display a little more grace while letting the upwardly mobile (if naively so) plebeians enjoy their Beethoven.


----------



## Taggart

science said:


> There is a further assumption that while most of us want to hear CPP music and a few of us want modern music, apparently _none_ of us want Renaissance music.


Hmm! We're going to an Early Music festival in York shortly. In fact I would consider even Beethoven frightfully modern. As they say, if it ain't Baroque (or Renaissance or earlier), don't bother.


----------



## DavidA

science said:


> In case anyone who puts together musical events in Seoul is canvasing this thread, what audiences want is a performance of Tallis' _Spem in Alium_ with the performers spread around the room the way they're supposed to be. Listeners are willing to pay good dinero for the privilege of hearing that.
> 
> Thanks for listening.


I heard a recorded performance of Spem in Alium on fourteen speakers arranged in a circle. The audience stood in the middle to be surrounded by the sound. It was heavenly! Even better, it was free!


----------



## Freischutz

Partita said:


> This admission that your OP was badly worded is no surprise. Even though the OP was indeed unclear, I had a good idea that the Classic FM list furnished by Taggart was not the kind of music you were referring to, as that material is popular by definition. You now confirm, at this late stage, that this is not the sort of material you had in mind. However, it is still not clear what type of music you were actually referring to, as you didn't specify anything and seemed reluctant to offer any examples when asked. In the meantime, PetrB offered his suggested list, to which you have agreed. It seems strange how his list just happens to meet your concerns.
> 
> In view of all this, I am of the view that your ideas are not well thought out, and do not stand up to inspection.


One of the most important things in intelligent, rational discussion is the willingness to accept responsibility for mistakes and to point them out. It seems obvious, but it rarely happens, as is so evident from the relentless stubbornness of most arguments. The fact that I made such an admission is not ammunition for you to criticise me, and I have no inclination to continue a conversation with you when you take such a small-minded, school-teacher tone as though you have some authority here that you do not really possess. I'm on this forum to seek fulfilling conversations with agreeable people who are willing to exchange ideas, whether they conflict with mine or not - I'm not here to submit to your requests and perform to your satisfaction. Nothing about your tone or character motivates me to keep talking to you. It is a tunnel with no light at the end. Find someone else to play with.


----------



## science

Taggart said:


> Hmm! We're going to an Early Music festival in York shortly. In fact I would consider even Beethoven frightfully modern. As they say, if it ain't Baroque (or Renaissance or earlier), don't bother.


Have a great time!

Seoul is great for classical music in most ways (just heard a very nice Corelli / Tartini / Respighi chamber program last night - Respighi's violin sonata is an interesting thing!) but it's not so great for anything before Bach.

(I was in a little room off the main auditorium, which sold out last night for Yuhki Kuramoto, giving me so much sweet opportunity to indulge my sense of superiority.)


----------



## science

DavidA said:


> I heard a recorded performance of Spem in Alium on fourteen speakers arranged in a circle. The audience stood in the middle to be surrounded by the sound. It was heavenly! Even better, it was free!


I don't know about this "free" stuff but the rest of that sounds wonderful!

_Someone_ paid for it, and if it's "free" that means poor people can get in, and I don't even want those people to have world-class educations let alone frivolous luxuries like world-class art music.


----------



## WienerKonzerthaus

An interesting and fascinating thread... in which many facets of the problems (perceived, real) and solutions or insolubility thereof are touched upon. 

I would suggest the following: The market is not the problem, the market is the enabler. What we make of it, and how, is up to the players. Presenters, artists, record labels... they all have a choice what they do and why and whether they prefer it easy or difficult, because they are passionate about something. If you want to continue to make a living as a musician but want to play Kurtag on the piano or sing Othmar Schoeck or conduct Stockhausen or early baroque opera... well, you'll find a way. Thankfully. And we reap the benefits of this all the time... at least on recordings.

Radio stations are more difficult already, for a number of reasons not the least of which is the way ratings are determined in the US (for example... those being heavily slanted against classical music and within classical music toward 'drive-time-drivel*). This includes "Public Broadcast Stations" just as much... seeing how they are just as advertisement dependent, except they don't call it that. Unless people donate during pledge-drive with a coherent and organized goal (such as an organization of interested listeners that doles out the collected money on the condition that X, Y, Z happen), nothing will change there.

(* Not that Vivaldi, Telemann, Telemann, Telemann, Vivaldi, Vivaldi, Haydn, Telemann, Haydn, Haydn, Vivaldi, Haydn, Telemann et al. are drivel...)

Concert presenters, too, have it difficult. Even an orchestra with a HUGE subscription basis (i.e. Munich Philharmonic) cannot get bums into seats if the names on the program are either unknown quantities or suggest something modern. Not all audiences are alike, and there's a reason and a market for the tastes that don't change and want their Beethoven and Mozart and Schumann and Mahler and Brahms and very little else... maybe Bach, under the right circumstances.

If we also wanted Wilms and Rott and Fibich, Kozeluch, Zelenka, and Herzogenberg to be played, because we believe in the value of their music (much closer in quality to that of their unproportionally more famous contemporaries) and in variety and in the idea of discovery, recovery, open mindedness, newness even in old things et al, well, then we have to go out of our way and work harder to get people interested. Somehow. It doesn't happen on its own... it has to be done. It takes a.) courage and b.) money. The more of the former the less of the latter... under certain circumstances at least. Anyone familiar with the Salzburg Festival's Kontinente Series? If contemporary music is presented with such confidence, with such taken-for-grantedness, naturalness... (something that might also snatch Haydn from the Jaws of the HIP bands and bring him back into the desperately needy mainstream), then it works. Eventually. But you can't have a board breathing down your neck that's not behind the idea and twitch nervously when you don't sell X% of the seats on average... It takes time for lots of music to be appreciated, good will, ability, and an inquisitive audience doesn't just happen. It's built over years of competent and trustworthy programming. One of the most difficult things I know, from observing the industry. And one of the most gratifying, too.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

Jonathan Wrachford said:


> Well, I think that the radio broadcasters, concert directors and musicians should still play a lot of the older music that is more familiar, but start introducing the public to...let's say 15% of music that is modern. That will solve two problems. First, it will maintain the people's interest when they see the familiar selections that are scheduled to be played, and, secondly, it will start giving people a new taste for the many wonderful more modern works by composers and masters of music in our day.


Or, the audience may say, "Oh God, he's playing that crap for prepared piano again. Change the station." People want to hear music that appeals to them, and much modern music is simply unappealing to the general audience. I have mentioned before that I was listening to a piece by Schoenberg and thought at one point, "He must have made a mistake there, I almost detected a melody for a moment." I have also remarked that my reaction to listening to Schoenberg's _Pierriot Lunaire_ was that if his intention was to arouse feelings of mild nausea in the listener, he succeeded.

You say that it will expand the radio listener's appreciations. Well, I'm reminded of the classic _New Yorker_ cartoon


----------



## Mahlerian

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Or, the audience may say, "Oh God, he's playing that crap for prepared piano again. Change the station." People want to hear music that appeals to them, and much modern music is simply unappealing to the general audience. I have mentioned before that I was listening to a piece by Schoenberg and thought at one point, "He must have made a mistake there, I almost detected a melody for a moment." I have also remarked that my reaction to listening to Schoenberg's _Pierriot Lunaire_ was that if his intention was to arouse feelings of mild nausea in the listener, he succeeded.


Schoenberg's music is filled with melodies. I'm always certain that someone doesn't know the first thing about Schoenberg (and would not be able to tell any Schoenberg work apart from similar) when they call his music tuneless.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

moody said:


> I can manage quite a lot of Bartok and up to mid-period Stravinsky.


What do you consider "mid-period" Stravinsky to be? He wrote gorgeous, pictorial neo-classical works all the way up until the mid-1950s, well past the midpoint of his composing career.


----------



## Serge

hpowders said:


> When I lived in NYC, there was a station that would play anything and everything, 24/7. Sadly it became a hard rock station.


What station? WQXR went public and is on 105.9 these days: WQXR.org


----------



## Freischutz

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> People want to hear music that appeals to them, and much modern music is simply unappealing to the general audience.


Hi, welcome to the thread. We've been talking about how people are too quick and irrational to assume that they know what the general audience wants based solely on their own personal tastes and/or contemptuous attitudes towards others, as well as the logic of whether or not programming should satisfy a tyranny of the majority or should be more deliberately diverse.

Feel free to take a look from page one...


----------



## arpeggio

DavidA said:


> There seems to be an assumption among our more modern-inclined posters that some of us are against them listening to modern music. I am not against that at all. Please, guys, listen all you like - as long as I don't have to listen as well!
> As for concerts - have as many as you like - but don't expect Moody and me to go!


I still do not understand what you are trying to prove?


----------



## science

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Or, the audience may say, "Oh God, he's playing that crap for prepared piano again. Change the station." People want to hear music that appeals to them, and much modern music is simply unappealing to the general audience. I have mentioned before that I was listening to a piece by Schoenberg and thought at one point, "He must have made a mistake there, I almost detected a melody for a moment." I have also remarked that my reaction to listening to Schoenberg's _Pierriot Lunaire_ was that if his intention was to arouse feelings of mild nausea in the listener, he succeeded.
> 
> You say that it will expand the radio listener's appreciations. Well, I'm reminded of the classic _New Yorker_ cartoon


I'm surprised every time someone brings up radio. I haven't listened to radio in 20 years, and I have hard time believing there is really a large enough classical music audience to make money playing even Beethoven, let alone Schoenberg, let alone (say) Oliveros.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> One of the most important things in intelligent, rational discussion is the willingness to accept responsibility for mistakes and to point them out. It seems obvious, but it rarely happens, as is so evident from the relentless stubbornness of most arguments. The fact that I made such an admission is not ammunition for you to criticise me, and I have no inclination to continue a conversation with you when you take such a small-minded, school-teacher tone as though you have some authority here that you do not really possess. I'm on this forum to seek fulfilling conversations with agreeable people who are willing to exchange ideas, whether they conflict with mine or not - I'm not here to submit to your requests and perform to your satisfaction. Nothing about your tone or character motivates me to keep talking to you. It is a tunnel with no light at the end. Find someone else to play with.


It would appear that you mistake my questioning of your arguments as personal criticism. It is not. I have been trying to seek clarification of your position, and in so doing I have tried to keep all my questioning as objective as possible.

I have tried to probe your reasons for believing that the classical media market is so flawed that it cannot be trusted to offer consumers an appropriate mix of styles, by being left to its own devices and methods of working.

You assert that the producers cannot be trusted because they have "vested interests that are at odds with the success of a diverse musical culture". You offer no evidence to support this contention other than the fact that some styles exist which do not form part of the standard concert repertoire or radio broadcasts. This proliferation of styles is bound to happen in almost any market where the costs of entry are low and the opportunity for diversification is high. This doesn't mean that every style must be given air-time in conventional venues. If the smaller interest music styles are any good, they should seek recognition in appropriate niche outlets, and then depending on their success seek wider more ambitious outlets if they so wish. Besides, live concerts and radio are only one part of the total media outlets. Places like Amazon are stuffed with CDs on just about anything one cares to mention. Often samples can be played.

I have tried to probe the kind of classical music areas where you consider there is media under-representation. You have not offered any. All you have done is repeatedly avoid answering my questions.

You have only said that your classical music preferences in the modern era are not especially unusual, and not as obscure as those of some members. Beyond that you have not been specific, and have latched onto some suggestions made by another member. Quite how he thinks that performing material of that kind is going to make one iota of difference to the public perception of "modern music" completely baffles me. The notion that the only way that potentially interested consumers might get to listen to this material is at a concert or on the radio is quite incredible. Thus, although you appear to want to encourage interest in more modern music, you are appear not to be sure what it is exactly you wish to see promoted.

I have asked you in what ways you envisage that these under-represented styles might be afforded a greater airing without displacing performances in more traditional styles in which consumers are used to and which, by definition, they prefer on their existing knowledge.

You have said that some people might develop an interest in a new style that would otherwise remain subdued. This overlooks the fact you seem to be putting yourself in a position of being better able to guess what the market might wish to listen, by way of newer styles, than do the industry professionals, who are in competition with each other. Here we come full circle as your argument returns to the notion that industry professionals cannot be trusted to do the right thing because their interests conflict with those of the consumers they apparently don't serve on your reckoning. This is such a radical view, especially in a highly competitive market with a multitude of media opportunities, that it scarcely deserves any attention.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

> WienerKonzerthaus: I would suggest the following: The market is not the problem, the market is the enabler. What we make of it, and how, is up to the players.


Yeah, the last time I checked, Amazon sold both Britney Spears_ and _Schoenberg._ ;D_


----------



## Piwikiwi

Freischutz said:


> Hi, welcome to the thread. We've been talking about how people are too quick and irrational to assume that they know what the general audience wants based solely on their own personal tastes and/or contemptuous attitudes towards others, as well as the logic of whether or not programming should satisfy a tyranny of the majority or should be more deliberately diverse.
> 
> Feel free to take a look from page one...


The majority of people will happily consume garbage if it comes in a nice wrapper and is marketed well.


----------



## science

Piwikiwi said:


> The majority of people will happily consume garbage if it comes in a nice wrapper and is marketed well.


I'm not sure whether you've intended to comment on contemporary "classical" or art music or the music that is most commonly performed (Vivaldi-Stravinsky). Which is the nicely-wrapped garbage that the majority is happily consuming?


----------



## samurai

Taggart said:


> Hmm! We're going to an Early Music festival in York shortly. In fact I would consider even Beethoven frightfully modern. As they say, if it ain't Baroque (or Renaissance or earlier), don't bother.


It has also often been said that, "If it ain't Baroque, don't fix it". :scold:


----------



## hpowders

Tristan said:


> The classical station around here became a Top 40 mainstream station. Eventually the classical station came back with three new numbers depending on what county you're in with really weak signals. It's sad
> 
> Like, off the top of my head I can think of at least three different "top 40" stations in my area. It's so dumb there are almost no words for it...


Hard to believe that a culturally aware area like NYC couldn't support 2 commercial classical radio stations. Practically defies belief!


----------



## Serge

Piwikiwi said:


> The majority of people will happily consume garbage if it comes in a nice wrapper and is marketed well.


While that may be true to a large extent, that is also over-simplifying things significantly, I think. Considering that the majority of the music listeners are kids and young people in general perhaps, there are many other factors that come into play - such as their development stage, perceived coolness, peer pressure, etc., etc.


----------



## Taggart

science said:


> I'm surprised every time someone brings up radio. I haven't listened to radio in 20 years, and I have hard time believing there is really a large enough classical music audience to make money playing even Beethoven, let alone Schoenberg, let alone (say) Oliveros.


Just had a quick look at Classic FM between 10 and noon today : JS Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, Teleman, Francesco Veracini, Beethoven, Bizet, Rodrigo, Zoltan Kodaly even some Einaudi - OK I know he's "pop" modern - even some film composers like Nigel Hess. In short a reasonably balanced mix of old favourites and some new music. Funnily enough Radio 3 is slightly more conservative, I had a look a today's schedule - mostly all usual pre-1900 suspects, with a little Messiaen and an evening concert with a Flute Concerto - Pipe Dreams by Carl Vine. So actually, the station with adverts had the slightly more "modern" composers.


----------



## science

Serge said:


> While that may be true to a large extent, that is also over-simplifying things significantly, I think. Considering that the majority of the music listeners are kids and young people in general perhaps, there are many other factors that come into play - such as development stage, perceived coolness, peer pressure, etc., etc.


We're all at some stage or other of development, perhaps not precisely denominated or anything, but even despite some of our best wishes we're all changing constantly. If all of us are here in 2024, we'll all (at minimum) have found a few things we listen to more, a few we listen to less than back in 2014.

I think a similar insight might apply to perceived coolness, peer pressure, and even etc., etc. Just as none of us are timeless, apparently none of us are solipsistic either.


----------



## science

Taggart said:


> Just had a quick look at Classic FM between 10 and noon today : JS Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, Teleman, Francesco Veracini, Beethoven, Bizet, Rodrigo, Zoltan Kodaly even some Einaudi - OK I know he's "pop" modern - even some film composers like Nigel Hess. In short a reasonably balanced mix of old favourites and some new music. Funnily enough Radio 3 is slightly more conservative, I had a look a today's schedule - mostly all usual pre-1900 suspects, with a little Messiaen and an evening concert with a Flute Concerto - Pipe Dreams by Carl Vine. So actually, the station with adverts had the slightly more "modern" composers.


That is very interesting! I might tune in to hear Carl Vine, and maybe even Einaudi (never heard his music so what the heck?).

I guess radio is superior to youtube, at least ethically. But in the era of streaming and spotify, I wouldn't give much for a radio station....


----------



## StevenOBrien

Personally, I'd guess that the problem is that of quality. New contemporary music being programmed needs to be able to stand up to music which has stood the test of time for hundreds of years, and (in any era) it fails to do this for the majority of listeners more often than not.

In popular music, this isn't as much of a problem. Waiting three minutes for a mediocre new song to finish is nothing compared to waiting ten to twenty minutes for a mediocre contemporary piece to finish. I think this is why a piece generally needs to be at least 30 to 50 years old before it begins to receive regular programming.

I don't think we need to worry, though. I'm completely confident that, in 2064, we'll be complaining about how overprogrammed that one piece from 2014 is.


----------



## DavidA

arpeggio said:


> I still do not understand what you are trying to prove?


I'm not trying to 'prove' anything. Just giving my opinion. I thought that was the general idea!


----------



## Freischutz

StevenOBrien said:


> Personally, I'd guess that the problem is that of quality. New contemporary music being programmed needs to be able to stand up to music which has stood the test of time for hundreds of years, and (in any era) it fails to do this for the majority of listeners more often than not.
> 
> In popular music, this isn't as much of a problem. Waiting three minutes for a mediocre new song to finish is nothing compared to waiting ten to twenty minutes for a mediocre contemporary piece to finish. I think this is why a piece generally needs to be at least 30 to 50 years old before it begins to receive regular programming.


Does this mean that the quality of a piece of music increases with age?


----------



## DavidA

Piwikiwi said:


> The majority of people will happily consume garbage if it comes in a nice wrapper and is marketed well.


Well, it's a good job the 'majority of people' can look at TC and find out what they ought to be listening to! :lol:


----------



## Serge

Freischutz said:


> Does this mean that the quality of a piece of music increases with age?


No, but probably the survival of the fittest kind of thing...


----------



## Piwikiwi

Serge said:


> While that may be true to a large extent, that is also over-simplifying things significantly, I think. Considering that the majority of the music listeners are kids and young people in general perhaps, there are many other factors that come into play - such as their development stage, perceived coolness, peer pressure, etc., etc.


I'm 26 myself and I've been listening to jazz since I was 18 and classical since last year.



science said:


> I'm not sure whether you've intended to comment on contemporary "classical" or art music or the music that is most commonly performed (Vivaldi-Stravinsky). Which is the nicely-wrapped garbage that the majority is happily consuming?


It was a reaction to the tyranny of the majority part of the post that I quoted. It was solely aimed at music.

There are a few people in this thread talking about elitism and snobbery but the reverse is far more irritating. People expect of you to accept their lack of interest in classical music/literature/art etc but are often very hostile if you simply mention that you like those things. Sometimes it just seems that being interested in something intellectual causes people to be offended because it makes them feel uncultured themselves, and a lot of marketing is using that attitude to promote their music. I only need to mention the whole "rock" culture obsession at being self taught. Some artists deny that they had any music education because it will make them seem less "real".


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong

Marschallin Blair said:


> Yeah, the last time I checked, Amazon sold both Britney Spears_ and _Schoenberg._ ;D_


Amazon would sell their grandmothers if they could make money from it.


----------



## hpowders

Sounds like someone who didn't buy AMZN at $45.


----------



## Nereffid

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Amazon would sell their grandmothers if they could make money from it.


What would be the point in selling one's grandmother if you _couldn't_ make money from it?


----------



## science

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Amazon would sell their grandmothers if they could make money from it.


In fact amazon has long frustrated its investors with what seems to be a strategy of absolutely refusing to allow its customers to let it turn a profit.

Here is an interesting article on it.

He's an interesting fella.


----------



## Vesteralen

My local symphony orchestra does a pretty good job with programming, IMO. You can't blame them for programming the old warhorses. The Bach-Beethoven-Brahms concert they put on in January was the closest thing to an SRO they've had in a long time. I happened to meet a young man and his fiancée at a gathering the day after that concert and he told me that he saved his money to get really good seats for that concert (though it meant he couldn't afford to buy any more tickets this season). His enthusiasm, particularly for Brahms, made me nostalgic for my own youth. How can you fault the orchestra for putting on a program like that?

On the other hand, there is a pretty liberal dose of modern works each season, about half from the "Composer in Residence" and the other half from a variety of composers from the last 50 years or so. They do a lot more of this kind of programming than they do Baroque, for example.

I don't see a problem with what they are doing in a very tough economic climate.


----------



## Freischutz

Serge said:


> No, but probably the survival of the fittest kind of thing...


OK, so does that mean we're incapable of recognising the "fittest" until everything else has died?


----------



## Serge

Freischutz said:


> OK, so does that mean we're incapable of recognising the "fittest" until everything else has died?


He was talking about "regular" programming. So the things could potentially sort themselves out somewhere on the side, I imagine. But I'm not it the business.


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> OK, so does that mean we're incapable of recognising the "fittest" until everything else has died?


Surely it is only with the progression of time that concert programmers can get an idea of what the public likes, through seeing which concerts have been a success and which have been a failure. With new works, by virtue of their being new, programmers have no idea whether the public will like them. They might chose to make programs based on their own personal taste, but that is of course a risk.

So I repeat the question: how should programmers decide what new pieces to program, given that there are thousands of modern composers out there wanting to be performed, and given that they have no idea which pieces will be well-received? I would be genuinely interested to know if you have a solution to this.


----------



## hpowders

It's a delicate balancing act in provincial communities. Become too adventurous and lose funding and concert subscriptions.
Over-program mainstream works, lose people like me.


----------



## Winterreisender

hpowders said:


> It's a delicate balancing act in provincial communities. Become too adventurous and lose funding and concert subscriptions.
> Over-program mainstream works, lose people like me.


But the problem is that modern music is highly fragmented; there is no homogeneous group called "modern music fans" who will attend every "classical" piece composed after 1970. It is clear that programmers can't please everyone. The only solution, it seems to me, is to face the facts that the different styles of modern "classical" music, because of their small audiences, must remain confined to small specialist venues. Only when they attract a large enough following can they be programmed at large concert venues. Unless, of course, someone can think of a way to decide which of the thousands of modern composers should be prioritised above the rest?


----------



## science

Winterreisender said:


> Surely it is only with the progression of time that concert programmers can get an idea of what the public likes, through seeing which concerts have been a success and which have been a failure. With new works, by virtue of their being new, programmers have no idea whether the public will like them. They might chose to make programs based on their own personal taste, but that is of course a risk.
> 
> So I repeat the question: how should programmers decide what new pieces to program, given that there are thousands of modern composers out there wanting to be performed, and given that they have no idea which pieces will be well-received? I would be genuinely interested to know if you have a solution to this.


I don't know that there's anything like a solution - there'll probably always be more people willing to compose than there are crowds willing to pay to hear the results. But something we could consider is that _one_ fairly common pathway is university ensembles and orchestras. Seems to me a lot of aspiring composers get some of their first performances in that kind of environment. Then, if a particularly influential member of some musical institution is impressed, you can begin to get a wider audience - still not much at first, but it's probably ordinarily a matter of baby steps. Eventually, hopefully, some famous musicians or someone like that advocate for you...


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> Surely it is only with the progression of time that concert programmers can get an idea of what the public likes, *through seeing which concerts have been a success and which have been a failure*.


There's a very important implication in your above sentence which I just want to remind you of: _to get an idea of what the public likes, concerts must program works to find out if they're successful or not._



Winterreisender said:


> With new works, by virtue of their being new, programmers have no idea whether the public will like them.


Also remember that this has always been true. When any composer writes a piece of music, they don't _know_ that anyone's going to like it, and many audiences very much disliked some of the great pieces of music that everyone takes for granted now. But this didn't mean that concert halls said to Beethoven, "Hey, nice piece, but we're not putting it on until you're dead - it's too much of a risk until we've let it simmer and can do some market research to find out whether or not people already like it so that we can justify the investment in a concert."

Maybe you think things should be different now, but you _do_ see that you're asking for concerts to be organised in a way that would have been unthinkable in the 19th century?



Winterreisender said:


> They might chose to make programs based on their own personal taste, but that is of course a risk.
> 
> So I repeat the question: how should programmers decide what new pieces to program, given that there are thousands of modern composers out there wanting to be performed, and given that they have no idea which pieces will be well-received? I would be genuinely interested to know if you have a solution to this.


This is a genuine problem and I haven't convinced myself that I have a good answer for it, so I'm not going to pretend that I can give you one. Yes, in part, I'm offering a criticism that I have no solution for and that's not very helpful, but I hope a conversation like this might help us all think of good ideas together and maybe someone can give you a better response than I can. It seems, though, that you accept that there should be _some_ risk involved in programming because that's the best way to find out whether or not works are successful and worth putting on again. Maybe we just disagree about the amount of risk to take, but at least we'd know that we have more common ground than it appeared a few pages ago.

In the absence of a good answer to your question, let me offer two related thoughts instead:

1) It seems that many people treat going to a concert like going to a restaurant. A restaurant menu is basically like a concert season and you pick out what seems best to you - the meal you order is the concert you attend, and you expect it all to be top-notch. If everything isn't to your satisfaction, it feels like a waste of money. But is it right to think of concerts like this? Maybe we should treat concerts more like we treat recordings: things that we try out for the novelty and the experience. If we don't like it, fine, we won't try _that_ again, but we don't resent the money we spent or the effort we put in. It's all part of the fun. Of course, this is partly dependent on the relative cost, but it seems from my other thread that people can go to concerts for fair prices a lot of the time.

2) Let's really try to remember some historical perspective here. Although the people on "my side" of the debate are positioned as the ultra-modernist radicals, in _one_ sense - the sense of how to organise concerts - we're actually very conservative in saying that new music should be programmed. Why? Because the alternative you represent is that new music should be relegated to avenues like online streaming and recordings, but these are recent inventions! They didn't exist before the 20th century, so during the whole period of the creation of the music you love so dearly, _of course_ the concerts were all taking on and performing new music, because where else was it going to go? The internet and recording technology didn't exist. Now that they _do_ exist, you're saying that they should take on the burden of new music so that concerts can take on a completely different social role - no longer should they offer to the public the latest creations of living composers, they should keep on playing the same pieces for hundreds of years, with a modicum of new things thrown in to placate people with different tastes.

Like I said above, maybe you think this really is a change for the better, but do you at least acknowledge that you are arguing for concerts to take on a profoundly different role than they've ever had before? And do you not suppose that perhaps you feel this way because of value judgements you hold about new music? Maybe your problem is not that it's new, but that it's new _and_ 'bad'. On principle, if today's composers were writing music in common practice style, would you say that it would be too risky to put it on by virtue of its newness? Or is it really the _style_ that matters to you and you'd make exceptions for such works? I'm really talking about new music _regardless_ of its style or whether I personally think it's good or not, so we're talking at cross purposes if you're labouring on those assumptions.


----------



## DavidA

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> Amazon would sell their grandmothers if they could make money from it.


Maybe, but there's no market for them!


----------



## moody

DavidA said:


> Maybe, but there's no market for them!


Only to cannibals I suppose.


----------



## moody

There seems to be a problem in perception here.
Music,unless you are involved in it professionally, is a pastime and that's all it is to me.
I have seen all the great artists from Toscanini onwards ,but my experimenting was done when I was young.
At a certain stage you know what type of music you enjoy and I'm damned if I will pay to go to a concert that includes an item that I know 90% I won't enjoy.
Actually I'll never go to a concert again ,but that's bye the bye.
Normal people look at the various concerts coming up and choose those that appeal.
With 7000 recordings I think I cover quite a lot of ground in any case.
Incidentally there are three composers here on TC whose music I enjoy.


----------



## Serge

DavidA said:


> Maybe, but there's no market for them!


I wouldn't purchase one, but that does make a fabulous offensive line, doesn't it: Go buy yourself a grandmother on amazon!

Perhaps I should start using it.


----------



## DavidA

Serge said:


> I wouldn't buy one, but that does make a fabulous offensive line, doesn't it: Go buy yourself a grandmother on amazon!
> 
> Perhaps I should start using it.


When your grandchildren reach a certain age you do find yourself in demand as a grandparent - to pick up the tab!


----------



## DavidA

moody said:


> Only to cannibals I suppose.


Nah! They're too tough and stringy!


----------



## Serge

Well, if money can't buy your love I don't know what can.


----------



## StevenOBrien

Freischutz said:


> Does this mean that the quality of a piece of music increases with age?


No, but I'd argue that high repute is additive, so I guess it's reputation that increases with age if anything. Even works which are hyped and highly regarded at their premiere often take time to become widely accepted as repetoire.

Survival of the fittest, as Serge said.


----------



## PetrB

Tristan said:


> There does seem to be some thought that new music is just an update to old music and that it is easy for people who like old music to come to like new music. Maybe the new music of today will become classic and revered the way Mozart, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky are now, who knows.
> 
> But I'm going to have to stick the idea that some new music is simply so different from "old music" that is almost an entirely different genre.


Try this. For several days, listen to only music of Monteverdi, Lully, Rameau -- on original instruments.
Listen to no other music of any sort during that several day period.

At the end of the second day, right after your last hearing of one of those late renaissance / baroque composers, put on, say, a recording of a Tchaikovsky Symphony.

Then reconsider your, "some new music is simply so different from "old music" that is almost an entirely different genre."


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> Try this. For several days, listen to only music of Monteverdi, Lully, Rameau -- on original instruments.
> Listen to no other music of any sort during that several day period.
> 
> At the end of the second day, right after your last hearing of one of those late renaissance / baroque composers, put on, say, a recording of a Tchaikovsky Symphony.
> 
> Then reconsider your, "some new music is simply so different from "old music" that is almost an entirely different genre."


He will probably feel that he is right - several times over. The key word is 'almost', because an applicable metaphor is: The words are different but the message is the same.


----------



## PetrB

StevenOBrien said:


> No, but I'd argue that high repute is additive, so I guess it's reputation that increases with age if anything. Even works which are hyped and highly regarded at their premiere often take time to become widely accepted as repetoire.
> 
> Survival of the fittest, as Serge said.


There is also the phenomenon of a composer / work getting that additive repute, only to have it fade out of favor for some macro and fickle change of the public taste. None of it is a cert, even for those with a long-standing "additave" reputation whose works are still today popular.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> There is also the phenomenon of a composer / work getting that additive repute, only to have it fade out of favor for some macro and fickle change of the public taste. None of it is a cert, even for those with a long-standing "additave" reputation whose works are still today popular.


Agree totally. Music has always been subject to fashion, even classical music, and even the greatest of it -- or maybe more accurately, the music that is most in fashion right now. Bach certainly faded from public view for 100 years and ditto Haydn for a longer time than that. Was it because people were stupid? Don't think so, they were just out of fashion. People didn't want that stuff.

Yes, it could (and certainly will) happen again. Beethoven?


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> Agree totally. Music has always been subject to fashion, even classical music, and even the greatest of it -- or maybe more accurately, the music that is most in fashion right now. Bach certainly faded from public view for 100 years and ditto Haydn for a longer time than that. Was it because people were stupid? Don't think so, they were just out of fashion. People didn't want that stuff.
> 
> Yes, it could (and certainly will) happen again. Beethoven?


We have to realise now that the accessibility of music is vastly more than even 100 years ago, let alone in eg Beethoven's day. Whereas one might hear a work performed two or three times in your lifetime if you were lucky, now we have access to all the great works at the flick of a switch. This vastly increases the accessibility of music of whatever ilk.


----------



## Selby

Wood said:


> You are being too simplistic and more than a little chippy. I'm sure I'm not the only person who is open to new music, but can't really get a handle on who or what to listen to from the last 30 years or so.
> 
> Rather than constantly denigrating your fellow members, you may find that posts spreading your knowledge of this music will receive some positive feedback.
> 
> For those who are not on the same page, then fine, let them be but we do not all have 'deaf prejudices'.
> 
> How about you start a regular thread called 'Some Guy's Tuesday Recording' where each week you introduce us to a key modern recording most of us do not know, plus a few notes on the composer etc.
> 
> You might be surprised by the response.


I think if you wander through Some Guy's posts over the past you will find a plethora of musical recommendations to follow-up on.


----------



## Selby

Ingélou said:


> I am sorry; this is in a sense my fault for not choosing to be as blunt as you. I used 'patrician' when really I meant 'unduly dismissive' & even 'unjustly scornful'. I have no quarrel with the idea that appreciating art - any art - is not a matter of democracy or acclamation by 'the folk'. How could I, when I've spent a lifetime trying to persuade surly teenagers that because Shakespeare bores them, it doesn't mean that the Bard is no good?
> 
> You certainly do 'provoke people' with your bluntness - consider me 'provoked' for the afternoon - but I honestly believe your point would have been better made with just a modicum of urbanity*.
> 
> But let it go; pax! My protest has been made.
> 
> (*Edit: Even in the patrician days of Jane Austen, civility was expected. I love Elizabeth Bennet's final words to Darcy after his misplaced proposal: "You are mistaken, Mr. Darcy, if you suppose that the mode of your declaration affected me in any other way, than as it spared the concern which I might have felt in refusing you, had you behaved in a more gentlemanlike manner.")


If there was a 'super-duper like' button I would have used it here.

I think TC is a prime example of a community where the discourse is often directed by those who possess less social sensitivity and place a lower premium on civility.

I know I'm sidetracking the actual conversation, but I'm glad you highlighted this.

For example I find a lot of value in both your and PetrB's posts, and, in general, find myself dismayed when the tone of the discussion detracts from the discussion.


----------



## PetrB

apricissimus said:


> I think it's better not to bother about making distinctions about who are "true devotees". Sure, some people may enjoy music differently than I do, spend less money on music than I do, but I'm in no position to say whether I'm a "truer" devotee than someone else.


Sheesh, I was just making a cliche classic point about where one's priorities lie. That's it, no hidden meaning.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> It's hard for me to see why we should subsidize composers who are unable to interest audiences in their music. A good gardener both nourishes and prunes. (signed, Charles Robert Darwin, Fellow of the Royal Society etc.)


The plain truth is that us Yanks, regardless of our tax bracket, have maybe a fourth position after the decimal point of one cent going toward funding any and all of the arts, not just contemporary classical music.

Ergo, Unless we have as individuals ponied up to some organization which does commission contemporary music -- and not just as a purchaser of a subscription to a symphony's concert season but instead truly ponying up as an individual making a direct contribution -- not a one of us can boast of subsidizing new works we do like, nor whine about subsidizing music we do not like.

Unless of course, one is inclined to voice outrage at that 00.000x percent (probably less) of our tax penny which was spent on new music


----------



## Freischutz

Mitchell said:


> I think TC is a prime example of a community where the discourse is often directed by those who possess less social sensitivity and place a lower premium on civility.


It is, in other words, a website.


----------



## Selby

Because it was requested:

20 pieces of contemporary classical music, all of which I own, that I would rush to buy tickets to if performed locally.

Keep in mind that my intention is to list relatively recently composed works and not "modern" favorites that are now a century old a la Debussy, Ravel, Koechlin, etc. I also left of works by very popular modern composers like Messiaen, Schonberg, Cage, Part, Takemitsu, etc.

Limit 1 per composer.

1. Thomas Ades - The Tempest
2. Kalevi Aho - Symphony No. 7, "Insects"
3. Luciano Berio - Folk Songs
4. Harrison Birtwistle - The Minotaur
5. Carlos Chavez - Suite for Double Quartet
6. Donnacha Dennehy - That the Night Come
7. Henri Dutilleux - Correspondances
8. Henryk Gorecki - String Quartet No. 3, "...songs are sung"
9. Osvaldo Golijov - The Dreams and Prayers of Isaac the Blind
10. John Harbiosn - Mirabai Songs
11. Alan Hovhaness - Concerto for Harp and String Orchestra
12. David Lang - Child
13. Peter Lieberson - Neruda Songs
14. Missy Mazzoli - Songs from the Uproar
15. Per Norgard - Symphony No. 3
16. Lorenzo Palomo - Sinfonia a Granada
17. Roxanna Panufnik - Westminster Mass
18. Einojuhani Rautavaar - Symphony No. 7, "Angel of Light"
19. Silvestre Revueltas - La noche de los mayas
20. Dobrinka Tabakova - Concerto for Violoncello and Strings

This list is very, very diverse; many different classical genres. This is actually a pretty conservative list, none of these works are particularly "difficult." Well, maybe the Birtwistle.

I am convinced, in the 5 minutes I put this together, that one of those pieces would appeal to any appreciator of classical music. Although, I doubt anyone who is skeptical would take the time to listen to all 20 just to say so.

regards,

Mitchell


----------



## Wood

Mitchell said:


> I think if you wander through Some Guy's posts over the past you will find a plethora of musical recommendations to follow-up on.


I sorted this in a PM to Some Guy.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> The plain truth is that us Yanks, regardless of our tax bracket, have maybe a fourth position after the decimal point of one cent going toward funding any and all of the arts, not just contemporary classical music.


It's worth noting that, in total, about 5% of the annual costs of our 20 largest orchestras are covered by tax revenues, mostly state and local. More significant is the tax deductibility of charitable donations. Such donations cover 45% of the orchestral costs and reduce the tax liability of the donors. So the treasury is losing the equivalent of 15% of these costs, assuming a conservative 33% marginal tax rate, and this loss has to be made up from general tax revenues. Adding the two together, about 20% of the costs of our major orchestras are coming from general taxpayers.

An amusing comparison: The total public subsidy to our 20 largest orchestras appears to be about $160 million -- the flyaway cost of a single F-35 fighter plane. And a single Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier costs about $13 billion to build and $7 million a day to operate...


----------



## Ingélou

But what about sponsorship of new composers? Is that supported by US taxpayers, or by rich donors - the equivalent of renaissance & baroque patrons? Genuinely Curious of Norfolk.


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> 2) Let's really try to remember some historical perspective here. Although the people on "my side" of the debate are positioned as the ultra-modernist radicals, in _one_ sense - the sense of how to organise concerts - we're actually very conservative in saying that new music should be programmed. Why? Because the alternative you represent is that new music should be relegated to avenues like online streaming and recordings, but these are recent inventions! They didn't exist before the 20th century, so during the whole period of the creation of the music you love so dearly, _of course_ the concerts were all taking on and performing new music, because where else was it going to go? The internet and recording technology didn't exist. Now that they _do_ exist, you're saying that they should take on the burden of new music so that concerts can take on a completely different social role - no longer should they offer to the public the latest creations of living composers, they should keep on playing the same pieces for hundreds of years, with a modicum of new things thrown in to placate people with different tastes.


That we are living in an age of mass-communication thanks to recordings and online availability is unavoidable. What is also unavoidable is that we now live in an age when the music scene is more diverse than it ever has been. The internet of course has made this wealth of new music available to a larger audience than ever before. Given that non-classical artists are finding ways to adapt to this technological revolution, I don't see why "classical" composers should be immune to this revolution simply by virtue of their styling themselves as "classical." This is a point that hasn't been adequately addressed yet; the real competition for modern "classical" composers is not Beethoven and Mozart but rather the vast array of non-classical musicians out there who are able to attract enormous fanbases without the need for government subsidies and other special treatment. There are thousands of concerts taking place every day offering the public our newest creations, playing genres of music as befitting the level of demand. That has always been the case and still is, only the primary area of demand has changed.

Perhaps some posters on this thread might be tempted to turn their noses up at the mere mention of non-classical music as if it were all lowest-common-denominator trash, not even worthy of calling itself art, etc. etc. The reality is, however, that the dividing line between classical and non-classical has become fainter and fainter, with many modern "classical" composers composing in an idiom totally different to anything from the established concert repertoire. There are many composers of electronica and (shock horror!) new age, who might as well be called classical, if we are prepared to call Stockhausen's electronic music classical. The distinction is totally artificial, which makes the conundrum of knowing what new music to program at classical concerts all the more challenging. My conclusion is that there is no reason whatsoever to assume that a fan of Beethoven and Mozart is going to enjoy e.g. Stockhausen over the other array of genres out there. Modern composers may call themselves "classical" in the hope of neatly slotting into a rich cultural tradition and attracting a large pre-existing audience, but in many cases the music has nothing to do with what we call "classical."


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> That we are living in an age of mass-communication thanks to recordings etc. etc. etc.


So the answer I was looking for was, "Yes, Freischutz, I am not just talking about new music in principle, I am also making value judgements." I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but thanks for clearing it up.

In other news, in response to other comments being passed around:

U.S. federal budget, total in 2015: $3.9 trillion.
U.S. federal budget for the Department of Defense in 2015: $495.6 billion (12.7%).
U.S. federal budget for the National Endowment for the Arts (_all_ the arts) in 2015: $146.021 million (0.000037%).
The DoD is 3,394 times larger than the NEA.
No comment, just context.


----------



## mmsbls

science said:


> In case anyone who puts together musical events in Seoul is canvasing this thread, what audiences want is a performance of Tallis' _Spem in Alium_ with the performers spread around the room the way they're supposed to be. Listeners are willing to pay good dinero for the privilege of hearing that.


It is one of my life's goals to hear such a performance.


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> So the answer I was looking for was, "Yes, Freischutz, I am not just talking about new music in principle, I am also making value judgements." I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but thanks for clearing it up.


What "value judgement" did I make? I was simply pointing out the fact that there are thousands of concerts taking place every day which play new music, in contrary to your false accusation that I am in favour of turning concert venues into museums.


----------



## KenOC

Ingélou said:


> But what about sponsorship of new composers? Is that supported by US taxpayers, or by rich donors - the equivalent of renaissance & baroque patrons? Genuinely Curious of Norfolk.


I don't know about the big picture, but composers often get commissions, often from orchestras or other performing groups. To the extent that these groups are funded by donors contributing to non-profits, the ~15% public money in my other post would apply. Commissions are also given by wealthy private people directly of course -- I assume this still happens. Stravinsky's Dumbarton Oaks Concerto is a famous example.

But to my knowledge almost no contemporary "classical" composers in the USA make their livings primarily from compositions. John Adams is often held out as a counter-example, but even he seems to take on a lot of conducting gigs, and I assume not gratis. Many are also in academia and draw steady paychecks there.

Perhaps others can add more wisdom here, or at least other examples.

I think "direct" tax money for composers is almost non-existent in the United States. NEA used to have a program of artistic grants to individuals, but those disappeared after some unfortunate developments.


----------



## Ingélou

Thanks! Well, if I win the lottery, I will become patroness of my own personal HIP ensemble, dedicated to spreading love of the French Baroque en Angleterre! 

But I'll put aside a million or two to sponsor a pukka modern composer too...


----------



## Taggart

I posted here  the ticket prices for our local festival. It's interesting that some of the cheaper concerts are being run by our Royal Academy and are offering new music. In other words, people who are learning their craft are out there providing concerts of good new music and are encouraged by their conservatory. OK the overall festival is probably subsidised to keep Norwich on the map, but these are genuine opportunities to hear new musicians playing new music. You may say that these are fringe events but at least they exist. The trio is doing Schnittke Piano Trio and Ravel Piano trio in A minor; the wind group is doing a real mixed bag - Harrison Birtwistle Five Distances,
Cambini Wind Quintet 3, mvt II, Norman Hallam Dance Suite, Françaix Quintet No. 2, Ronaldo Miranda Variacoes Serias, Ligeti 6 Bagatelles Piazzolla Libertango. That's what I think we could all agree is proper programming - oh and it's cheap; and it's local (for us).


----------



## Mahlerian

Winterreisender said:


> Modern composers may call themselves "classical" in the hope of neatly slotting into a rich cultural tradition and attracting a large pre-existing audience, but in many cases the music has nothing to do with what we call "classical."


Every single part of this statement is wrong.

It is not your own personal opinion, not a view that you hold in opposition to others who have equally valid views, you are quite simply wrong.

Modern composers do not generally *call themselves* classical. This is a term that has stuck in academia and record labels to refer to anything composed within a certain tradition of notated art music and its offshoots, but composers generally just think of themselves as writing music.

Modern composers are not interested in attracting the same audience that listens to Verdi, Monteverdi, Cage, Copland, Mozart, Bach, Mahler, Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, etc., as much as they may love and feel inspired by the music of some or all of these figures. They are simply happy to find an audience that appreciates their work for what it is.

The idea that modern composers have to position themselves in a tradition that they developed from within would be laughable if it were not utterly contemptible in its implications.

No composer has to prove anything in order to be part of the classical tradition. The music clearly evolved from the Medieval era to today's many styles and genres, and it is all, regardless of how it looks or sounds, part of the same tradition. There is great music in this tradition, mediocre music in this tradition, and horrible, waste-of-paper-and-ink music as well.


----------



## Winterreisender

Mahlerian said:


> Modern composers do not generally *call themselves* classical. This is a term that has stuck in academia...


Well given that a large proportion of modern composers are in academia, I think my point remains valid. Academic composers try to place themselves in the same tradition as Beethoven, Brahms and Wagner in order to justify their own privileged status as "art music" in contrast to all other musics.

The main point of my above post, however, was to show that the distinction between what we call modern "classical" and modern "non-classical" music is completely artificial. In my previous post I gave the example of Stockhausen vs. electronica/new age. You talk about composers simply wishing to write music, so I wonder if you make the classical vs. non-classical distinction?


----------



## Guest

First of all, a huge thank you to Freischutz for starting this thread and for maintaining his/her equanimity in the face of some extraordinarily vituperative and off-topic remarks. I think that what this thread has revealed is that the market is not the problem, nor is the market the solution. Attitudes are the thing. Bad attitudes will return bad results. Good attitudes will return good results. Give over trying to make composers serve you and your "needs" and accept that not everything that happens will be something you "like." Accept that not everything that happens has to serve you and your particular needs.

It seems to me to be almost a Zen koan: if you forget about your needs, you will find that are many more things that will satisfy you than you could ever have imagined. (If you remain focused on what satisfies you now, you will continually be dissatisfied, even to the extent of needing ("needing") to continually attack things that you don't know but are sure will be unsatisfying. To you.)

Otherwise, I have an answer to one of Winterreisender's questions:


Winterreisender said:


> ...how should programmers decide what new pieces to program, given that there are thousands of modern composers out there wanting to be performed, and given that they have no idea which pieces will be well-received?


Start by dispensing with the idea that you need to be able to predict which pieces will be well-received. Accept that you don't know. Or rather, start with programmers who know about music. Programmers should not be marketers. Marketing is for shampoo and toilet paper and automobiles. Programmers should know about music, lots of music, music of every kind. Then program what you think has value, regardless of whether or not you like it or not. Certainly regardless of whether you think that other people will like it or not.

Sounds scary, right? But that's only because that's not how we "do" concerts any more. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, that's how all concerts were put together--a huge variety of all sorts of different things. You went to a concert knowing certain things: that you would be exposed to things that you did not like, that you would be exposed to things that you did like, that you would hear things that were mostly new. You were willing to sit (or stand) through the things that you did not like because you were a human being, a social animal, and you understood that not everyone likes the same things. You did not need for public concerts to serve your individual, private interests.

That attitude has changed, drastically, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, which was when concert audiences and consequently concert offerings began to splinter into the insular, exclusive cliques we are familiar with today. That's when new music groups were first formed. In the century before, for Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, and Haydn, _all_ music groups were new music groups. As the idea of "classical" music gained ground, new music (Beethoven, Chopin, Berlioz, Schumann and so forth) increasingly became something for new music groups to play as the now new style "mainstream" was increasingly playing old music.

A hundred years of that attitude before ever there were any "avant garde" pieces by Schoenberg or Stravinsky. Those guys didn't stand a chance.

That's what we're up against. It will be a long, tedious, tiresome task. But worth it, I think. After all, the "older is better" group in the nineteenth century had to go up against centuries of "newer is better," and they managed to do that. Why can't we turn it around? Get back to a social, human, reasonable, collegial state of affairs in which everyone's needs get met because no one is any longer focused on trying to meet anyone's needs.

Roll on the millennium!!


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> Every single part of this statement is wrong.
> 
> It is not your own personal opinion, not a view that you hold in opposition to others who have equally valid views, you are quite simply wrong.
> 
> Modern composers do not generally *call themselves* classical. This is a term that has stuck in academia and record labels to refer to anything composed within a certain tradition of notated art music and its offshoots, but composers generally just think of themselves as writing music.
> 
> Modern composers are not interested in attracting the same audience that listens to Verdi, Monteverdi, Cage, Copland, Mozart, Bach, Mahler, Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, etc., as much as they may love and feel inspired by the music of some or all of these figures. They are simply happy to find an audience that appreciates their work for what it is.
> 
> The idea that modern composers have to position themselves in a tradition that they developed from within would be laughable if it were not utterly contemptible in its implications.
> 
> No composer has to prove anything in order to be part of the classical tradition. The music clearly evolved from the Medieval era to today's many styles and genres, and it is all, regardless of how it looks or sounds, part of the same tradition. There is great music in this tradition, mediocre music in this tradition, and horrible, waste-of-paper-and-ink music as well.


That to me is fine. Let these guys find their audience. But also don't anyone make the rest of us who are classical music lovers feel we have some sort of obligation to them, to programme, hear or buy their works unless we like them.


----------



## Piwikiwi

DavidA said:


> That to me is fine. Let these guys find their audience. But also don't anyone make the rest of us who are classical music lovers feel we have some sort of obligation to them, to programme, hear or buy their works unless we like them.


No one is forcing you to buy a ticket:')


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Every single part of this statement is wrong.
> 
> It is not your own personal opinion, not a view that you hold in opposition to others who have equally valid views, you are quite simply wrong.
> 
> Modern composers do not generally *call themselves* classical. This is a term that has stuck in academia and record labels to refer to anything composed within a certain tradition of notated art music and its offshoots, but composers generally just think of themselves as writing music.
> 
> Modern composers are not interested in attracting the same audience that listens to Verdi, Monteverdi, Cage, Copland, Mozart, Bach, Mahler, Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, etc., as much as they may love and feel inspired by the music of some or all of these figures. They are simply happy to find an audience that appreciates their work for what it is.
> 
> The idea that modern composers have to position themselves in a tradition that they developed from within would be laughable if it were not utterly contemptible in its implications.
> 
> No composer has to prove anything in order to be part of the classical tradition. The music clearly evolved from the Medieval era to today's many styles and genres, and it is all, regardless of how it looks or sounds, part of the same tradition. There is great music in this tradition, mediocre music in this tradition, and horrible, waste-of-paper-and-ink music as well.


I would question the relevance of any this. It seems to have a very narrow musical focus, missing altogether the wider socio/economic aspects that were an important part of Winterreisender's post #279. The first part is fine but the rest of it is confused and ambiguous. The last paragraph makes no sense to me, and does not in any way address the key issues raised.

I find Winterreisender's post to be one of the best written and most illuminating in this whole thread, and I thoroughly endorse it. One of the main points he made is that the dividing line between classical and non-classical has become blurred, e.g. concerning some styles like electronica. I think that this observation is valid even in terms of the notation used in writing it down, and it probably has greater force when viewed from the perspective of the listener rather than the person who composed it.

Possibly a few members who have commented in this thread may have little or no idea how strange some of this so-called new classical material is. This applies especially to any who may think that the UK's "Classic FM" gives a good cross section of classical styles. These people would, I suspect, be in for a big surprise if they were to sample a cross-section of the material that lurks behind some of these otherwise innocent-looking posts by some members.

I hasten to add that I am not in any way condemning all or any this material, only saying that much of it does not appeal to me and does not strike me as being obviously classical, and I would guess also that it is different completely from what the majority of people regard as classical music. Rather, some contemporary allegedly "classical" styles are so obscure that no ordinary classical music listener would have the faintest idea which genre it belongs to. I am not saying they will necessarily not like any of it, but I would not mind betting that there would only be a small fraction to which they might wish to return for repeated listening or purchase.

This entire discussion is stymied, as there seem to be two completely separate concepts of modern classical music. One is the more clearly mainstream kind of mid-late 20th classical material that is not performed often but which is recognisably in the same mould as much other material from the same era. The other is some (not all) of the more contemporary late 20th C/early 21st C material, that one or two members frequently promote, given half the opportunity to do so, whilst tending the blur the distinction with the former more traditional style for reasons known best to them. These two main types have very obviously been mixed up in this thread in a very confusing way.

Regarding the second of these types, as has been noted, some of the material has become so blurred with other fringe styles of modern music that it makes no sense to treat it separately or to give it any privileges, e.g. by way of extra scheduling time. Let it compete with the rest of the stuff in whatever ways the markets provide, and see how it fares. Because there is no direct or obvious subsidy awarded to any of the other styles of music with which it is competition, there is no reason to give special treatment (extra scheduling etc) to a sub-genre which its creator may consider to be classical in tradition, but which a typical music classical music listener would probably see as being little different from the rest.

Again, I conclude that there is no justification for giving this or, for that matter, any type of music, of any description whatsoever, favoured treatment of any kind in concert or radio scheduling. Let the market work to achieve whatever solution is best given the preferences of consumers and the supply capability of the producers (composers). There are no obvious impediments to the existence of efficient markets in this area, hence no need for regulation or special favour to be provided by an outlet of any kind.


----------



## violadude

EDIT: After reading the posts that surround this post, I realized that my post is not entirely relevant to the current mini-topic. But I think it relates to the OP in a more general way, and I like what I said, so I'll keep it.

Let me try and outline one of the conflicts I see going on with regards to audiences, musical taste and classical music lovers:

I think people who are drawn to specialized interests, like those interested in classical music, tend to have minds that are naturally curious. We have minds that love learning and experiencing the new for the sake of it. We take extreme joy in discovery.
I think this could describe more than a few people in this forum, including myself.

But then, there are people on this world that aren't really curious about anything. You can tell them that we've recently discovered several earth-like exo-planets and they won't care. They take advantage of some of the most extraordinary achievements of mankind without the single bit of concern about how they got here and the brilliant people that were involved in the process. The "why" and "how" don't matter much, to some people only the "what is" is pertinent to their existence.They just want to go to work, so they can make money, so they can come home, drink beer and watch football.

Now, I doubt the majority of people on earth are THAT one dimensional. I've exaggerated a little bit. But certainly there are a large portion of people that tend toward that kind of mindset and then a small portion of people with the exact mindset.

And to those of us with curious minds, I think those other people can be frustratingly hard to understand. We don't understand how they are not fascinated by the multitude of fascinations on this earth! How they are not wondrous of the many things left to understand about the world as a species, let alone the many things left for the individual to discover on their own. Even the fact that there are those of us so curious and those of us so not curious is an interesting launching point of discovery unto itself.

I think what I've explained is a broader version of what happens in the music world with regards to the topic at hand. The curious listeners that delight in the joys of discovery are baffled by those that just don't care one way or another about the vast array of amazing and diverse music out there.

I don't know what causes the lack of an inquiring mind. It might be genetic and unchangable in some people. In others, it might be just a lack of education that keeps them from being "converted" into a fellow philomath. I've never really studied the phenomenon in depth. But I do have to say that I feel pretty sad for people who don't see the beauty in discovery and learning. 

If that makes me a snob, alright then.
Sorry to offend you.


----------



## Wood

Partita said:


> I would question the relevance of any this. It seems to have a very narrow musical focus, missing altogether the wider socio/economic aspects that were an important part of Winterreisender's post #279. The first part is fine but the rest of it is confused and ambiguous. The last paragraph makes no sense to me, and does not in any way address the key issues raised.
> 
> I find Winterreisender's post to be one of the best written and most illuminating in this whole thread, and I thoroughly endorse it. One of the main points he made is that the dividing line between classical and non-classical has become blurred, e.g. concerning some styles like electronica. I think that this observation is valid even in terms of the notation used in writing it down, and it probably has greater force when viewed from the perspective of the listener rather than the person who composed it.
> 
> Possibly a few members who have commented in this thread may have little or no idea how strange some of this so-called new classical material is. This applies especially to any who may think that the UK's "Classic FM" gives a good cross section of classical styles. These people would, I suspect, be in for a big surprise if they were to sample a cross-section of the material that lurks behind some of these otherwise innocent-looking posts by some members.
> 
> I hasten to add that I am not in any way condemning all or any this material, only saying that much of it does not appeal to me and does not strike me as being obviously classical, and I would guess also that it is different completely from what the majority of people regard as classical music. Rather, some contemporary allegedly "classical" styles are so obscure that no ordinary classical music listener would have the faintest idea which genre it belongs to. I am not saying they will necessarily not like any of it, but I would not mind betting that there would only be a small fraction to which they might wish to return for repeated listening or purchase.
> 
> This entire discussion is stymied, as there seem to be two completely separate concepts of modern classical music. One is the more clearly mainstream kind of mid-late 20th classical material that is not performed often but which is recognisably in the same mould as much other material from the same era. The other is some (not all) of the more contemporary late 20th C/early 21st C material, that one or two members frequently promote, given half the opportunity to do so, whilst tending the blur the distinction with the former more traditional style for reasons known best to them. These two main types have very obviously been mixed up in this thread in a very confusing way.
> 
> Regarding the second of these types, as has been noted, some of the material has become so blurred with other fringe styles of modern music that it makes no sense to treat it separately or to give it any privileges, e.g. by way of extra scheduling time. Let it compete with the rest of the stuff in whatever ways the markets provide, and see how it fares. Because there is no direct or obvious subsidy awarded to any of the other styles of music with which it is competition, there is no reason to give special treatment (extra scheduling etc) to a sub-genre which its creator may consider to be classical in tradition, but which a typical music classical music listener would probably see as being little different from the rest.
> 
> Again, I conclude that there is no justification for giving this or, for that matter, any type of music, of any description whatsoever, favoured treatment of any kind in concert or radio scheduling. Let the market work to achieve whatever solution is best given the preferences of consumers and the supply capability of the producers (composers). There are no obvious impediments to the existence of efficient markets in this area, hence no need for regulation or special favour to be provided by an outlet of any kind.


After my little wobble at the start of the thread I'm making some great progress now.

This is a thrilling live piece from Dumitrescu:


----------



## Ingélou

violadude said:


> I think people who are drawn to specialized interests, like those interested in classical music, tend to have minds that are naturally curious. We have minds that love learning and experiencing the new for the sake of it. We take extreme joy in discovery...
> I think this could describe more than a few people in this forum, including myself.
> 
> But then, there are people on this world that aren't really curious about anything....
> 
> And to those of us with curious minds, I think those other people can be frustratingly hard to understand....
> 
> The curious listeners that delight in the joys of discovery are baffled by those that just don't care one way or another about the vast array of amazing and diverse music out there.
> 
> I don't know what causes the lack of an inquiring mind. It might be genetic and unchangable in some people. In others, it might be just a lack of education that keeps them from being "converted" into a fellow philomath. I've never really studied the phenomenon in depth. But I do have to say that I feel pretty sad for people who don't see the beauty in discovery and learning.
> 
> If that makes me a snob, alright then.
> Sorry to offend you.


Taken to extremes, this *would* make you snobbish. But if it's more in the way of a tragic realisation that some are on a completely different wavelength from you - then, not. 
But there are whole subsets missing - such as those of us with naturally enquiring minds who reach a certain age & realise that they don't have the time, the learning capacity or the energy to branch out any more, and so they make the decision to *prioritise*, exploring *in more depth* what they already like. 

I hope I would always be willing to try and to appreciate new composers. And I do think that concert programmes should be more mixed.
But I know my limitations...


----------



## violadude

Ingélou said:


> Taken to extremes, this *would* make you snobbish. But if it's more in the way of a tragic realisation that some are on a completely different wavelength from you - then, not.
> But there are whole subsets missing - *such as those of us with naturally enquiring minds who reach a certain age & realise that they don't have the time, the learning capacity or the energy to branch out and make the decision to prioritise, exploring in more depth what they already like. *
> 
> I hope I would always be willing to try and to appreciate new composers. And I do think that concert programmes should be more mixed.
> But I know my limitations...


Yes. That's a completely different situation from the one I was thinking about in my post.

I didn't read this entire thread and I realized that I was a little oblivious to the fact that it was mostly about modern classical music.


----------



## shangoyal

It's a weird oxymoron in my case - I don't think I am particularly curious in the traditional sense - I think science is great but don't particularly enjoy reading logical discourse, but I am fond of the paranormal and the strange - in a sense I like experiencing things which people around me are oblivious about. I don't know why this is - but that is also why I like classical music, because it fuels my passion for the different and otherworldly, if that makes sense.

So, you never know what the audience is expecting. Just best to do your thing really.


----------



## Winterreisender

some guy said:


> Start by dispensing with the idea that you need to be able to predict which pieces will be well-received. Accept that you don't know. Or rather, start with programmers who know about music. Programmers should not be marketers. Marketing is for shampoo and toilet paper and automobiles. Programmers should know about music, lots of music, music of every kind. Then program what you think has value, regardless of whether or not you like it or not. Certainly regardless of whether you think that other people will like it or not.


You still seem to envisage a situation where the audiences are unable to make decisions for themselves and must be spoonfed by the powers from on high. But in your ideal world, it is on the whims of self-proclaimed "music experts" that the concerts are dictated.

I have already said several times now that modern music is so fragmented that we can't expect a single niche genre to have mainstream appeal enough to be programmed in large concert venues. It would also be foolish to expect a fan of Beethoven and Brahms etc. to automatically enjoy the music of modern "classical" composers over and above the countless other styles of modern music being created, because in most cases the link between old and new "classical" is very tenuous.

I have also said several times now that audiences are not as conservative as you make out; there are in fact thousands of concerts taking place every day, where new music is played to large and passionate audiences. The only problem is that many of them aren't playing the music which you personally happen to like. Well that's just a shame.

There is simply more competition for new music these days, and the classical composers are failing to keep up. I still see no reason why the "classical" composers should receive special treatment.


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> Yes. That's a completely different situation from the one I was thinking about in my post.
> 
> I didn't read this entire thread and I realized that I was a little oblivious to the fact that it was mostly about modern classical music.


The thread is only about modern music of a type which hasn't been given much prominence in concerts/radio, whether this matters, and what can be done about it.

There has been confusion about whether this is mainstream classical of the 20th C, or the really modern stuff (including but not confined to the "bells, whistles, hooters" variety) that purports to be classical.

Some people say it doesn't matter, that it's inevitable given the plethora of new music and the inferior quality of some traditional music, the market should sort it out, and any interference from outside in the scheduling of concerts etc would cause more harm than good.

Others say that there are market imperfections which may cause an under-supply of new material or older but less popular material, that action of some kind to promote this neglected material is required, but there is uncertainty as to what might be effective.


----------



## dgee

So, let the market provide. But what would it provide? Certainly not the compromised hodge-podge that comes from trad programming techniques where the artistic committee, MD and soloists put stuff up to the management and the the board. No! This is designed to mix artistic goals with (loosely) what people want to hear. You can guess who is the voice of what the people want to hear. So, it is up to the group of artists to make a case to the mgmt/governance what should go on the programme. The mgmt governance makes a decision. It is mostly informed by finance including audience projections and likelihood of influence on sponsorship/funding attraction. Too big a fight for the artists and wings are clipped next time so watch out!!!!

How about programmes that reflect what the decision-makers think people want. Remember, these individuals might like music, but they have no "sophisticated" understanding. They're likely business types who enjoy things that sound NICE. But they won't make waves if the music director is careful in describing his bill of fare. Things will be hashed put over a few meetings. Don't be surprised if some of those mahlers become dvoraks and tchaiks and the C 20 that everyone wants to play is diluted. And the orchestra groans - more crud we can play with our eyes closed. Out to lunch performances

And the guess what - audience numbers ticked down just a little. Oh no! Guess that ageing demographic came into play!. 

What are we gonna do next year? The same


----------



## Mahlerian

Partita said:


> Again, I conclude that *there is no justification for giving this or, for that matter, any type of music, of any description whatsoever, favoured treatment of any kind in concert or radio scheduling*. Let the market work to achieve whatever solution is best given the preferences of consumers and the supply capability of the producers (composers). There are no obvious impediments to the existence of efficient markets in this area, hence no need for regulation or special favour to be provided by an outlet of any kind.


This has been brought up a number of times, and it begs the question.

What makes you think anything is being given special, preferential treatment? There are countless composers working in any style you can imagine without receiving commissions, performances, or recordings. Naturally, only a few will end up being performed, and even fewer with any regularity after a first performance.

As for the market explanation, I have consistently brought up here and elsewhere that as it is, contemporary classical does have a niche for itself. There are specialty record labels and ensembles that manage to keep going with a roster of primarily or exclusively "avant-garde" music (in scare quotes because this is not a property of the music itself as much as it is to the individual who places it within their own experience). Musicians and ensembles would, ideally, be given enough financial latitude to be able to program and perform whatever they wish.

As for the dividing line between classical and non-classical, it has been blurred in certain ways, but it has been pointed out that this is not necessarily new. How many times a week do we get people asking if some New Age-ish piece from a TV or movie soundtrack is "classical"?


----------



## dgee

So, anyway - beethoven cycles. A truly sustainable model for all bands. The kids flock to beethoven - I have it on good authority - just like they can't stop attending verdi operas


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Otherwise, I have an answer to one of Winterreisender's questions:
> Start by dispensing with the idea that you need to be able to predict which pieces will be well-received. Accept that you don't know. Or rather, start with programmers who know about music. Programmers should not be marketers. Marketing is for shampoo and toilet paper and automobiles. Programmers should know about music, lots of music, music of every kind. Then program what you think has value, regardless of whether or not you like it or not. Certainly regardless of whether you think that other people will like it or not.


There is something very curious about this proposition. I read its several times and have trouble understanding what you are suggesting exactly what should replace what.

You appear to assume that only marketers have any say in what gets scheduled in concerts or radio programmes under the current regimes, as found typically around the world. This must be wrong, as surely the marketers will consult other colleagues as may be required.

Normal competitive processes should drive this process to achieve a suitable mix of skills to meet market requirements. If they get it wrong the market should punish them, as the fans swan off to some other gig, or whatever, where a more suitable outcome is offered.

Your faith in allowing music "experts" alone to select music to present to the public is a frightening prospect. What do they know or care about consumer tastes? Any experiment like, say, handing over the keys to the BBC's Radio 3 schedules to a bunch of so-called musical experts, and allowing them licence to play whatever they liked for a week, would, I am convinced, lead to total mayhem. There would be such a listener revolt that it would cause serious trouble.

I am afraid to say therefore that I find your suggestion of allowing music experts alone free rein to be ill-conceived, impossible to achieve, and based on a way too pessimistic view about the way competitive markets operate.


----------



## dgee

Ahhhh - the horrible music experts. Because at the mo, orchestra programmes don't meet the market. There's still an artistic component which is queasily distorting efficiency. Throw it to the wind and we could have all Andre Rieux (sp?) all the time - because that sells. Otherwise, we'll have the varying degrees of "Beethoven cycles" programming that aren't attracting a sufficient audience to stop orchestras from going out of business in most places left, right and centre


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> What makes you think anything is being given special, preferential treatment?


No, no there's been a mis-understanding here. By no means was I suggesting that new music is being given special treatment. That is not the issue at all. My opinion has been consistently that there is no reason to start doing so, contrary to what has been proposed by the OP and by a few others. I trust that a re-reading of what I have said will make this clear.


----------



## hpowders

It would be nice if some of the popular movies that folks flock to featured a bit of well-played classical music in their soundtracks, so by some miracle, curiosity in that music might actually grow geometrically and one day classical music forums will have waiting lists for future memberships.


Your tour of Fantasyland is now over.


----------



## Selby

This keeps being brought up and I believe needs to be addressed: If we rely entirely on "the market" to expect classical music to thrive, we are in trouble.

I don't know about other markets, but the Oregon Symphony seems to be in a perpetual financial crisis - I know, because I get the regular request for additional donations, often with pleads in fear of a dire future.

The Oregon Symphony, like many across the country and world I would guess, is not functioning on a traditional market model, they remain functioning due to their patrons. You only have to attend one concert to realize that their overwhelming patron demographic is, how do we say, not in the prime of their life.

So, if they market is not determining the life of your local symphony, what is? Patrons who see value in the continued arts. I, for one, would love to open a new season schedule and see anything that I have never heard of. Anything!!! I would, absolutely, go to that concert. When I go to a show, like recently, Hilary Hahn performing Nielson's violin concerto, I then have to suffer through a bloated Strauss tone poem and, yet another, performance of a Grieg Peer Gynt suite.

This is not to be alarmist. Art music will absolutely always survive. There are many small, "diy-ish" groups doing chamber art music. But the fear that the only local symphony will die out, as the majority of their patrons do, is an absolute shame.

In summation:

Art music will survive, but...
A long living symphony requires a continued patronage. 
Continued patronage requires appealing to the next generation. 
Appealing to the next generation obviously requires a different model, because this one is not working.

On a side note: please let's get over this notion that all "modern" or "contemporary" classical music sounds the same and is unappealing to popular tastes. Go listen to Dobrinka or Palomo or Pafunik or Lang.


----------



## Tristan

This reminds me of a scene in The Simpsons when they decide to build a concert hall in Springfield, far over-estimating how cultured Springfieldians are. During the opening concert, Beethoven's 5th begins and after the opening bars everyone begins to walk out and Lenny says "we already heard the 'bum-bum-bum-bum!'--everything else is just filler" and Marge tries to get everyone to stay by saying "wait! up next is an atonal medley by Philip Glass!" and then everyone runs screaming out of the concert hall and it's never used again


----------



## Selby

Tristan - do you remember the title of the episode or the season? I would love to watch that, sound hilarious.


----------



## Tristan

It's Season 16 - Episode 14 "The Seven Beer Snitch"


----------



## DavidA

Piwikiwi said:


> No one is forcing you to buy a ticket:')


Thank goodness for that! I wouldn't listen to some of that stuff if you paid me!


----------



## DavidA

Comparing genres, no-one, I believe, subsidises authors, do they? They are dependent on the interest in their books. Why do we put composers in a different category?


----------



## violadude

DavidA said:


> Thank goodness for that! I wouldn't listen to some of that stuff if you paid me!


Really? I would listen to ANYTHING if you were paying me to do it!


----------



## Freischutz

DavidA said:


> Comparing genres, no-one, I believe, subsidises authors, do they? They are dependent on the interest in their books. Why do we put composers in a different category?


I'd refer you to my post on the previous page demonstrating the total budget for all the arts so that you know what amounts you're talking about. I'd also suggest an inversion of your question - why do we put authors in a different category? I actually don't believe your implied disparity exists, but it's worth thinking about your assumptions.


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> I'd refer you to my post on the previous page demonstrating the total budget for all the arts so that you know what amounts you're talking about. I'd also suggest an inversion of your question - why do we put authors in a different category? I actually don't believe your implied disparity exists, but it's worth thinking about your assumptions.


Since we contribute little to classical music through taxes, therefore we should contribute more? I'm not sure I follow your logic here.


----------



## Blancrocher

DavidA said:


> Comparing genres, no-one, I believe, subsidises authors, do they? They are dependent on the interest in their books. Why do we put composers in a different category?


What?! You mean _you_ don't have a government grant to post on TC? Why in the world do you do it?!


----------



## violadude

DavidA said:


> Comparing genres, no-one, I believe, subsidises authors, do they? They are dependent on the interest in their books. Why do we put composers in a different category?


Well when you think about it, the government already subsidizes professional liars to lie to us. They might as well subsidize professional artists as a gift to us to make up for it. 

Oh sorry, probably shouldn't bring politics into this too much.


----------



## DavidA

violadude said:


> Really? I would listen to ANYTHING if you were paying me to do it!


No, there are limits! I value my sanity!


----------



## violadude

DavidA said:


> No, there are limits! I value my sanity!


Well, I guess there are absurd examples of things that you couldn't pay me to listen to. Like a constant damagingly high pitch for an entire day.


----------



## dgee

^^^^^ or Bellini


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> Well when you think about it, the government subsidizes professional liars to lie to us. They might as well subsidize professional artists as a gift to us to make up for it.


That's certainly the strongest argument for subsidizing classical music I've heard so far. Seriously. :lol:


----------



## Freischutz

KenOC said:


> Since we contribute little to classical music through taxes, therefore we should contribute more? I'm not sure I follow your logic here.


There were two main points. The first: we fund classical music so minimally that there is something petty about complaining about support for contemporary musicians when we turn a blind eye to the billions wasted on things that are not only pointless (if that's what you believe) but positively harmful. The second: the fact that we don't support authors (which isn't exactly true anyway) doesn't automatically imply that we shouldn't support musicians, it may instead mean that we should support authors too!


----------



## Guest

However it was that we got here, the current situation does serve some people. Some of the people it serves post here on TC. Not surprising. Also not surprising is that the people being served want to preserve the situation. Of course.

The way the conversation has been framed, new music is a threat to the current situation. New music is often most vociferously inveighed against by people who have essentially no exposure to it and no experience of it. (Hint, the "new" music you're likely to hear on a symphony concert is going to be pretty tame stuff, and only new as in recent.) But since it is presented as a threat, then of course it must be fought. If you buy into the narrative that it's a threat, then you pretty much feel obliged to fight it, even if you don't know, exactly, what it is you're fighting. 

Well, whatever. If there is anything about the current situation that should be changed, it's not "the market" that's going to do it. Indeed, I cannot think of any aspect of any art that has been well-served by a market model. Art is not a product; it's not a commodity. Treating it as such misses the point of what "art" means. Now it may be that "art" is not something worthwhile or valuable, so who cares if treating it as a product will eventually destroy it? But that seems to be a different discussion to this one.

In this one, I think we all agree that art is valuable. And the conversation so far has revolved around the relative merits of old art and new art. And it's always a bit amusing (when it's not simply infuriating) that the simple observation that every single piece of old art was at one time new inevitably gets turned into the spurious claim that all new things are going to turn out to be masterpieces.

Far as I know, no one has ever claimed that particular thing. No wonder, it's absurd. Anyway, just like with the market for any art, the notion of greatness (or even goodness) misses the point about what new art is all about. New art is not about being good or great or even pleasant. If those terms have any validity, even for old art (and of course you all already know that I think that they do not), it can only be for the known, for the familiar. If something is genuinely new, then it is by definition unfamiliar--i.e., words like likeable or great are not pertinent to what new art is or what new art is trying to accomplish.

Of course, for consumers, who are more interested in being catered to than in the artistic compulsion to create, all this must sound very alien. An artist doing something out of an inner necessity? An artist going into heretofore unexplored areas? An artist more interested in her art than in consumers' need? That's crazy talk. What about communication?

Well, what about communication? I am going to assert, without any support, that communication is not the point of art. Howz that for ya?


----------



## Guest

This thread appears to have reached the stage of vaguely discussing applying subsidies to composers of new classical music. 

There is no logic in proposing subsidy in this area, as there is no reason to believe that the mere creation of additional music will affect the mix of old/new music performed in the media, which was the concern expressed at the beginning of this thread. 

There is no more justification for offering subsidies in promoting new classical music as there is concerning any other field of artistic endeavour. 

It is not possible to justify creating a bigger subsidy budget in any area, merely because it was small in the first place, as some people appear to be advocating.

A subsidy would create an increased supply of new material. There would be huge problems about deciding who should receive a subsidy given that there could be an almost limitless demand for more and more funding from increasingly dubious applicants. 

Ultimately, the cost of subsidy falls on consumers generally (via extra tax receipts), and most of them will have gained nothing since the subsidised area (new classical music) is so small and of specialised interest only that it would create "deadweight loss" and inefficiency.


----------



## Nereffid

some guy said:


> And the conversation so far has revolved around the relative merits of old art and new art.


And maybe the idea that it's "old" versus "new" is somewhat missing the point. Yes, the argument is along the lines of "why stick with all that music by long-dead composers when you could also try out some still-alive composers" and obviously one is old and one is new, but perhaps this is a kind-of coincidence? In this thread already we've had the suggestion that most people listen to new music _all the time_, it's just that it's not contemporary classical. And of course a certain kind of contemporary classical has already been discounted in some quarters as not the kind of contemporary classical we mean by "new". So we can at least dismiss the notion that this is about "chronologically old" versus "chronologically new". We're talking about, I suppose, "conceptually old" versus "conceptually new". Fine, but perhaps what we're _actually_ talking about is "conceptually familiar" versus "conceptually unfamiliar". At which point the year in which the music was written becomes essentially irrelevant. Yes, all old music was once new, but some of it is new now too.
Will the audience that flocks to Verdi's Requiem also want to hear Ligeti's Requiem? But also, will they want to hear Ockeghem's Requiem? 
When the OP says "the kinds of programmes we all imagine Mr. and Mrs. Average hope for are ones whose composers have been dead for at least 150 years" we should probably add an _upper_ limit for time since death, too.
As to the Requiem question, my own view, based like pretty much everyone else's in this thread on absolutely no data, is that the Ligeti/Ockeghem overlap is probably greater than the Verdi/Ockeghem and Verdi/Ligeti overlaps, because Verdi is "familiar" and the others not so much, and there are audiences who prefer familiar and there are audiences who prefer unfamiliar.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> .. In this thread already we've had the suggestion that most people listen to new music _all the time_, it's just that it's not contemporary classical. And of course a certain kind of contemporary classical has already been discounted in some quarters as not the kind of contemporary classical we mean by "new". So we can at least dismiss the notion that this is about "chronologically old" versus "chronologically new". We're talking about, I suppose, "conceptually old" versus "conceptually new". Fine, but perhaps what we're _actually_ talking about is "conceptually familiar" versus "conceptually unfamiliar". At which point the year in which the music was written becomes essentially irrelevant. Yes, all old music was once new, but some of it is new now too.


I think it was established much earlier in the thread that the OP was mainly referring to conventional classical music of the 20th C that doesn't tend to get performed as much as he thinks appropriate. This he puts down to alleged exploitation by the media moguls.

Seizing on the opportunity thus presented, this prompted the usual "bells and whistles" proponents to repeat their usual moan alleging that modern classical music audiences are too conservative, and to follow their advice to become more like them and open the doors with open arms to all this new musical material. In effect, this shifted the goal posts of the thread into different territory, and has caused a good deal of confusion as discussion has been taking place in both areas.

Added to this, the music student lobby has also re-surfaced, endorsing the notion that subsidy is the answer. They would say that, wouldn't they, having a lovely time composing music at the taxpayer's expense. If composers qualify, what about authors? I'm not an "author" in the strict sense, but I could pretend to be one and seek a subsidy merely for sitting here writing posts on T-C.


----------



## Nereffid

Partita said:


> I think it was established much earlier in the thread that the OP was mainly referring to conventional classical music of the 20th C that doesn't tend to get performed as much as he thinks appropriate. This he puts down to alleged exploitation by the media moguls. ...


Well, I should clarify that I think the _wider_ debate for _listeners generally_ is really familiar vs unfamiliar rather than old vs new, following _some guy_'s comment "The way the conversation has been framed, new music is a threat to the current situation." Obviously there are those whose focus is specifically old/conservative versus new/progressive. The OP (well, not the OP, I guess; the music that Freischutz was specifically referring to escapes me right now) fits my idea of the wider debate - stuff that's performed regularly vs stuff that's not performed much/at all.
I imagine there are few if any of us here who would disagree with the basic principle that stuff that's not performed much could be performed more; the argument is more over how unfamiliar that music could be compared with what's already being programmed.


----------



## Winterreisender

Nereffid said:


> In this thread already we've had the suggestion that most people listen to new music _all the time_, it's just that it's not contemporary classical. And of course a certain kind of contemporary classical has already been discounted in some quarters as not the kind of contemporary classical we mean by "new". So we can at least dismiss the notion that this is about "chronologically old" versus "chronologically new". We're talking about, I suppose, "conceptually old" versus "conceptually new".


Are you suggesting that contemporary non-classical music is "conceptually old"? I find that suggestion a little absurd.

As this discussion has progressed, it has become clear that, contrary to Freischutz's earlier accusation that my arguments have been skewed by my own personal value judgments, it is actually those on the other side of the debate who are guilty of value judgments. I am suggesting a perfectly democratic model of concert programming: program styles of music as befitting the level of demand. Others, however, are suggesting that some styles of music (i.e. the styles of music that they personally enjoy) are inherently more valuable than others and therefore should be given special priority in concert programming. The absurd claim has also been made by Some Guy that modern audiences are somehow obliged to give his favourite music (instead of other styles) the time of day, because... well, because they just should.

Personally I find it difficult to debate objectively with people whose views are so clearly biased towards their own personal taste.


----------



## dgee

Here's an interesting little insight on programming and how it really works from pianist Eduard Laurel's fantastic blog:

http://crackcritic.blogspot.com/2013/11/crackcritics-rant-first.html

Note that Mr Laurel is not a raving modernist


----------



## Ingélou

Perhaps the new & unfamiliar music needs to be given an airing first on some cult radio or internet forum, & then it will be cool & fashionable enough to be 'daring' & people will want to hear it among the other concert offerings?

This thread looks as if it will go on for ever. There are so many angles. Apologies to all those I have put 'likes' on - yes, you are all saying diametrically opposed things, but then, you say them *so well*! :clap:


----------



## Guest

Winterreisender said:


> Others, however, are suggesting that some styles of music (i.e. the styles of music that they personally enjoy) are inherently more valuable than others and therefore should be given special priority in concert programming. The absurd claim has also been made by Some Guy that modern audiences are somehow obliged to give his favourite music (instead of other styles) the time of day, because... well, because they just should.


Any support for either of these two assertions? Perhaps a quote or two. Or, better yet, a thread and some post numbers. Otherwise....



Winterreisender said:


> Personally I find it difficult to debate objectively with people whose views are so clearly biased towards their own personal taste.


Yeah. Me too.


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> As this discussion has progressed, it has become clear that, contrary to Freischutz's earlier accusation that my arguments have been skewed by my own personal value judgments, it is actually those on the other side of the debate who are guilty of value judgments. I am suggesting a perfectly democratic model of concert programming: program styles of music as befitting the level of demand.


I'd quite like you to answer my earlier question on this. No matter how strongly your convictions are on this, and no matter if it happens that the rest of us are wrong, do you acknowledge and accept that what you propose is a radically different social role for concerts than they had in the 19th century? Do you understand that when all the music you love so much was written, this is _not_ how concerts were conceived and programmed? You may think that the change is right, but I just want you to admit that it is a big change.



Winterreisender said:


> Others, however, are suggesting that some styles of music (i.e. the styles of music that they personally enjoy) are inherently more valuable than others and therefore should be given special priority in concert programming.


This is a falsehood. I have tried to explain it in other posts, but let me put it in no uncertain terms, and please accept this before repeating this accusation.

*I am in favour of music being programmed that I thoroughly dislike*.

My arguments have _nothing_ to do with value judgements regarding the music I like, my arguments have _everything_ to do with programming a _diverse selection_ of music because I believe that the arts should be protected from the homogenising effects of markets. So at least when discussing this with me, you have no choice but to retract the following accusation:



Winterreisender said:


> Personally I find it difficult to debate objectively with people whose views are so clearly biased towards their own personal taste.


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> My arguments have _nothing_ to do with value judgements regarding the music I like, my arguments have _everything_ to do with programming a _diverse selection_ of music because I believe that the arts should be protected from the homogenising effects of markets.


It seems to me that music has always been on the market. Markets I can easily identify, in more-or-less chronological order:

- The church, from which the civic market separated somewhat in Bach's time.
- The instructional market, for which Bach wrote most of his published keyboard works.
- The aristocratic and increasingly bourgeois performance market, which gradually became quite a broad market even before Beethoven's heyday.
- The musical amateur market, primarily buying sheet music for home performance (Beethoven's year-to-year mainstay).
- The recital market, seemingly growing in performance in the early romantic period.
- The "serious music" performance market, reaching a high degree of sophistication during the 19th century.

And probably even more fragmented markets after that. But in all these markets, fortunes of composers rose and fell depending on demand for their music. They were truly "free markets" because there was no information that was withheld and both sellers and buyers were willing parties. I cannot easily identify any untoward "homogenizing effects."


----------



## Freischutz

KenOC said:


> It seems to me that music has always been on the market. Markets I can easily identify, in more-or-less chronological order:
> 
> - The church, from which the civic market separated somewhat in Bach's time.
> - The instructional market, for which Bach wrote most of his published keyboard works.
> - The aristocratic and increasingly bourgeois performance market, which gradually became quite a broad market even before Beethoven's heyday.
> - The musical amateur market, primarily buying sheet music for home performance (Beethoven's year-to-year mainstay).
> - The recital market, seemingly growing in performance in the early romantic period.
> - The "serious music" performance market, reaching a high degree of sophistication during the 19th century.
> 
> And probably even more fragmented markets after that. But in all these markets, fortunes of composers rose and fell depending on demand for their music. They were truly "free markets" because there was no information that was withheld and both sellers and buyers were willing parties. I cannot easily identify any untoward "homogenizing effects."


Even people who are in favour of current programming practices have to accept that the market is a homogenizing force in the specific arena of performance (I'm not talking about composition or publishing). It's self-evident in the fact that performances are heavily biased towards a very specific kind and period of repertoire. Now you may think that that is _right_ and that's fine, we can talk about that, but it _is_ homogeneous by definition.


----------



## Blancrocher

KenOC said:


> And probably even more fragmented markets after that. But in all these markets, fortunes of composers rose and fell depending on demand for their music. They were truly "free markets" because there was no information that was withheld and both sellers and buyers were willing parties. I cannot easily identify any untoward "homogenizing effects."


I don't know about homogenizing effects, but I do feel sorry for soulful geniuses like Samuel Barber who thought they had to write operas to make money. Don't get me wrong: I like "Vanessa." I'm just sorry that Barber wore himself out pursuing uncongenial work.

*p.s.* I like the new mustache, Ken.


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> Even people who are in favour of current programming practices have to accept that the market is a homogenizing force in the specific arena of performance (I'm not talking about composition or publishing). It's self-evident in the fact that performances are heavily biased towards a very specific kind and period of repertoire. Now you may think that that is _right_ and that's fine, we can talk about that, but it _is_ homogeneous by definition.


I'll grant that there may be more homogeneity in the arena of *orchestral* performances than some would like; I don't necessarily grant the same for chamber music and solo recital performances.

But if it is so, one explanation might be that there is insufficient new music being written that people want to hear. I very much doubt that it's a conspiracy among concert programmers or professional musicians. It has little to do with ill effects of the market; it seems people are getting what they want, even if they have found other and more desirable sources of musical pleasure than the bother and expense of driving many miles and spending many bucks to hear the symphony live.

The choices of music of any kind, to anybody, and at any time, are far greater than they have ever been in history. That is the result of the markets, and hardly homogenization.


----------



## Freischutz

KenOC said:


> But if it is so, one explanation might be that there is *insufficient new music being written that people want to hear.* I very much doubt that it's a *conspiracy* among concert programmers or professional musicians. *It has little to do with ill effects of the market;* it seems people are getting *what they want,* even if they have found other and more desirable sources of musical pleasure than *the bother and expense of driving many miles and spending many bucks to hear the symphony live.*


All the things I have bolded are things that have already been discussed extensively on this thread, but it seems that we are all oscillating between different arguments. When any of us throws something up that someone else can't adequately contend, quick, change the subject!

There are some contradictions in your brief post, though. For example, you say that there are no ill effects to do with the market and yet you also say that concerts are giving people what people want - well then that _is_ the market at work, isn't it? You're just concluding that it isn't wrong for concerts to give people what they want. It's _still_ the market even if it's right. But then this just drags everything back to page 1 where the following points have been made:

1) By framing new music in terms of what people want to hear, you immediately assume a) that it's bad and b) that we can base programming on value judgements like that;
2) Even granting that, it's not safe to assume that we know what everyone wants;
3) And even if we do know what the majority wants, the arts should not be based on a tyranny of the majority;
4) People don't have decent access to a diverse selection of music by definition because concerts _are_ one of the sources of that music, so biases in concerts reflect a bias in access;
5) No one is talking about a conspiracy, only the overly pervasive influence of populism and money;
6) We still haven't talked about the question of whether or not it's fair to treat concerts like restaurants instead of cultural explorations where disappointment is OK;
7) People have frequently suggested that experiences of new music should be relegated to things like highly specialist concerts, online streaming or recordings, but haven't yet accepted that this is a highly unusual affair and is not the way concerts were constructed at other times in history.



KenOC said:


> The choices of music of any kind, to anybody, and at any time, are far greater than they have ever been in history. That is the result of the markets, and hardly homogenization.


Yes, the choices are greater, but so is the compositional output, and performances are not keeping up with that progress. An absolute increase in choice only hides the relative disparity.


----------



## Guest

Ken, your definition (implied) of market is only possible by conflating two different things, two different _kinds_ of things.

Objects and services are things that can be part of a market system. And there are objects and services in music. Sheet music, cds, on-demand pieces. And sure, some object like a cd can be manufactured and advertised and bought and sold. And pieces can be commissioned (though I would question calling commissions a marketplace thing).

But when we talk about the arts generally, even the ones that produce objects, we are not talking about the kinds of conditions that are true for toilet paper and automobiles, are we? A painting by De Kooning in a museum is not the same as a stick of deodorant in a store. Nor is artistic activity at all the same, even in Bach's time, as working as a clerk in a store.

Music is not something you can buy and sell in stores, even if CDs are.

Besides all that, "the marketplace" usually refers to an idea, that idea being that the number of people who want (or who can be convinced to want) an item determine the success of that item. Again, while a CD is an item, a piece of music is not. And the kinds of pieces that constitute the world of classical music are not and have never been successful at garnering enough people to survive. That success, such as it is, has always come from private individuals or philanthropic organizations who provide composers with money regardless of their ability to write pieces that will sell.


----------



## mmsbls

Freischutz said:


> I'd quite like you to answer my earlier question on this. No matter how strongly your convictions are on this, and no matter if it happens that the rest of us are wrong, do you acknowledge and accept that what you propose is a radically different social role for concerts than they had in the 19th century? Do you understand that when all the music you love so much was written, this is _not_ how concerts were conceived and programmed? You may think that the change is right, but I just want you to admit that it is a big change.


Just to be clear I think others are not arguing that new music has never been played regularly in concerts. I think they are arguing that concert programmers have always programmed music that _the programmers believe_ the audience wants. In past centuries maybe audiences wanted more new music. I don't know if there has actually been a change in audience members desires although I suspect there has.


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> I'd quite like you to answer my earlier question on this. No matter how strongly your convictions are on this, and no matter if it happens that the rest of us are wrong, do you acknowledge and accept that what you propose is a radically different social role for concerts than they had in the 19th century? Do you understand that when all the music you love so much was written, this is _not_ how concerts were conceived and programmed? You may think that the change is right, but I just want you to admit that it is a big change.


I already answered these questions in post 279, to which your reply was disappointingly brief. I have repeated several times now that thousands of concerts take place every day, where new music is played. To put it more bluntly "non-classical" concerts have taken over from "classical" concerts because the primary area of demand has shifted; "non-classical" musicians are able to captivate audiences whilst "classical" musicians increasingly seem to alienate audiences. That you continue to ignore this claim implies that you see "non-classical" music as somehow inferior to "classical." That would already be a value judgment.

Nerefidd in post 324 makes the odd claim that "non-classical" is generally "conceptually old." Do you share this claim, which would of course involve making the value judgement that "non-classical" music is all old hat and not worth bothering with? Or do you stand by the claim that your own tastes are irrelevant to this thread, which would of course mean refusing to differentiate between the relative merits of "classical" and "non-classical"?


----------



## Guest

William Weber, _The Great Transformation of Musical Taste._

Expensive, but at a library near you, for the moment, anyway. (Libraries being another thing that cannot compete in "the marketplace.")


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> I already answered these questions in post 279, to which your reply was disappointingly brief.


I'm sorry about that. I'll go back and look at it in a minute and see if there's something worth digging up.



Winterreisender said:


> I have repeated several times now that thousands of concerts take place every day, where new music is played. To put it more bluntly "non-classical" concerts have taken over from "classical" concerts because the primary area of demand has shifted; "non-classical" musicians are able to captivate audiences whilst "classical" musicians increasingly seem to alienate audiences. That you continue to ignore this claim implies that you see "non-classical" music as somehow inferior to "classical." That would already be a value judgment.


You'll have to clarify something for me before I can respond to this. What do you mean by "non-classical" music? I'm not sure if it was you or someone else, but someone talked about a disconnect between classical music and modern art music that considers itself part of that tradition - so when you say "non-classical" music, do you mean modern music that you don't accept as part of the tradition, or do you mean _really_ "non-classical" music like pop and rock?


----------



## Winterreisender

some guy said:


> Any support for either of these two assertions? Perhaps a quote or two. Or, better yet, a thread and some post numbers.


I refer to your claim in post 288 where you said that concert programs should be dictated by so-called "music experts" regardless of the public taste. I have already responded to this in post 297.


----------



## mmsbls

To those who would like to see more contemporary music in concerts (and this includes me):

What if several major orchestras decided to push contemporary music by having significantly more such works in concerts. Maybe some orchestras regularly program half or more of all music as contemporary. Several others program 1/3 to a half as contemporary. After 2 years if donations and revenue from ticket sales soared, those orchestras and others would presumably rush to embrace contemporary music in concerts. If after 2 years, those orchestras suffered significant reductions in donations and revenue from ticket sales, what would you suggest? Should they still push contemporary or should the contemporary music community look hard at other ways to entice listeners?


----------



## KenOC

some guy said:


> But when we talk about the arts generally, even the ones that produce objects, we are not talking about the kinds of conditions that are true for toilet paper and automobiles, are we? A painting by De Kooning in a museum is not the same as a stick of deodorant in a store.


We're talking about exactly that. This is true whether the demand comes from the church, nobility, paying audiences, or whatever. After all, Lobkowitz gave commissions to Haydn and Beethoven and not to Abel and Sussmayer (that I know of). The "Lobkowitz market" was evidently quite biased!

The fact is that almost all music (yes, like automobiles, toilet paper, and deodorants) has historically been produced in hopes of meeting specific market demands. You may believe that this is quite a bad thing, or should no longer apply, but that's another matter.


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> You'll have to clarify something for me before I can respond to this. What do you mean by "non-classical" music? I'm not sure if it was you or someone else, but someone talked about a disconnect between classical music and modern art music that considers itself part of that tradition - so when you say "non-classical" music, do you mean modern music that you don't accept as part of the tradition, or do you mean _really_ "non-classical" music like pop and rock?


One example might be Stockhausen's electronic compositions vs. electronica and new age more generally. The former might be classed as "classical" whilst the latter "non-classical" for reasons unbeknownst to me. But for the purposes of the above question, I would extend "non-classical" to encompass everything from rock to pop to jazz to electronica.


----------



## Wood

The free market mantra on this thread is sadly the consequence of this ideology dominating political parties of both the left and the right throughout the western world, and propagated unquestioningly by a compliant media. It is not surprising to see these half baked misunderstood economic theories repeated on these pages, but it is sad.


----------



## KenOC

Wood said:


> The free market mantra on this thread is sadly the consequence of this ideology dominating political parties of both the left and the right throughout the western world, and propagated unquestioningly by a compliant media. It is not surprising to see these half baked misunderstood economic theories repeated on these pages, but it is sad.


My own academic grounding in economics is reasonably secure. But if you are averse to "free markets" playing a role in musical programming, suggestions for alternatives would be welcome.

Also an expansion on "half-baked misunderstood economic theories" might be helpful.


----------



## mmsbls

Wood said:


> The free market mantra on this thread is sadly the consequence of this ideology dominating political parties of both the left and the right throughout the western world, and propagated unquestioningly by a compliant media. It is not surprising to see these half baked misunderstood economic theories repeated on these pages, but it is sad.


I like KenOC's question.

I'm also not certain whether you:
1) think classical music is not a free market
2) think classical music should not be a free market
3) Just think statements about markets on this thread are misinformed
4) think something else


----------



## Wood

KenOC said:


> My own academic grounding in economics is reasonably secure. But if you are averse to "free markets" playing a role in musical programming, suggestions for alternatives would be welcome.


I would be (pleasantly) surprised if it is, given that academia is also blinkered by the same ideology.

I am not averse to free markets playing a role in musical programming.


----------



## KenOC

Blancrocher said:


> *p.s.* I like the new mustache, Ken.


Why thank you! It took me a few years to get it just right, and I'm quite proud of it.


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> One example might be Stockhausen's electronic compositions vs. electronica and new age more generally. The former might be classed as "classical" whilst the latter "non-classical" for reasons unbeknownst to me. But for the purposes of the above question, I would extend "non-classical" to encompass everything from rock to pop to jazz to electronica.


OK, so to return to your earlier questions, I think a clarification is needed with regards to this:



Winterreisender said:


> To put it more bluntly "non-classical" concerts have taken over from "classical" concerts because the primary area of demand has shifted; "non-classical" musicians are able to captivate audiences whilst "classical" musicians increasingly seem to alienate audiences. That you continue to ignore this claim implies that you see "non-classical" music as somehow inferior to "classical." That would already be a value judgment.


The first thing is that the primary area of demand has _not_ shifted. Although we have of course seen a massive increase in the consumption of mass-market popular music of various kinds, this has _not_ shown a popular fanbase moving _from_ classical music towards these new types of music. It is extremely unlikely that the people who listen to mass market music today would have been listening to classical music a few decades or a century ago. In the words of that other thread, classical music has always been for the "elite" - it doesn't matter how you characterise it, but it has never had a popular audience for there to have been a shift in demand.

What _has_ happened is something different that is twofold:

1) Classical music has become much more accessible to people regardless of their socioeconomic status;
2) At the same time, there has been an increase in competition from the more popular, mass-market genres.

So what we're really talking about is not a shift in demand, but the problem of "capitalising" (for want of a more neutral word) on the increased availability of classical music when it is simultaneously being crowded out by other styles.

Now, I don't have figures on this so I'm not claiming it as absolute, but I think what we're likely to find is that the audience for classical music has only _increased_ with time. If you just think about how many people would have gone to classical music concerts in the 19th century and then compare that to the numbers today, it's going to be _a lot_ bigger today. Of course, we have a much bigger population, but we also have a larger population with the means and money for it, as well as a vastly greater number of orchestras to meet the demand.

So contrary to your slight pessimism, I don't think classical musicians are increasingly alienating audiences at all - their audiences have been getting bigger, it's just that we should never have expected them to rival the Beatles. So if you're implying that we have to be conservative with programming because people are already leaving the concert halls in droves, I think you're being too alarmist - there are more people attending concerts than ever, and we should take it as an opportunity to introduce them to new things!

What this has to do with the claim that I see non-classical music as inferior (which is not true) I'm not sure...



Winterreisender said:


> Nerefidd in post 324 makes the odd claim that "non-classical" is generally "conceptually old." Do you share this claim, which would of course involve making the value judgement that "non-classical" music is all old hat and not worth bothering with?


There are two separate issues here, and I don't accept that your second sentence follows on as a logical consequence from the first. I'm not exactly sure what Nerefidd meant, but I'm guessing he or she meant that "non-classical" music (if this is _not_ modern art music) is "conceptually old" in that it is not stylistically or formally innovative. The styles, harmonies, structures and so on are all pretty much the same as they always have been. However, claiming this doesn't automatically mean that it's not worth bothering with - that's only true if you are the kind of person who believes that the only music worth bothering with is stylistically innovative, which is probably not true of most people.



Winterreisender said:


> Or do you stand by the claim that your own tastes are irrelevant to this thread, which would of course mean refusing to differentiate between the relative merits of "classical" and "non-classical"?


I also don't see how these are connected. My tastes are irrelevant in the sense that I want to see a diverse selection on programmes so that people can have better access to music written by living people in all the variety of styles being used today in the classical/art tradition. I _know_ that I would dislike some or a lot of it, but that's besides the point that I think it should be available for the people who _would_ like it - and yes, such people exist! And I don't quite see what you're getting at with the second part, but I'm guessing that you're suggesting I think music should be programmed based on its merit and you're inviting me to claim that non-classical music has no merit - I'm actually starting from the premise that we're talking about programmes that contain music in the classical/art tradition, so the relative merit of other styles of music is irrelevant...



mmsbls said:


> To those who would like to see more contemporary music in concerts (and this includes me):
> 
> What if several major orchestras decided to push contemporary music by having significantly more such works in concerts. Maybe some orchestras regularly program half or more of all music as contemporary. Several others program 1/3 to a half as contemporary. After 2 years if donations and revenue from ticket sales soared, those orchestras and others would presumably rush to embrace contemporary music in concerts. If after 2 years, those orchestras suffered significant reductions in donations and revenue from ticket sales, what would you suggest? Should they still push contemporary or should the contemporary music community look hard at other ways to entice listeners?


I think that there's not enough information in this scenario to come to a conclusion. It depends on the orchestra, it depends on the country, it depends exactly what the music was ("contemporary" is very broad!), it depends how it was delivered, it depends how it was explained, it depends on community outreach, etc. etc. etc. I of course _would_ say that _something_ has to be done differently, but I don't automatically accept by default that the one and only answer is removing contemporary music from the schedules.


----------



## Wood

mmsbls said:


> I like KenOC's question.
> 
> I'm also not certain whether you:
> 1) think classical music is not a free market


No, I don't think classical music is operating in a free market, for the following reasons:

i) Orchestras (in the UK) receive funding from the government.
ii) Like most other industries, the recording industry is dominated by a small number of key players. This leads to sub-optimal market conditions which are not 'free'. 
iii) Taxation also prevents a market from being free.



> 2) think classical music should not be a free market


I do not think it is possible for the conditions to occur, and neither is it desirable.
Free market prices reflect the private transaction between a buyer and a seller. These prices do not reflect the social costs and benefits of the transaction. In the case of classical music, there are considerable social benefits accruing, eg in terms of education, safeguarding culture for future generations, encouraging visitors to cities with world class orchestras etc.



> 3) Just think statements about markets on this thread are misinformed


Yes, I do, because they reflect the misinformation and lack of freedom of debate that we are enduring in the west. A situation that has arisen in my lifetime.



> 4) think something else


Well yes, a few more things, but that'll do.


----------



## mmsbls

Freischutz said:


> I think that there's not enough information in this scenario to come to a conclusion. It depends on the orchestra, it depends on the country, it depends exactly what the music was ("contemporary" is very broad!), it depends how it was delivered, it depends how it was explained, it depends on community outreach, etc. etc. etc. I of course _would_ say that _something_ has to be done differently, but I don't automatically accept by default that the one and only answer is removing contemporary music from the schedules.


I was trying to distinguish between an ideological view that contemporary music simply ought to be performed in major orchestras and a more practical one that wishes to see more contemporary music if possible. I assume your view is not purely ideological, but you would want to explore "all (or most) avenues" to make sure we are not missing the best method of exposing the community to contemporary music.

I would generally agree, but I guess I'm rather skeptical that the relatively small subset of contemporary music advocates could convince the general orchestra establishment to push that hard to find a solution. That view is not in contradiction to your general ideas on this thread. I just wonder if we (contemporary music advocates) should try to find another pathway that does not include large orchestras in the beginning (i.e. build listenership through another pathway until the orchestras naturally move in that direction).


----------



## Wood

KenOC said:


> Also an expansion on "half-baked misunderstood economic theories" might be helpful.


Sure, but it is OT so PM me if you'd like an expansion.


----------



## KenOC

Wood said:


> No, I don't think classical music is operating in a free market, for the following reasons:
> 
> i) Orchestras (in the UK) receive funding from the government.
> ii) Like most other industries, the recording industry is dominated by a small number of key players. This leads to sub-optimal market conditions which are not 'free'.
> iii) Taxation also prevents a market from being free.


Responding only to your first answer, and from the US POV. US orchestras receive VERY little public funding, at least in a direct sense. The recording industry adds almost no revenue to orchestras' income streams any more. Orchestras are not taxed. However it could be argued that the tax deductibility of donations (the largest source of orchestral income) might distort the market in favor of the preferences of the donors, who tend to be rich. For a number of reasons, though, I think this effect is minimal.

WRT the rest, you'd need to be more specific for a response to be at all relevant.


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> I'm not exactly sure what Nerefidd meant, but I'm guessing he or she meant that "non-classical" music (if this is _not_ modern art music) is "conceptually old" in that it is not stylistically or formally innovative. The styles, harmonies, structures and so on are all pretty much the same as they always have been.


To suggest that all "non-classical" music consists of the same styles, harmonies and structures endlessly rehashed surely does the multitude of "non-classical" genres an injustice. You don't necessarily have to be a fan of these genres, but surely the composers of electronica and progressive rock (and some might say jazz) are at times among the most innovative contemporary composers.

But the main problem I have is with this statement:



Freischutz said:


> I'm actually starting from the premise that we're talking about programmes that contain music in the classical/art tradition, so the relative merit of other styles of music is irrelevant...


and



Freischutz said:


> My tastes are irrelevant in the sense that I want to see a diverse selection on programmes so that people can have better access to music written by living people in all the variety of styles being used today in the classical/art tradition.


I have already spoken about how fragmented modern music is. There is a huge wealth of genres out there, some of which are classed as "classical," other are generally not, and the distinction between the two is often quite artificial (e.g. Stockhausen vs. Electronica or Minimalism vs. New Age). Therefore, I do not believe there is a "classical/art tradition" anymore.

To talk about a tradition of "art" music implies that other music is not "art," a distinction which can only be justified by resorting to value judgments as to what constitutes "art" and what does not. So the main problem I have is with the assumption that a linear progression can be drawn from Beethoven to Brahms to the contemporary "classical/art" composers whilst composers of electronica or progressive rock are excluded. I believe this progression is an entirely artificial construction of academia.


----------



## Freischutz

mmsbls said:


> I was trying to distinguish between an ideological view that contemporary music simply ought to be performed in major orchestras and a more practical one that wishes to see more contemporary music if possible.


This is an important distinction and I agree with you in this specific scenario. Something else people might like to consider though are institutions like public broadcasters, such as the BBC. I do believe that a country absolutely _should_ have _some_ venue through which contemporary music _is_ given an airing regardless of the audience reaction. However, it's likely in a post-patronage age that any such institution, like the BBC, would have to be publicly funded, so I don't suggest that this should happen via orchestras.



mmsbls said:


> I would generally agree, but I guess I'm rather skeptical that the relatively small subset of contemporary music advocates could convince the general orchestra establishment to push that hard to find a solution.


I'm pretty sure that it's impossible! I've been arguing the principle on here rather than suggesting a practical solution because I don't think it's going to happen. Money and the fear of money are too important for anyone to simply argue an orchestra into changing their practices. We do need to build a listenership through other means and I hope it works, I just think it's a shame that the state of our culture today is one in which artists have been forced to become their own publishers, their own marketers, and their own organisers - all for pittance at the end of it - because they're generally perceived to have so little to contribute to society.


----------



## Wood

KenOC said:


> Responding only to your first answer, and from the US POV. US orchestras receive VERY little public funding, at least in a direct sense. The recording industry adds almost no revenue to orchestras' income streams any more. Orchestras are not taxed. However it could be argued that the tax deductibility of donations (the largest source of orchestral income) might distort the market in favor of the preferences of the donors, who tend to be rich. For a number of reasons, though, I think this effect is minimal.
> 
> WRT the rest, you'd need to be more specific for a response to be at all relevant.


I was responding to general questions about 'classical music' not specifically about orchestras!

My responses were therefore relevant to the questions asked, which is all I can do really.


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> To suggest that all "non-classical" music consists of the same styles, harmonies and structures *endlessly rehashed* surely does the multitude of "non-classical" genres an injustice.


I'm just bolding that to show you've put another loaded term in my mouth. To respond to this, I can only repeat myself earlier - I don't think this description is necessarily an injustice because saying that already makes assumptions about what "good" music is and I don't agree with those assumptions, so whether or not composers of electronica and progressive rock are innovative is besides the point.



Winterreisender said:


> I have already spoken about how fragmented modern music is. There is a huge wealth of genres out there, some of which are classed as "classical," other are generally not, and the distinction between the two is often quite artificial (e.g. Stockhausen vs. Electronica or Minimalism vs. New Age). Therefore, I do not believe there is a "classical/art tradition" anymore.


If there's no tradition any more, it presumably died at some point. When did it die? Who was the last classical/art composer?



Winterreisender said:


> To talk about a tradition of "art" music implies that other music is not "art," a distinction which can only be justified by resorting to value judgments as to what constitutes "art" and what does not.


This is a problem of labels. Give me a better one and I'll use it.



Winterreisender said:


> So the main problem I have is with the assumption that a linear progression can be drawn from Beethoven to Brahms to the contemporary "classical/art" composers whilst composers of electronica or progressive rock are excluded.


The progression _does_ exist. It's called the history of western music. Just because you don't like where it ended up or you don't recognise any similarities doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But going back to my question just above: _if you believe in this big discontinuity, please show me where the discontinuity happened - when did the classical tradition stop?_


----------



## Wood




----------



## KenOC

Wood said:


> I was responding to general questions about 'classical music' not specifically about orchestras!


Your comments spoke quite specifically to orchestras (I quoted them in my post). However, my responses apply to other types of ensembles as well.


----------



## Wood




----------



## KenDuctor

I would just be happy if there were a symphony concert to go to.


----------



## mmsbls

Wood said:


> I do not think it is possible for the conditions to occur, and neither is it desirable.
> Free market prices reflect the private transaction between a buyer and a seller. These prices do not reflect the social costs and benefits of the transaction. In the case of classical music, there are considerable social benefits accruing, eg in terms of education, safeguarding culture for future generations, encouraging visitors to cities with world class orchestras etc.





Freischutz said:


> I do believe that a country absolutely _should_ have _some_ venue through which contemporary music _is_ given an airing regardless of the audience reaction. However, it's likely in a post-patronage age that any such institution, like the BBC, would have to be publicly funded, so I don't suggest that this should happen via orchestras.


(NOTE: Freischutz - I'm assuming your _should_ above stems from the kind of social benefits Wood discusses in his quote)

I have always believed that the arts (literature, music, painting, drama, etc.) benefit societies and that the "success" of the arts is important for a mature society. But, and that's a big but, I don't know how to quantify those externalities. I can talk in generalities about the benefits, but I don't know how to argue effectively with someone who asks, "Why should their tax dollars be spent on classical music?"
I do believe that governments ought to fund the arts, but I don't know how to specify the proper amounts.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> I can talk in generalities about the benefits, but I don't know how to argue effectively with someone who asks, "Why should their tax dollars be spent on classical music?" I do believe that governments ought to fund the arts, but I don't know how to specify the proper amounts.


Is this relevant? "Certainly being in California has encouraged a sustained commitment to rethinking the nature, purposes, and relevance of the contemporary arts, specifically music, for a society which by and large seems to manage quite well without them." --Brian Ferneyhough


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> Is this relevant? "Certainly being in California has encouraged a sustained commitment to rethinking the nature, purposes, and relevance of the contemporary arts, specifically music, for a society which by and large seems to manage quite well without them." --Brian Ferneyhough


Interesting quote. I'm actually not sure exactly what he means. Californians have a relatively strong sense of environmental externalities, but I've never thought they were particularly artistically forward thinking. But I'm comparing them to the other places I've lived which were generally major cities (New York, Philadelphia, Chicago) so maybe that's not a fair comparison in terms of views on art.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Interesting quote. I'm actually not sure exactly what he means. Californians have a relatively strong sense of environmental externalities, but I've never thought they were particularly artistically forward thinking. But I'm comparing them to the other places I've lived which were generally major cities (New York, Philadelphia, Chicago) so maybe that's not a fair comparison in terms of views on art.


California (especially Southern California where I live) has the reputation of a place where culture is spelled with a "k". We're a bit sensitive about that, especially when people like Ferneyhough say things like...well...what he said. Of course we have the most successful major orchestra in the US, both artistically and financially (if I may say so), with varied and progressive programming and a huge annual program. And a plethora, or maybe two plethorae, of first-class secondary orchestras, chamber groups, and music conservatories.

We're looking forward to competing again in the 2015 Music Games and winning...again. My bets are placed. Mr. Ferneyhough is, as always, welcome in our box.


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


>


Sweet!! Couple of my favorite people, there. (And a couple I've never met.)

But why such a short clip? Coupla really gorgeous noises and then applause. Of course, applause is a nice noise, too....


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


>


I see what you're doing here, and I approve.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Wood said:


> I would be (pleasantly) surprised if it is, given that academia is also blinkered by the same ideology.
> 
> I am not averse to free markets playing a role in musical programming.


I am, some things such as education, health care, defense, art, music and infrastructure to name a few are too important to leave it to the market.

Free market is fantastic for consumer goods and not much else.


----------



## KenOC

Piwikiwi said:


> I am, some things such as education, health care, defense, art, music and infrastructure to name a few are too important to leave it to the market.
> 
> Free market is fantastic for consumer goods and not much else.


All these things -- every one -- are subject to the political process and ultimately the popular vote. Do the candidates you favor or the party you prefer want to dedicate public money to the arts or music? What have you done to encourage this? Or are you just waiting for it to happen?


----------



## Nereffid

Winterreisender said:


> Are you suggesting that contemporary non-classical music is "conceptually old"? I find that suggestion a little absurd.


I should have known that "conceptually" wasn't the right word. What I'm getting at is that "conceptually old" means music in a style the specific listener her- or himself is familiar/comfortable with, or close enough to the listener's "comfort zone" as to be "OK". The music could have been written a thousand years ago or yesterday. The music could be quite different in many ways to what the listener is used to, but there's something in there that the listener connects with in the same way she/he connects with what she/he's already familiar with. So someone who already likes today's "singer/songerwriter" folk music might easily enjoy the music of the trouvères or Schubert's lieder, while someone who already likes Gregorian chant might easily enjoy Arvo Pärt or downtempo electronica.


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


> Free market prices reflect the private transaction between a buyer and a seller. These prices do not reflect the social costs and benefits of the transaction. In the case of classical music, there are considerable social benefits accruing, eg in terms of education, safeguarding culture for future generations, encouraging visitors to cities with world class orchestras etc.


What evidence can you you provide of these "considerable social benefits"?

I don't mean benefits that one might dream up conceptually, but benefits that have actually been quantified by studies reported in any respectable economic journals that you may be familiar with.

Can you also explain what the "considerable social benefits" are in relation to promoting new classical music? Are you saying that these alleged benefits apply only in connection with new classical music, or in connection with other musical genres like pop/rock/jazz as well? If not the latter, why not?

I trust that you will be able to furnish references to suitable studies that support your assertions.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> I'd quite like you to answer my earlier question on this. No matter how strongly your convictions are on this, and no matter if it happens that the rest of us are wrong, do you acknowledge and accept that what you propose is a radically different social role for concerts than they had in the 19th century? Do you understand that when all the music you love so much was written, this is _not_ how concerts were conceived and programmed? You may think that the change is right, but I just want you to admit that it is a big change.


What has 19th C concert programming practice got to do with anything in this thread?

This issue seems to me to be a red herring. In the 19th C they clearly didn't have radio or, for most of it, hardly anything by way of recorded material. Given this paucity of media channels, it was inevitable that concert halls would be hosts to diverse musical innovations, as otherwise there would have been much reduced no opportunity for audiences to be acquainted with any of it.

But that's a bygone age and things have changed enormously. Especially since the 1950s, with the growth of all manner of new media outlets, there has been far less need to stuff modern concerts with all and sundry types of material, merely to allow audiences to gain a wider appreciation of what's available. However, this is your central thesis which is clearly wrong.

If audiences want greater variety than what may be currently offered in their local concert venue, they can ask for it. If they don't get it, the presumption must be that there is inadequate demand, not that the market is failing to deliver an adequate supply resulting from some kind of market failure.


----------



## Wood

Piwikiwi said:


> I am, some things such as education, health care, defense, art, music and infrastructure to name a few are too important to leave it to the market.
> 
> Free market is fantastic for consumer goods and not much else.


'Playing a role' was my qualifier.


----------



## Piwikiwi

KenOC said:


> All these things -- every one -- are subject to the political process and ultimately the popular vote. Do the candidates you favor or the party you prefer want to dedicate public money to the arts or music? What have you done to encourage this? Or are you just waiting for it to happen?


I am a member of a political party that wants to dedicate public money to art and music. I vote for that party in every election.

I've worked as a volunteer for two years at a venue that used to organise jazz concerts.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> My tastes are irrelevant in the sense that I want to see a diverse selection on programmes so that people can have better access to music written by living people in all the variety of styles being used today in the classical/art tradition. I _know_ that I would dislike some or a lot of it, but that's besides the point that I think it should be available for the people who _would_ like it - and yes, such people exist!


I am very confused by this. It is central to your thesis.

To aid understanding of it, can you please clarify:

(i) Are you suggesting that none of the venues (big or small) provides the scope necessary to achieve the aim you describe?

(ii) Or are you referring only to the big City type of concert halls where you consider that there is a widespread problem in offering too narrow a range of music, especially in relation to new music?

(iii) If you are referring to the totality of venues, what evidence are you relying upon that you consider supports your view that supply is inadequate to meet demand for all types of classical music, including the most modern forms being written today?

(iv) If you are referring to the big concert halls only, why do you consider it to be incumbent upon them to programme the kind of new music that you are proposing, if the smaller venues are already satisfying this demand?


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


> No, I don't think classical music is operating in a free market, for the following reasons:
> 
> i) Orchestras (in the UK) receive funding from the government.
> ii) Like most other industries, the recording industry is dominated by a small number of key players. This leads to sub-optimal market conditions which are not 'free'.
> iii) Taxation also prevents a market from being free.


I don't how old your knowledge of economics is, but these days talk of "free markets" is a very outdated term. There are very few "free markets" simply because the conditions required are far too severe to be likely to be achieved in practice. However, this does not matter since much less stringent conditions may suffice to achieve the same, or virtually the same, welfare results.

I explained to you earlier in this thread that the concept of "free markets" were displaced in the textbooks many years ago by the concepts of "workable competition" and "effective competition". The English Economist J S Bain writing in 1956 was among the first to recognise that the same welfare results as exist under "perfect competition" can be achieved by far less demanding requirements that he termed "workable competition". This concept of "workable competition" caught on widely amongst later economists worldwide who specialise in the study of the efficiency of different market structures ("Industrial Economics").

The famous American economist William Baumol made a further important refinement in 1982 when he introduced the concept of "contestable markets." As long as a market is contestable, it does not matter how many operators currently exist in it, since "hit and run" tactics by new entrants would deal with any monopoly exploitation. The main conditions for "contestability" are (i) low entry and exit barriers, (ii) zero sunk costs, (iii) access to the same or equivalent technology.

The bottom line of this that I consider your various comments to be invalid. Market outcome in terms of prices, quantities is not dependent of market structure (i.e. the number of firms, information by consumers, taxation), but rather the degree to which effective competition exists between the operators that do exist, plus the seriousness of the threat of competition from potential operators, as determined by the "contestability" of the market in question.


----------



## Wood

mmsbls said:


> someone who asks, "Why should their tax dollars be spent on classical music?"


Tax dollars are not spent on classical music. When a government, which is the sole issuer of the nation's currency, like in the US and UK, but not the Euro zone, passes money to an orchestra, or whatever, it is creating new money.

Taxation is necessary to avoid inflation. It is, in effect, cancelled money.

So the response you can make to those who ask, is that they are not paying for classical music with their taxes. It is something which is being created by the government.


----------



## Wood

some guy said:


> I see what you're doing here, and I approve.


Good!

I think it is worth breaking up all the hot air on this thread with a reminder of what we are talking about, taken pretty randomly from composers you have referenced in the past.


----------



## Wood

Partita said:


> What evidence can you you provide of these "considerable social benefits"?
> 
> I don't mean benefits that one might dream up conceptually, but benefits that have actually been quantified by studies reported in any respectable economic journals that you may be familiar with.
> 
> Can you also explain what the "considerable social benefits" are in relation to promoting new classical music? Are you saying that these alleged benefits apply only in connection with new classical music, or in connection with other musical genres like pop/rock/jazz as well? If not the latter, why not?
> 
> I trust that you will be able to furnish references to suitable studies that support your assertions.


You won't be expecting a serious response to such an aggressive post.

Instead, listen to this, it is wonderful.


----------



## Wood

Partita said:


> I don't how old your knowledge of economics is, ....The English Economist J S Bain writing in 1956 .....
> The famous American economist William Baumol made a further important refinement in 1982


1956, 1982?

My dear boy, I am talking about 2014.

You and Ken OC might be interested in Modern Monetary Theory.

MMT is like this modern music we are discussing. Some people embrace it, others are unable to set aside their lifelong preconceptions. The latter respond emotionally rather than intellectually.

How will you do?


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Wow, this is quite a controversial post. 

imo as with the popular press we get what we the public want and that's not unreasonable even if sometimes sad. if the concert hall won't get even reasonably filled 4 a performance then no one is gonna put money in2 it. 

I know that there are oft lesser-known works added 2 a concert fronted by a well-known one so think that lesser-known stuff manages 2 at least get an outing.

similar applies 2 CDs but 2 a lesser extent though if it won't sell it won't go 2 market and that's our general public's fault.


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


> You won't be expecting a serious response to such an aggressive post.
> 
> Instead, listen to this, it is wonderful.


There is nothing aggressive about it. I am simply asking if you can provide reference to any studies that provide any evidence of the "considerable social benefits" you claim exists.

And also if you can tell me what the social benefits are promoting new music? What music are you talking about?


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


> 1956, 1982?
> 
> My dear boy, I am talking about 2014.
> 
> You and Ken OC might be interested in Modern Monetary Theory.
> 
> MMT is like this modern music we are discussing. Some people embrace it, others are unable to set aside their lifelong preconceptions. The latter respond emotionally rather than intellectually.
> 
> How will you do?


What has modern monetary theory got to do with any of this? It's irrelevant. That's a macroeconomic topic area.

What we're discussing here is the efficiency of different market structures, which is covered by industrial economics.

In case anyone doubts the relevance of this issue, the point is that you have tried to justify intervention in the way the concert programming market operates on the grounds that it is not a "free market", as you call it. You appear to believe that because it doesn't meet the full conditions of a free market it is bound to be defective, and therefore justifies an outside influence of some kind to direct what music should and should not be performed.

This is plain wrong. The simple fact is that one does not need a "free market" to generate results that are sufficiently close to what a free market would achieve.

Much stronger evidence of actual market abuse is required to launch the kind of interventionist devices implied by some participants here. The mere fact that major concert halls don't normally wish to attach much importance to new classical works is pathetically weak evidence. I can assure you that this kind of complaint wouldn't get anywhere in any Competition Authority in the Western World. They would fall over themselves laughing.


----------



## Wood

Partita said:


> This is plain wrong. The simple fact is .....


Good, that is sorted then.

Now try this.


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


> Tax dollars are not spent on classical music. When a government, which is the sole issuer of the nation's currency, like in the US and UK, but not the Euro zone, passes money to an orchestra, or whatever, it is creating new money.
> 
> Taxation is necessary to avoid inflation. It is, in effect, cancelled money.
> 
> So the response you can make to those who ask, is that they are not paying for classical music with their taxes. It is something which is being created by the government.


I dispute all of this.

Governments finance their expenditure primarily through taxation and by managing debt.

If they spend more than they receive in taxation then they have to increase net borrowing. The borrowing can be done in several different ways, but eventually it has be repaid.

Borrowing in the money markets involves "open market operations" which has implications for the money supply, interest rates, and may have implications for inflation depending on the degree of slack in the economy.

Governments cannot create anything by way of subsidy alone with no resource cost implications as suggested in the last paragraph. Someone has to pay for it, either now or at some point in future. They can only create additional wealth by producing goods and services that the public wants to buy.


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


> Good, that is sorted then.
> 
> Now try this.


By continuing to put out such irrelevant responses, I assume that you have nothing to offer in answer to my requests for any evidence that supports your contentions about "considerable social benefits" resulting from promoting/subsidising new music

I didn't think you could do so, but I thought I might ask. I didn't think you could because I have looked myself and haven't found anything of even the remotest significance that I would call evidence.

Therefore, while you may wish to continue to offer the view that there are "considerable social benefits", I conclude you in reality you can't find any evidence to substantiate it.


----------



## aleazk

Of course that you are not going to find a paper about that. The benefits are too abstract in order to be measured in that way. Maybe this will come as a surprise to you, but, we humans, like to explore the different facets of reality (the objective, science, and the subjective ones, art). And that by itself is the benefit. When the State funds a scientist or an artist, even if there are no tangible improvements in our daily quality life, if this scientist or artist created something new into this world after that funding, then that enters into our culture and therefore benefits it just because it exists, since it adds a new point of view on things. 

Most of theoretical physics is a completely abstract bulk of things, completely useless for the real life. I doubt about what benefits of knowing that the universe expands can have in the study of cardiovascular diseases. But we insist in investigations about it simply because we want to know.

Of course, a lot of bad art and science may be produced in the process. But we can't decide what is going to work before hand.
And even if it works, it will enter in our culture and interact with it in complex and imprevisible ways.

When people try to apply scientific-like methodologies to everything, they actually show the little understanding they have of said method. I'm all ears for scientific-like methodologies, but when they are applied properly. Unfortunately, the kind of things to which it can be applied in a straightforward manner is really limited. Most things are highly complex non-linear systems. That kind of systems are really difficult to treat in purely empirical terms, since they are sensible to a lot of variables. History and human societies are of course systems of this kind. To try to "measure" the impact of art on them and to use this to make decisions is a flawed notion. It may be deterministic, but it's really too complex for such straightforward methodologies.

So, yes, funding art or even science is like a bet. We really can't predict the outcome. But we will never know if we don't make the bet.


----------



## PetrB

Wood said:


> Good, that is sorted then.
> 
> Now try this.


Gorgeous piece, as is his _In Vain_! It seems some have not exactly abandoned lyricism or "expressive beauty"


----------



## Wood

PetrB said:


> Gorgeous piece, as is his _In Vain_! It seems some have not exactly abandoned lyricism or "expressive beauty"


Indeed.

Fine, I'll check that next.


----------



## Wood

Partita said:


> I dispute all of this.
> 
> Governments finance their expenditure primarily through taxation and by managing debt.
> 
> If they spend more than they receive in taxation then they have to increase net borrowing. The borrowing can be done in several different ways, but eventually it has be repaid.
> 
> Borrowing in the money markets involves "open market operations" which has implications for the money supply, interest rates, and may have implications for inflation depending on the degree of slack in the economy.
> 
> Governments cannot create anything by way of subsidy alone with no resource cost implications as suggested in the last paragraph. Someone has to pay for it, either now or at some point in future. They can only create additional wealth by producing goods and services that the public wants to buy.


This is the misinformation I alluded to earlier, and you have bought it.

Governments who are the sole issuer of a currency may create what money they wish to. There is no constraint of tax levels or borrowing. To state anything else is to be uninformed on how such an economy works, or to be disingenuous.

How are you getting on with the music I have linked?


----------



## PetrB

Wood said:


> Good!
> 
> I think it is worth breaking up all the hot air on this thread with a reminder of what we are talking about, taken pretty randomly from composers you have referenced in the past.


A lot of this later discussion over different definitions of free market and what it allows or determines is very much reminding me of Doug Adams' construct in _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe,_ i.e. our Cro-magnon ancestors are actually that third of a population from another planet where -- having been led to believe their home planet was about to explode were then tricked into being sent into space -- so one third of that world's population were sent out to colonize another planet (which in that story is Earth

That ruse? All that planet had done was engineer getting rid of what most considered the useless one-third of their population, _that third being middle management_, which of course included marketing researchers and one might imagine, economic theorists

Of course it was the very same people who once arrived on Earth then immediately set out to reconstruct civilization to a level of technology and refinement which they knew from their former life on the old planet. Of course, too, being middle management and market research mentality and having 'brought all that' with them, they greatly held up progress, delayed effective and worthwhile changes being effected, or just plain failed to make things happen. 
"How is work on the wheel progressing?" 
"We have the wheel, but we're still trying to figure out what color people will want it in."

I'd rather re-read the Adams than plow through some inadvertently similar material in this thread -- though the frightening thing about the similar stuff in this thread is that it is, one can assume, placed here in all earnestness, without a scrap of intended humor, though it is, in a way, kinda funny 

At any rate, I thought Adams' fantasy to explain away why so much of humanity is completely hung up by their thumbs via its linear thinkers and the all too constantly literal / linear thinkers was pretty damned brilliant


----------



## Wood

PetrB said:


> A lot of this later discussion over different definitions of free market and what it allows or determines is very much reminding me of Doug Adams' construct in _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe,_ i.e. our Cro-magnon ancestors are actually that third of a population from another planet where -- having been led to believe their home planet was about to explode were then tricked into being sent into space, one third of that world's population were sent out to colonize another planet. That ruse? All that planet had done was engineer getting rid of the useless one-third of their population _who were middle management_, which of course included marketing researchers and one might imagine, economic theorists
> 
> Of course it was the very same people who once arrived on Earth, then immediately set out to reconstruct civilization to a level of technology and refinement which they knew from their former life on the old planet. Of course, too, being middle management and market research mentality and having 'brought all that' mentality with them, they greatly held up progress, delayed effective and worthwhile changes being effected, or just plain failed to make things happen.
> "How is work on the wheel progressing?"
> "We have the wheel, but we're still trying to figure out what color people will want it in."
> 
> I'd rather re-read the Adams than plow through some inadvertently similar material in this thread -- though the frightening thing about the similar stuff in this thread is that it is, one can assume, placed here in all earnestness, without a scrap of intended humor, though it is, in a way, kinda funny
> 
> At any rate, I thought Adams' fantasy to explain away why so much of humanity is completely hung up by the thumbs by its linear thinkers and literalists was pretty damned brilliant


I can see how it all comes across as quite absurd. Nevertheless, I agree with earnestness, that economic theorists should be got rid of.


----------



## Guest

aleazk said:


> Of course that you are not going to find a paper about that. The benefits are too abstract in order to be measured in that way. Maybe this will come as a surprise to you, but, we humans, like to explore the different facets of reality (the objective, science, and the subjective ones, art). And that by itself is the benefit. When the State funds a scientist or an artist, even if there are no tangible improvements in our daily quality life, if this scientist or artist created something new into this world after that funding, then that enters into our culture and therefore benefits it just because it exists, since it adds a new point of view on things.
> 
> Most of theoretical physics is a completely abstract bulk of things, completely useless for the real life. I doubt about what benefits of knowing that the universe expands can have in the study of cardiovascular diseases. But we insist in investigations about it simply because we want to know.
> 
> Of course, a lot of bad art and science may be produced in the process. But we can't decide what is going to work before hand.
> And even if it works, it will enter in our culture and interact with it in complex and imprevisible ways.
> 
> When people try to apply scientific-like methodologies to everything, they actually show the little understanding they have of said method. I'm all ears for scientific-like methodologies, but when they are applied properly. Unfortunately, the kind of things to which it can be applied in a straightforward manner is really limited. Most things are highly complex non-linear systems. That kind of systems are really difficult to treat in purely empirical terms, since they are sensible to a lot of variables. History and human societies are of course systems of this kind. To try to "measure" the impact of art on them and to use this to make decisions is a flawed notion. It may be deterministic, but it's really too complex for such straightforward methodologies.
> 
> So, yes, funding art or even science is like a bet. We really can't predict the outcome. But we will never know if we don't make the bet.


In the light of your comments, I have several questions that I would appreciate your attempt to answer as specifically as possible.

1.	Do I infer from all this that you believe it is right for Government to subsidise the creation of new music? If so which types of music?

2.	Presumably, there is a limit to the overall size of public funds available for subsidy. What makes you think that subsidising new music would get even remotely close as qualifying, given all the other competing demands for subsidy?

3.	Making the very strong assumption that that new music qualifies for a certain size of subsidy budget, how would you decide upon the beneficiaries of any such subsidies? Would they be limited in numbers? What special criteria might be used to select who qualify? How would you deal with complaints from those who do not qualify?

4.	For any given proposed subsidy award, how do you ensure that the new music created by the subsidy would not otherwise have been written, in the absence of subsidy, by the same composer, i.e. how do you avoid "deadweight loss"?

5.	How do you ensure that the music created by the subsidy, even if it is additional by the recipient composer, does not displace similar music that might otherwise have been written by another composer? To the extent that it does displace similar music that might have been written by another composer, not in receipt of subsidy, how does this affect your estimation of the overall benefits?


----------



## mmsbls

The actual details of micro or macro economic theory, are probably not necessary to get at one issue being discussed. The basic question is, "What do audiences want?" I still feel we don't know the answer very well other than some people like older music and some like newer music and some like both. We don't know how big the "somes" are. One suggestion has been to program more contemporary music in order to get audiences to have more exposure to this newer music.

Given the apparent perception of orchestra management/programers that programing much more contemporary music would lead to vastly worse funding outcomes and the fact that organizations are generally conservative toward change, it appears unlikely that the practice of programing little contemporary music will change in these venues. Governments could increase funding to affect a change, but they will only do so if their constituents push for it or they perceive significant societal benefits. Given that so few people even like classical music, the former will not happen. The latter suffers from the lack of studies showing positive, quantitative benefits.

I believe those who wish to push contemporary music must do so by other means than increase such music in orchestra programs at least in the near to mid future. There are smaller venues, and I think the emphasis must continue there. Maybe somehow such emphasis can grow to show the larger venues that there are enough people willing to fund newer music performances so they can start programming them.



aleazk said:


> Of course that you are not going to find a paper about that. The benefits are too abstract in order to be measured in that way.


I have been shown several papers that estimate the multiplier effects of basic and applied science on economic output. My understanding is that these type of papers are rather common. I'm not aware of anything in the arts. Apparently, societal benefits are much easier to quantify (still with uncertainties) for science than for the arts.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> I have been shown several papers that estimate the multiplier effects of basic and applied science on economic output. My understanding is that these type of papers are rather common.


Had to chuckle at that. In my misspent youth, I worked on a project to determine the feasibility of a new and very expensive regional convention center in my city (as staff only in those days). The theory was that each dollar spent in-city by out-of-city attendees would not only go into local pockets but would generate an "indirect economic multiplier" as it chain-reacted with other local businesses, employment, etc. In fact, the whole feasibility of this projected depended on the multiplier, because the direct benefits were so small when compared with costs.

In the end, a multiplier of something over seven was used simply because it made the project pencil out. These was certainly no other support for the number. I have since found that many public projects are justified in exactly the same way.


----------



## PetrB

You can already determine 'what audiences want' based upon what they have already willingly consumed. _Ergo, projections based upon that will badly lapse back to that which they already know, or is like to that which they already are familiar with and are known to consume._ *That is a formula for failure, then,* and that is the flaw in the question of trying to guess what they do want, i.e. what, in any near immediate future or later, audiences might also like to consume.

The hitch / catch-22: _*you don't know if they will want something until you take some relative risk and just expose them to it.*_ _Instant rejection is not even a true indicator as far as keeping a particular piece on a program or repeating its performance,_ especially in the light of the fact that most of the older music now thought of as 'standard greats' met plenty of resistance when it was new. Bach's works met with a fair amount of resistance and misunderstanding, as did some of the works of Mozart and Beethoven -- regardless of a bit of it being instantly popular. Add the the fact that a lot of older music which was instantly popular seems to fail to now hold audience interest hundreds of years later to realize instantly popular is not a barometer worth paying much attention.

If audiences are willing to "Take their chances," and do not feel oddly entitled in expecting to love each of three pieces put on in one concert program, _as audiences in the past very much were more open to a variety of music_, then we might find if not a shift in audience taste, at least a shift in the belief that one can say what audiences want.

I just do not think 'what audiences want' is as predictable as those who have had some success via demographic studies in determining who will buy, as example -- that new deodorant, and in which particular shape of package and its graphic presentation -- would like to believe. It is precisely that marketing model and M.O. (sadly) which is closest to the one most often being applied in trying to determine 'what will get more bums in those seats.'


----------



## mmsbls

KenOC said:


> Had to chuckle at that. In my misspent youth, I worked on a project to determine the feasibility of a new and very expensive regional convention center in my city (as staff only in those days). The theory was that each dollar spent in-city by out-of-city attendees would not only go into local pockets but would generate an "indirect economic multiplier" as it chain-reacted with other local businesses, employment, etc. In fact, the whole feasibility of this projected depended on the multiplier, because the direct benefits were so small when compared with costs.


Yes, I have seen papers written for specific projects and consider them suspect. The issue is more that once can determine specific quantifiable (if uncertain) benefits for some things (basic research spin-offs) while it's much harder to quantify the benefit of art to society. The benefits don't fit into most economic models since they are not tangible.


----------



## mmsbls

PetrB said:


> The hitch / catch-22: _*you don't know if they will want something until you take some relative risk and just expose them to it.*_ _Instant rejection is not even a true indicator as far as keeping a particular piece on a program or repeating its performance,_ especially in the light of the fact that most of the older music now thought of as 'standard greats' met plenty of resistance when it was new.


This is a good point. Even if we knew for certain that _present_ audiences do not want much contemporary music, we expect that future audiences will want today's contemporary music programed since classical music has operated that way for at least awhile. So is exposure through CDs or small venues enough to allow present contemporary music to be programed in the future?


----------



## Sudonim

I'm reminded of the words of Norman Corwin: "Audiences have been conditioned to want what they want by years of having gotten what they have gotten." He was speaking of television, but his words could apply equally well to other media.


----------



## Freischutz

mmsbls said:


> The issue is more that once can determine specific quantifiable (if uncertain) benefits for some things (basic research spin-offs) while it's much harder to quantify the benefit of art to society. The benefits don't fit into most economic models since they are not tangible.


I would go further than saying that it's "hard" to saying that it's impossible because of the nature of art. An example question, "what is the social benefit of Beethoven's 5th?" is a question like "why don't mountains cry?" - they are syntactically acceptable but empty of meaning because they're based on false assumptions and ideas. And even more than this, I would say that artists should actively resist all social and state pressures to have them justify their work in terms of social benefit, and _still_ more, they ought to defend themselves by saying that _it is the very fact that their work has no tangible benefit that makes it valuable_!


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> The progression _does_ exist. It's called the history of western music. Just because you don't like where it ended up or you don't recognise any similarities doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But going back to my question just above: _if you believe in this big discontinuity, please show me where the discontinuity happened - when did the classical tradition stop?_


There is no single composer who can take full responsibility for this. It seems as if the classical tradition went out not with a bang but a whimper. In the 20th century, many other genres rose to prominence such as jazz, electronica and rock, and these genres have generally taken on the social role that "classical" once had in providing the public with new (both "chronologically new" and "conceptually new") music. Many "classical" composers were obviously influenced by "non-classical" styles, with composers like Gershwin straddling the boundaries between two traditions. In addition, Stockhausen's departure from traditional "classical" music, both in terms of instrumentation and notation, really leaves his electronic works having nothing in common with the earlier composers, whom you seem to think he is the direct successor to (to the peculiar exclusion of other composers of electronica). I also have a similar problem distinguishing between what we call New Age and what we call Minimalism.

Perhaps the above is all a bit messy, which is precisely why I am brought to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a "classical/art" music tradition anymore. It's all just music, after all. It is only the pedantic academics and critics who want to stick convenient labels on everything.

Given the highly fragmented nature of modern music, I am suggesting a perfectly democratic model: equal treatment for all genres of music, regardless of whether I personally like the music. It is, however, surely impossible to distinguish between "art music" and "non-art music" without resorting to personal value judgments.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> I have looked myself and haven't found anything of even the remotest significance that I would call evidence.


This made me grin. He's been giving you evidence after evidence. But you've called it "irrelevant." You don't even seem to have listened to it.

New music is something beyond likes and dislikes. Eventually, once it becomes familiar, likes and dislikes will be relevant. But while a new thing is still genuinely new, liking and disliking are impertinent. Nothing to do with quality, which is equally irrelevant. New means new. So promoting new music necessarily means taking risks, as others have already pointed out. Of course! If it were known, there wouldn't be any risk about it at all. But there are obviously people who are not content with what is already known, with what has already been made, people who keep exploring, who keep making new things.

And we do have a certain amount of knowledge about that activity generally, which is that the things we know and like and value today were all at one time new and not at all universally accepted and acknowledged. So there is the possibility that things some of us strongly deprecate today might be the very things that our grandchildren will hold up as models of grace and beauty as opposed the all that modern crap that other people's grandchildren are doing.


----------



## millionrainbows

Freischutz said:


> The music industry has a problem that all its demographics are guilty of. Listeners are guilty, recording companies are guilty, concert organisers are guilty, and the list goes on.
> 
> Our problem is assuming that it's intuitively obvious what kind of concert programmes "The Public" wants as though this knowledge is innate in us without exploration or research.
> 
> Of course, the kinds of programmes we all imagine Mr. and Mrs. Average hope for are ones whose composers have been dead for at least 150 years. Anything more modern than that is just _bound_ to put them off no matter how good it is, isn't it?
> 
> The problem with this is not just a marketing dilemma - it is a deep and cancerous contempt. Contempt for our own art and contempt for other people. The comedian Bill Hicks was once told that his stand-up material was clever and funny, but that TV executives were concerned it wouldn't "play in the midwest" - he responded, "If the people in the midwest only knew the contempt that television holds for them…"
> 
> It's also a patronising, self-fulfilling prophecy because so long as we keep modern music out of programmes, people are deprived of the opportunity to come to appreciate it. So of course if we keep programming more of the same, people are going to want more of the same because anything else becomes strange.
> 
> I could go on ranting for ages, but I'll leave it there for discussion - it'll be more fun bouncing off other people!


Don't feel guilty; simply assume that you are part of the majority, and take what is rightfully yours...until some ******* in a diner leers at you and asks, *"Are you a boy or a girl? Hyaaw haw haw!!" *and you are jolted back into reality, realizing that what they said is true:
_*
"You're an outsider, you're a loser, and we have rejected you! We don't want you, we don't need you, and we'd just as soon cut your throat as look at you, so take your Elliott Carter, John Cage, and Milton Babbitt away from here, and go crawl back into the hole you crawled out of! Pttuy!!"

*_


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> In the 20th century, many other genres rose to prominence such as jazz, electronica and rock, and these genres have generally taken on the social role that "classical" once had in providing the public with new (both "chronologically new" and "conceptually new") music.


For this I have to refer you back to one of my previous posts. Classical music has _never_ had the social role of providing the general public with with new music. It has always been for an elite, be it the aristocracy or the intelligentsia. It therefore has not been supplanted by jazz, electronica or rock, and as I said, the classical audience has only grown.



Winterreisender said:


> In addition, Stockhausen's departure from traditional "classical" music, both in terms of instrumentation and notation, really leaves his electronic works having nothing in common with the earlier composers, whom you seem to think he is the direct successor to (to the peculiar exclusion of other composers of electronica).


First of all, I have not mentioned the name Stockhausen in any of my posts. Second, it's pretty conspicuous that you _keep_ mentioning him. If I were to concede that Stockhausen is not in the classical tradition, would you still be able to defend your version of 20th century music history by referring to other people instead? Because it sounds to me like you've just got a bee in your bonnet regarding certain compositional styles and falsely believe that this is evidence that the classical music tradition faded away, even though you've admitted that you can't pinpoint when that happened.

Even if it went out with a whimper rather than a bang, there still ought to be composers you could identify around the time. No one can say when Classicism ended and Romanticism began, but we can all point to Schubert, Beethoven, Weber and others and say it was somewhere _around_ there. By contrast, you have no support for your revisionist, denialist conception of music history except the proclamation that Stockhausen didn't use traditional instrumentation. Maybe I should just make the question easier and ask which is the composer that _you_ know about personally who is the latest you would put in the classical tradition, even if they were not the last of it? Your answer may be revealing.

In the absence of further evidence, I can only assume that you have very little knowledge of 20th century music history and are making sweeping judgements about it based on your personal dislike for certain varieties of it when you really ought to be saying that you just don't know - which is a perfectly acceptable admission. I'm led further to this conclusion by statements like this:



Winterreisender said:


> I also have a similar problem distinguishing between what we call New Age and what we call Minimalism.


_You_ may have that problem but no one else who has listened to and understood the music has the same problem. There is a chasm between minimalism and new age music. Steve Reich does not inhabit the same tradition or style as Enya! It's fine that you can say that you don't see the difference - we're all ignorant of these things at one point and we all come to learn more. I didn't know the meaning of minimalism at one time, but I taught myself by reading history and listening to music. I didn't make assertions like this that would, in fact, completely revolutionise our academic understanding of the course of music history - if you really believe you're right, you should get yourself to a university because you'd be bound to become the most famous musicologist in history for changing the way that every qualified person has ever thought about the subject! But only if you're right...


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

Winterreisender said:


> Perhaps the above is all a bit messy, which is precisely why I am brought to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a "classical/art" music tradition anymore. It's all just music, after all. It is only the pedantic academics and critics who want to stick convenient labels on everything.
> 
> Given the highly fragmented nature of modern music, I am suggesting a perfectly democratic model: equal treatment for all genres of music, regardless of whether I personally like the music. It is, however, surely impossible to distinguish between "art music" and "non-art music" without resorting to personal value judgments.


So let's just assume we are talking about new music written for the concert hall, to be performed by a symphony orchestra.

Of course what you say about modern music being fragmented is true, but we're discussing music written for a particular audience and for a particular venue.


----------



## PetrB

Freischutz said:


> In the absence of further evidence, I can only assume that you have very little knowledge of 20th century music history and are making sweeping judgements about it based on your personal dislike for certain varieties of it when you really ought to be saying that you just don't know....


You know, I suspect you may be correct.

I gave up some time ago, in that 'demands' of lists of cited specific pieces have been made, any such given tossed aside as being only unknown if you live in a hut in Botswana (or something equally as glibly dismissive) yet when any specifics as to 'what repertoire do you mean in this context' are asked for, the absence of any concrete response is positively deafening.

Any further thoughts at addressing more of the same had me thinking of this, said by a friend, "It is nearly impossible to change people's characteristic behavior."


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> This is a good point. Even if we knew for certain that _present_ audiences do not want much contemporary music, we expect that future audiences will want today's contemporary music programed since classical music has operated that way for at least awhile. So is exposure through CDs or small venues enough to allow present contemporary music to be programed in the future?


Isn't there an internal inconsistency here? If audiences in past generations did not want much contemporary music, then how come that modern audiences have figured out the quality of some of it. If modern audiences can do it, why can't future generations do the same without the kind of aid you appear to be suggesting?


----------



## KenOC

SilenceIsGolden said:


> So let's just assume we are talking about new music written for the concert hall, to be performed by a symphony orchestra.


A thought. There is a certain "crowd" that regularly attends symphony concerts, is willing and able to buy those season passes or hundred-buck tickets, etc. Needless to say, this crowd tends to be older and more conservative than many other CM listeners.

So a composer of "new" music intended for concert hall performance is likely to be confronted by this same audience, predisposed to dislike "that sort" of music. This is less likely to be the case in concerts at smaller venues, where people seem more accepting of new experiences (in my opinion anyway). This is another argument for not leaning too heavily on the concert hall to popularize contemporary music; it may have the opposite effect.


----------



## SilenceIsGolden

KenOC said:


> A thought. There is a certain "crowd" that regularly attends symphony concerts, is willing and able to buy those season passes or hundred-buck tickets, etc. Needless to say, this crowd tends to be older and more conservative than many other CM listeners.
> 
> So a composer of "new" music intended for concert hall performance is likely to be confronted by this same audience, predisposed to dislike "that sort" of music. This is less likely to be the case in concerts at smaller venues, where people seem more accepting of new experiences (in my opinion anyway). This is another argument for not leaning too heavily on the concert hall to popularize contemporary music; it may have the opposite effect.


But a change in programming could bring out a different crowd to the symphony orchestra, draw in people from those smaller venues, and perhaps change that conservative culture at symphony concerts. I think this fear of scaring off audiences completely is a bit exaggerated. I remember attending a concert featuring Christopher Rouse's Symphony No. 2 a few years back (his "rock and roll" symphony) at a major symphony hall in California, and it was met with applause and general critical and public acclaim.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> This made me grin. He's been giving you evidence after evidence. But you've called it "irrelevant." You don't even seem to have listened to it.


I can't imagine why you think that a few videos of modern music is relevant to information on its alleged "social benefits". I trust you know what "social benefits" means, do you? They are not videos of music, I can assure you.


----------



## KenOC

SilenceIsGolden said:


> But a change in programming could bring out a different crowd to the symphony orchestra, draw in people from those smaller venues, and perhaps change that conservative culture at symphony concerts. I think this fear of scaring off audiences completely is a bit exaggerated. I remember attending a concert featuring Christopher Rouse's Symphony No. 2 a few years back (his "rock and roll" symphony) at a major symphony hall in California, and it was met with applause and general critical and public acclaim.


Yes, it could. But for today's orchestras, priority#1 is pleasing the regular attendees and particularly the buyers of season tickets. Outreach tends to concentrate on the young (to replace the inevitable losses) and "underserved" portions of the community such as the poor and various ethnic groups. I'm not sure, statistically, how much appeal "new" music has in the latter groups, or how well it would "sell" among them if performed.


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> First of all, I have not mentioned the name Stockhausen in any of my posts. Second, it's pretty conspicuous that you _keep_ mentioning him. If I were to concede that Stockhausen is not in the classical tradition, would you still be able to defend your version of 20th century music history by referring to other people instead? Because it sounds to me like you've just got a bee in your bonnet regarding certain compositional styles and falsely believe that this is evidence that the classical music tradition faded away, even though you've admitted that you can't pinpoint when that happened.
> 
> Even if it went out with a whimper rather than a bang, there still ought to be composers you could identify around the time. No one can say when Classicism ended and Romanticism began, but we can all point to Schubert, Beethoven, Weber and others and say it was somewhere _around_ there. By contrast, you have no support for your revisionist, denialist conception of music history except the proclamation that Stockhausen didn't use traditional instrumentation. Maybe I should just make the question easier and ask which is the composer that _you_ know about personally who is the latest you would put in the classical tradition, even if they were not the last of it? Your answer may be revealing.
> 
> ...
> 
> You may have that problem but no one else who has listened to and understood the music has the same problem. There is a chasm between minimalism and new age music. Steve Reich does not inhabit the same tradition or style as Enya!


I'm not sure if you can blame me for dealing with the generics rather than specifics, given that you have avoided naming any specific composers at all in this thread, which has made it difficult to know what you are talking about. You make the rather vague claim that new stuff should be programmed more, but you even admitted yourself earlier on that you have few ideas as to what this new stuff should be.

I repeatedly mention Stockhausen because he strikes me as a good example of a composer who deviated enormously from the more orchestral-based music that preceded him, yet who continues to be placed within the classical narrative. I actually like some Stockhausen (shock horror!). I also like some John Adams and a big fan of Philip Glass and Arvo Part. But I also like Tangerine Dream, Brian Eno and several other composers of new age or ambient music (but admittedly not Enya ). I like these styles for similar reasons and find it absurd and somewhat artificial that academics insist on drawing a line between the "art" composers and the "popular" composers, despite the obvious stylistic similarities. If you don't believe these similarities exist, feel free to discuss why, rather than simply accusing me of being too ignorant to understand.


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not sure if you can blame me for dealing with the generics rather than specifics, given that you have avoided naming any specific composers at all in this thread, which has made it difficult to know what you are talking about.


Because, for the nth time, I'm talking about the _principle_ of new music. The entire _premise_ of my thread is the generic problem of new music, so I haven't responded to demands for lists (except via PetrB) because it's irrelevant to the point _I_ was making. On the contrary, the claim that _you_ wish to make is very pointedly related to specifics that you are incapable of producing.



Winterreisender said:


> You make the rather vague claim that new stuff should be programmed more, but you even admitted yourself earlier on that you have few ideas as to what this new stuff should be.


Where did I say that? I must have been sleep-walking if that's what I said! I've said repeatedly that I think new music written in the classical/art tradition is what should be programmed and that it should be programmed regardless of whether or not I like it. Then you said that the classical/art tradition doesn't exist any more, I asked you to demonstrate that, and you couldn't.



Winterreisender said:


> I also like some John Adams and a big fan of Philip Glass and Arvo Part. But I also like Tangerine Dream, Brian Eno and several other composers of new age or ambient music (but admittedly not Enya ). I like these styles for similar reasons and find it absurd and somewhat artificial that academics insist on drawing a line between the "art" composers and the "popular" composers, despite the obvious stylistic similarities. If you don't believe these similarities exist, feel free to discuss why, rather than simply accusing me of being too ignorant to understand.


I think that a conversation like this would be useful, but not in this thread. This thread really requires this kind of understanding in advance. Perhaps I'll start a separate one on this subject when I have the energy!


----------



## Guest

PetrB said:


> You know, I suspect you may be correct.
> 
> I gave up some time ago, in that 'demands' of lists of cited specific pieces have been made, any such given tossed aside as being only unknown if you live in a hut in Botswana (or something equally as glibly dismissive) yet when any specifics as to 'what repertoire do you mean in this context' are asked for, the absence of any concrete response is positively deafening.
> 
> Any further thoughts at addressing more of the same had me thinking of this, said by a friend, "It is nearly impossible to change people's characteristic behavior."


As was clearly explained previously when you first made this utterance, I was not looking for your ideas about neglected music but those of the OP, since I was trying to find what kind of music he felt was being short-changed at major concert centres or on radio.

A it turns out, the OP was none too clear exactly what he had in mind, so much so that he issued an apology for causing unnecessary confusion in his OP in suggesting a type of music that he didn't actually mean. Even after that, things were not clear until you happened to come along to offer some thoughts, which he then latched onto along with anything else that has been tossed into the ring. His aim seems deliberately to provide more variety than is currently demanded or supplied merely because it exists.

Manifestly, this is a highly risky way of organising concerts, especially big ones to which are normally attracted quite conservative people. Any old bits of music thrown in simply to provide more variety would, in all probability, alienate far more people than it could ever possibly hope to gain. It would be like recommending to a friend that they book a vacation in some tourist spot that no one bothers going to, just on the off-chance they might happen to like it.


----------



## DavidA

Partita said:


> As was clearly explained previously when you first made this utterance, I was not looking for your ideas about neglected music but those of the OP, since I was trying to find what kind of music he felt was being short-changed at major concert centres or on radio.
> 
> t.


I hate concerts with 'neglected' music. When you hear it you usually realise just why it is neglected!


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> Because, for the nth time, I'm talking about the _principle_ of new music. The entire _premise_ of my thread is the generic problem of new music, so I haven't responded to demands for lists (except via PetrB) because it's irrelevant to the point _I_ was making. On the contrary, the claim that _you_ wish to make is very pointedly related to specifics that you are incapable of producing.


And for the nth time, most people love listening to new music! The only problem is that they are listening to new music which you don't think is worthy of being called "art" and therefore doesn't count. That you are incapable of clarifying this distinction between "art" and "non-art" suggests that your value judgments must be the guiding principle.



Freischutz said:


> Where did I say that? I must have been sleep-walking if that's what I said! I've said repeatedly that I think new music written in the classical/art tradition is what should be programmed and that it should be programmed regardless of whether or not I like it. Then you said that the classical/art tradition doesn't exist any more, I asked you to demonstrate that, and you couldn't.


I am referring to your earlier post in response to my question about which new composers should be given priority: "This is a genuine problem and I haven't convinced myself that I have a good answer for it, so I'm not going to pretend that I can give you one. Yes, in part, I'm offering a criticism that I have no solution for and that's not very helpful, but I hope a conversation like this might help us all think of good ideas together and maybe someone can give you a better response than I can" (Post 256).

As for my claim that there isn't a "classical/art" tradition anymore, let me clarify. There are some composers who might refer to themselves as "classical" by composing in a deliberately old-fashioned style, although this is probably a minority. The very word "classical" is of course backwards looking, and I don't believe it can be applied to any composers who consider themselves "progressive." As for the term "art" music, I have already said several times that I find it absurd to classify certain composers as "art" and not others. There are hundreds of composers out there and they should simply compete amongst themselves for public recognition. If you believe "art music" refers to something more specific, I would be interested to hear it.



Freischutz said:


> I think that a conversation like this would be useful, but not in this thread. This thread really requires this kind of understanding in advance. Perhaps I'll start a separate one on this subject when I have the energy!


I agree that this could be a fruitful discussion.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> Because, for the nth time, I'm talking about the _principle_ of *new music*. The entire _premise_ of my thread is the generic problem of new music, so I haven't responded to demands for lists (except via PetrB) because it's irrelevant to the point _I_ was making. On the contrary, the claim that _you_ wish to make is very pointedly related to specifics that you are incapable of producing.


May I remind you that you have not clearly defined what you mean by "new music". On some occasions it would seem to be "art music" that is not popular, but on other occasions it is apparently "art-music" that is so new that it hasn't had yet chance to establish any kind of reputation.

Regardless of exactly what you mean, why do you insist that this so-called unpopularity has anything to do with lack of performance? Aren't you confusing cause and effect here? It is surely far more likely that the music you are referring is not performed much simply because it is not popular. Trying to make it popular by performing it more often is like placing cart before the horse. It must assume that either consumers are very dumb or that the media moguls really do have a magic spell over them, neither of which appears to me to be a remotely sensible proposition.

Another aspect of your argument that I find troubling is the lack of clarity on whether you would be happy if this unpopular music was performed in small venues pro tem, and whether you have any evidence that it isn't performed in such places, or whether you want it played at big concerts and on radio without regard for popularity at all. If the latter, how do you propose avoiding mass exits or buoycotts of such events by the vast majority of people who don't want to listen to any of it?

To help my appreciation of these issues, I would be grateful if you could attempt answers to my posts # 374 and 377 that I addressed to you. These posts set out a number of my concerns and queries more specifically.


----------



## Bulldog

After reading 28 pages of postings, I remain convinced that there are no problems here to address and that all is well. My view is initially based on the following: most humans are conservative, like what is familiar to them and do not appreciate change.

With the above in mind, it's not surprising that modern/contemporary art music is on the fringe. However, I am confident that as the decades roll along, its hold on the public will strengthen. It's a natural process with composers, suppliers and consumers doing what they want. The only impediments would be collusion or other illegal activities among suppliers and intervention by our wonderful government units (those of you who favor small government may call it interference).

Although I realize that economics is not the primary thrust of this thread, I do feel the need to respond to something that Wood wrote. In effect, I think he wrote that a simple solution is for Government to print more money and distribute it to artistic sources; that way nobody will get mad or be negatively impacted. I do trust that Wood is aware that printing more money increases the rate of inflation. I apologize to Wood if I have incorrectly presented his meaning.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I hate concerts with 'neglected' music. When you hear it you usually realise just why it is neglected!


Absolutely. If some of these people had their way, I dread to think what a load of highly dubious material they might want to include in major concerts. I can almost picture it now with a lot smiling, happy contented faces listening to, say, Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony. Once ended some goon comes on the stage and announces a change of plan to the scheduled programme, and instead of "Creatures of Prometheus" they wheel on stage a dustbin, cowbells, car hooter, bicycle pump, and proceed to give a rendition of some highly neglected work. The old ladies look on in horror, their men-folk have convulsions, and the children are scared out of their wits. When they try to get out of their seats in disgust, there's a whole bunch of "bouncers" blocking the exits, with folded arms, dark glasses, and chewing gum, saying "sit still you ignorant peasants, this is good for you".


----------



## Freischutz

Bulldog said:


> most humans are conservative, like what is familiar to them and do not appreciate change.


Is this a personal conviction or a psychological fact?


----------



## dgee

Yay Partita - you and David A seem to be a match made in heaven for modern music panic!


----------



## Freischutz

DavidA said:


> I hate concerts with 'neglected' music. When you hear it you usually realise just why it is neglected!


Apparently you are unfamiliar with the history of the reception of Bach's music.


----------



## Guest

SilenceIsGolden said:


> But a change in programming could bring out a different crowd to the symphony orchestra....


I'll bet a lot of us have stories like yours. Let's tell them! Tell them and tell them and tell them. Silence the naysayers!!

A few years ago, I attended a mini-festival of American music put on by the San Francisco symphony and featuring the surviving members of the Grateful Dead, who had some sets of their own but who also participated in other things, like a performance of John Cage's _Renga_ with _Apartment House 1776,_ whose first performance in L.A. was the day I met Cage and played a couple of games of chess with him. What a nice day that was. Anyway, the audience was predictably split between Deadheads and SF society snobs, all mingling quite amicably, too. (I.e., "snobs" was grossly unfair on my part.)

At one concert, they played Harrison's percussion concerto. I was sitting next to a Deadhead. After Lou's piece was done, he turned to me, eyes huge: "Wow!! That is the coolest piece of music I have ever heard!!"

If Freischutz has his/her way, things like that will happen even more often.

Next?


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> I hate concerts with 'neglected' music. When you hear it you usually realise just why it is neglected!


I love them.

So it's come down to this, where, if it goes on long enough, is where it always comes down to, and that is that you want to limit my experiences simply because the ones I want are not the ones you want.

I, on the other hand, do not want to limit your access to the music you like in any way.

Why, that means I'm on the side of the angels, and you are on the other side.:devil:


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> Apparently you are unfamiliar with the history of the reception of Bach's music.


Bach's music seems to have been quite well-received by his audience. He was gainfully employed almost his entire life writing and performing it. One time, when he tried too hard to quit his job, his employers even had him thrown into jail. There is no more sincere way to say, "We love ya, Bach!" :lol:


----------



## starry

Freischutz said:


> The music industry has a problem that all its demographics are guilty of. Listeners are guilty, recording companies are guilty, concert organisers are guilty, and the list goes on.
> 
> Our problem is assuming that it's intuitively obvious what kind of concert programmes "The Public" wants as though this knowledge is innate in us without exploration or research.
> 
> Of course, the kinds of programmes we all imagine Mr. and Mrs. Average hope for are ones whose composers have been dead for at least 150 years. Anything more modern than that is just _bound_ to put them off no matter how good it is, isn't it?
> 
> The problem with this is not just a marketing dilemma - it is a deep and cancerous contempt. Contempt for our own art and contempt for other people. The comedian Bill Hicks was once told that his stand-up material was clever and funny, but that TV executives were concerned it wouldn't "play in the midwest" - he responded, "If the people in the midwest only knew the contempt that television holds for them…"
> 
> It's also a patronising, self-fulfilling prophecy because so long as we keep modern music out of programmes, people are deprived of the opportunity to come to appreciate it. So of course if we keep programming more of the same, people are going to want more of the same because anything else becomes strange.
> 
> I could go on ranting for ages, but I'll leave it there for discussion - it'll be more fun bouncing off other people!


Why worry about concert programs when people can hear whatever they want on the internet? This point may have been made, I haven't read all the thread.


----------



## Winterreisender

some guy said:


> I'll bet a lot of us have stories like yours. Let's tell them! Tell them and tell them and tell them. Silence the naysayers!!
> 
> A few years ago, I attended a mini-festival of American music put on by the San Francisco symphony and featuring the surviving members of the Grateful Dead, who had some sets of their own but who also participated in other things, like a performance of John Cage's _Renga_ with _Apartment House 1776,_ whose first performance in L.A. was the day I met Cage and played a couple of games of chess with him. What a nice day that was. Anyway, the audience was predictably split between Deadheads and SF society snobs, all mingling quite amicably, too. (I.e., "snobs" was grossly unfair on my part.)
> 
> At one concert, they played Harrison's percussion concerto. I was sitting next to a Deadhead. After Lou's piece was done, he turned to me, eyes huge: "Wow!! That is the coolest piece of music I have ever heard!!"
> 
> If Freischutz has his/her way, things like that will happen even more often.
> 
> Next?


Not sure how persuasive I find this sort of anecdotal "evidence." I could just as easily recount my concert experiences which point to the contrary. I remember this one time I went to a Mahler concert but first had to sit through this utterly forgettable piece by Judith Weir written for choir, cellos and percussion. The piece was received with a polite trickle of applause as the composer herself awkwardly made her way towards the front of the stage, but those sitting next to me expressed during the interval their complete indifference to the piece. I suppose indifference is the worst possible reaction that a new piece can receive. Many modern audiences simply find new "classical" music no longer surprising.


----------



## Freischutz

KenOC said:


> Bach's music seems to have been quite well-received by his audience. He was gainfully employed almost his entire life writing and performing it. One time, when he tried too hard to quit his job, his employers even had him thrown into jail. There is no more sincere way to say, "We love ya, Bach!" :lol:


And what happened after he died, KenOC?



starry said:


> Why worry about concert programs when people can hear whatever they want on the internet? This point may have been made, I haven't read all the thread.


The question here is: why should music have to be relegated to the internet just because the technology exists now? What would the argument have been before 1990? What would the argument have been before CDs? Concerts programmed new music all the time in the 19th century. I think we can do the same today.


----------



## Wood

*Warning: economics post OT*



Bulldog said:


> I do feel the need to respond to something that Wood wrote. In effect, I think he wrote that a simple solution is for Government to print more money and distribute it to artistic sources; that way nobody will get mad or be negatively impacted. I do trust that Wood is aware that printing more money increases the rate of inflation. I apologize to Wood if I have incorrectly presented his meaning.


Hey Bulldog

I just put Albuquerque into Google Images. It looks like you're in a wonderful location.

No, sorry but that isn't my intended meaning at all.

1. 'Printing money' is a loaded expression which suggests images of Germans carrying wheelbarrow loads of money to represent their four hourly pay packet in the 1920s. Actually the money supply is increased by debiting a government bank account and crediting the classical music organisation's account.

2. Choosing to give money to classical music negatively impacts those who would have otherwise received the money. So people could get mad about money going to music when it could be spent on the Health Service, roads, the poor, the military etc.

3. Increasing the money supply doesn't automatically mean increasing the rate of inflation. This is one of those myths propagated by academics (like Ken OC?), politicians and the compliant media.
Where there is unemployed resources in the economy, there is no upward pressure on prices. Inflation will occur as full employment is approached, only in those sectors where there is a shortage of supply.

It is sad that what you have stated is widely considered to be general knowledge, or common sense. Actually it is bunkum.


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> And what happened after he died, KenOC?


I expect you know the answer already. Never really "in fashion" except locally and in a dutiful way, and already old-fashioned well before his death, Bach's music was forgotten by general audiences who were evidently quite weary of that type of music. Later it became fashionable again. Meanwhile, it was studied and played by professional composers and performed privately by occasional enthusiasts like Baron van Swieten.

That's the way it was. Was it wrong? Should Bach's music have been forced on audiences who had no interest in his music or style?


----------



## Freischutz

KenOC said:


> I expect you know the answer already. Never really "in fashion" except locally and in a dutiful way, and already old-fashioned well before his death, Bach's music was forgotten by general audiences who were evidently quite weary of that type of music. Later it became fashionable again. Meanwhile, it was studied and played by professional composers and performed privately by occasional enthusiasts like Baron van Swieten.
> 
> That's the way it was. Was it wrong? Should Bach's music have been forced on audiences who had no interest in his music or style?


Nobody is talking about music being forced on anyone. I named Bach for the very specific reason of refuting this:



DavidA said:


> I hate concerts with 'neglected' music. When you hear it you usually realise just why it is neglected!


Obviously, with Bach as a shining example, there is much neglected music that has value, so the above statement is just facile.


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> The question here is: why should music have to be relegated to the internet just because the technology exists now? What would the argument have been before 1990? What would the argument have been before CDs? Concerts programmed new music all the time in the 19th century. I think we can do the same today.


I'm not sure if the internet must be seen as a relegation. In the last few years, with the advent of mass communications and social media, innovative musicians are finding ways of reaching larger audiences than ever before, often with very little funding. It's funny that few "classical" composers have managed that yet.


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> Nobody is talking about music being forced on anyone.


Beg your pardon! I thought you were talking about dedicating an increased portion of limited concert programming time for works with little or no apparent demand. But perhaps I was mistaken...?


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not sure if the internet must be seen as a relegation. In the last few years, with the advent of mass communications and social media, innovative musicians are finding ways of reaching larger audiences than ever before, often with very little funding. It's funny that few "classical" composers have managed that yet.


Yeah Beethoven, you don't need to spend so much time writing music, get on Twitter for goodness' sake and market yourself! It's what all the cool kids are doing.



KenOC said:


> Beg your pardon! I thought you were talking about dedicating an increased portion of limited concert programming time for works with little or no apparent demand. But perhaps I was mistaken...?


Nope, I don't think anyone has talked about that on this thread. Maybe you should try reading it again.


----------



## Bulldog

Freischutz said:


> Is this a personal conviction or a psychological fact?


Observation. I did forget to say that I think the "conservative" mindset gets stronger as folks get older.


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> Yeah Beethoven, you don't need to spend so much time writing music, get on Twitter for goodness' sake and market yourself! It's what all the cool kids are doing.


As humorous as your imagined juxtaposing of 19th century composers with contemporary methods of social media undoubtedly is, I don't see why this is such an unreasonable suggestion in our modern era, when the competition for listeners is fiercer than ever. Composers can't expect to be handed concert time on a plate; surely they should have to earn a fanbase first? Just saying that the internet is a great way to do that and I'm not sure why "classical" composers are failing to adapt to it.


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> Yeah Beethoven, you don't need to spend so much time writing music, get on Twitter for goodness' sake and market yourself! It's what all the cool kids are doing.


Beethoven seems to have been an assiduous and effective marketer of himself, first as a pianist and then as a composer. Cooper, in his biography, goes so far as to speak of Beethoven's first years in Vienna as "a carefully orchestrated campaign." After that he carefully cultivated the major publishers, arranged concerts of his own works (usually bearing the financial risks involved), and did all the rest of the things that an up-and-coming composer anxious for success could do in those times.

In later life, especially, he carefully managed the timing of his works' publication in various countries to avoid illicit copying and piracy... I suspect he would not have been pleased by YouTube.


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> As humorous as your imagined juxtaposing of 19th century composers with contemporary methods of social media undoubtedly is, I don't see why this is such an unreasonable suggestion in our modern era, when the competition for listeners is fiercer than ever. Composers can't expect to be handed concert time on a plate; surely they should have to earn a fanbase first? Just saying that the internet is a great way to do that and I'm not sure why "classical" composers are failing to adapt to it.


I am being a little facetious, you're right - just to point out that what's good enough for one composer should be good enough for any other.

In any case, I'm fond of the internet. I think composers should use it and I don't think it's unreasonable for you to suggest that they do. *However*, the following logic is invalid:

The internet is available
_therefore_
stay out of the concert halls until you're mainstream

How about we program more new music _and_ encourage composers to take advantage of the internet? Why must the internet be an _excuse_ that justifies conservative concert programs?


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> How about we program more new music _and_ encourage composers to take advantage of the internet? Why must the internet be an _excuse_ that justifies conservative concert programs?


I agree that no additional "excuse" is needed beyond the fact that current programming seems to be what audiences prefer, as determined by people who have a pretty big stake in the outcomes of the programming.

You seem to be going back and forth here. First, you say that you don't want to force anything on anybody. And then you say that concert programs should be less conservative, with more "new" music (which means of course less "old" music), despite the absence of any apparent audience preference for that.


----------



## Freischutz

KenOC said:


> I agree that no additional "excuse" is needed beyond the fact that current programming seems to be what audiences prefer, as determined by people who have a pretty big stake in the outcomes of the programming.
> 
> You seem to be going back and forth here. First, you say that you don't want to force anything on anybody. And then you say that concert programs should be less conservative, with more "new" music (which means of course less "old" music), despite the absence of any apparent audience preference for that.


Either you are letting hyperbole get the better of you or you simply don't understand the language you're using. If I were to force music on someone, I would take them to a concert against their will and make them listen to the music being played. Who is advocating that? No one. Choice is still involved.


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> Either you are letting hyperbole get the better of you or you simply don't understand the language you're using. If I were to force music on someone, I would take them to a concert against their will and make them listen to the music being played. Who is advocating that? No one. Choice is still involved.


Not exactly correct. You seem to be saying, "I demand that concerts be programmed as I specify, even though the majority prefers otherwise. Their choice is that they can stay home. Isn't freedom wonderful?" :lol:


----------



## Freischutz

KenOC said:


> Not exactly correct. You seem to be saying, "I demand that concerts be programmed as I specify, even though the majority prefers otherwise."


Look at the title of the thread! Look at my first post! For 30 pages I've been saying that neither you nor I know what the majority wants!

Besides, as I have already said, even if we _did_ know that, you are advocating the marginalisation of minority interests in favour of populism. I mean, don't you find this a little _ironic_? After all, the rest of modern popular culture completely marginalises the _whole_ of classical music - old and new - and all of us on this forum fight for what space and opportunity we can, arguing that classical music is of great aesthetic and cultural importance whether or not it's only a minority that values it.

But as soon as we narrow the audience down from the whole population to just classical fans, you and others shout, "Quick! Out with the principles! Sod the minority interests! Majority rule! Majority rule!" It's hypocrisy.

I'm simply saying that for _exactly the same_ reasons that we do what we can to support "ordinary" classical music despite competition from the rest of modern popular culture, we should _also_ support contemporary music despite competition from classical populism. To argue otherwise is to live by a double standard.


----------



## Yardrax

Winterreisender said:


> Just saying that the internet is a great way to do that and I'm not sure why "classical" composers are failing to adapt to it.


Outside of classical music the divide between the functions of composer and performer is less pronounced, most of the time they're the same entity, which means the composer usually has all the relevant rights with regards to any audio files of their works to do with them as they wish. In the classical field, if a composer wants to put audio of a piece on the internet, if they aren't themselves a performer of the necessary caliber, they have to find a performer/s willing to have their performance put online for free, in the case of solo and chamber music that could be a surmountable issue, dealing with Orchestras means dealing with unions which though which means not a chance.

To a lesser extent it's probably also a cultural thing. A lot of contemporary composers of note that I can think of aren't necessarily of a generation which is totally familiar with the resources of social networking, also most classical composers probably don't care about their image or marketing themselves in the same way that pop musicians do (I mean for example, I know a local band that play hardcore punk, generally not a genre associated with rampant commercialism, but even their merchandising tactics are beyond what any contemporary composer of concert music, even the 'nice' ones like John Adams or Phillip Glass, would attempt, everything they do has a neat looking logo, professionally commissioned artwork, and they have multiple T-shirt designs. Never seen a John Adams T-shirt, though maybe I'm not looking in the right places).


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> Look at the title of the thread! Look at my first post! For 30 pages I've been saying that neither you nor I know what the majority wants!


Never said I did. But I know of no evidence that the majority isn't getting what it wants, or that people paid to program concerts (who as I said have a major stake in the outcomes) aren't satisfying the majority as best they can consistent with other financial and artistic goals. It's not really necessary that I have any clue at all as to what the majority wants. It's you who wants to change things...


----------



## KenOC

Yardrax said:


> ...but even their merchandising tactics are beyond what any contemporary composer of concert music, even the 'nice' ones like John Adams or Phillip Glass, would attempt, everything they do has a neat looking logo, professionally commissioned artwork, and they have multiple T-shirt designs. Never seen a John Adams T-shirt, though maybe I'm not looking in the right places).


John Adams has had a very professional and often hilarious blog for many years at earbox.com. Here's "In bed with Beethoven."

http://www.earbox.com/posts/97


----------



## starry

Freischutz said:


> And what happened after he died, KenOC?
> 
> The question here is: why should music have to be relegated to the internet just because the technology exists now? What would the argument have been before 1990? What would the argument have been before CDs? Concerts programmed new music all the time in the 19th century. I think we can do the same today.


I just don't think that concerts are the way people normally introduce themselves to new music, and that probably hasn't been the case ever since people had general access to recordings (so way before the internet). People like to sample music in that way first rather than have to pay for and travel to a concert and spend an evening there finding out.


----------



## Freischutz

starry said:


> I just don't think that concerts are the way people normally introduce themselves to new music, and that probably hasn't been the case ever since people had general access to recordings (so way before the internet). People like to sample music in that way first rather than have to pay for and travel to a concert and spend an evening there finding out.


The world can be roughly divided into two: things that _are_ and things that _should be_. Maybe what you said above is true about the first (maybe), but what about the second?


----------



## Mahlerian

Yardrax said:


> (I mean for example, I know a local band that play hardcore punk, generally not a genre associated with rampant commercialism, but even their merchandising tactics are beyond what any contemporary composer of concert music, even the 'nice' ones like John Adams or Phillip Glass, would attempt, everything they do has a neat looking logo, professionally commissioned artwork, and they have multiple T-shirt designs. Never seen a John Adams T-shirt, though maybe I'm not looking in the right places).


Maybe not Adams or Glass, but you can buy Schoenberg T-shirts...








Or magnets...








Or pencils with his signature...









...just _who_ buys this stuff, anyway?


----------



## Morimur

I am liking that Schoenberg t-shirt. Though I could make it myself for a fraction of the cost.


----------



## dgee

starry said:


> I just don't think that concerts are the way people normally introduce themselves to new music, and that probably hasn't been the case ever since people had general access to recordings (so way before the internet). People like to sample music in that way first rather than have to pay for and travel to a concert and spend an evening there finding out.


Really starry? Something I've meant to say in this thread a few time is that I think we're all under-estimating the number of people who go to the orchestra cos it's a nice evening out. The people who may be delighted to find some of the tunes familiar to them from classical music on the telly, who don't know what's coming next, can't identify the orchestral instruments, couldn't really tell if it was poorly or well played in the main but love some loud fast stuff and performers who move around exaggeratedly (so, potentially Lang Lang fans - amiright!!!)

Probably nearly half where I come from and a crucial consideration when it comes to programming - nearly all music is new music to them and understanding this brings freedom to programming I think (and this is how it worked where I was involved in that side of the business). You don't have to give these people a laundry list of "great classics", you have to entertain them - this brings in possibilities which can excite both the audience and the players (woohoo - because excited players makes great shows!). Maybe doesn't do much for the plinky plonk hardcore Euro AG that I want to hear more of but that's life

Probably doesn't do much for the people who just want to luxuriate in wall-to-wall Beethoven, but they've got the internet

Of course, the audiences where you are could overwhelmingly be a bit knowledgeable and highly conservative - which would indeed explain the programming!


----------



## Blake

Someone is simply going to have to scuttlebutt over to a concert or six and take some polls. They seem to work so well around here.


----------



## mmsbls

Partita said:


> Isn't there an internal inconsistency here? If audiences in past generations did not want much contemporary music, then how come that modern audiences have figured out the quality of some of it. If modern audiences can do it, why can't future generations do the same without the kind of aid you appear to be suggesting?


Yes, perhaps. I guess I'd be interested to know exactly how orchestras determined their programs during the period 1900 through today. How much has the process actually changed? What is required for a work to become regularly scheduled in concert? Are there any works played with any regularity today in concert that were never or hardly ever performed during the composer's life (Mozart's late symphonies don't count )?

Overall I find the question of programing contemporary works a difficult one. If everyone were like me, the answer would be simple. The lack of better knowledge is a bit frustrating. If I were the god of classical music programing, I'm not sure what I would do.


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> The world can be roughly divided into two: things that _are_ and things that _should be_. Maybe what you said above is true about the first (maybe), but what about the second?


I have to ask a question. You are promoting an increase in the programming of newer music at orchestral concerts. The question is: Why? I don't think you've ever clearly said. To give a better chance to contemporary composers? To "improve" the audience? To get more of the music you prefer? The motivation here seems to have received little emphasis -- unless I've been inattentive, a possibility.


----------



## KenOC

mmsbls said:


> Are there any works played with any regularity today in concert that were never or hardly ever performed during the composer's life (Mozart's late symphonies don't count )?


Actually there are some interesting examples of this. They include Beethoven's Violin Concerto and Piano Concerto #4, both of which disappeared without a trace after their premieres -- possibly because they didn't share B's "heroic mood" that was so immediately appealing then. Both were resurrected by (who else?) Mendelssohn 30-40 years after the fact, well after Beethoven's death, and have never since left the repertoire.

In polls I have seen, both are not only "in" their respective repertoires but at or very close to the top of them.


----------



## Freischutz

KenOC said:


> I have to ask a question. You are promoting an increase in the programming of newer music at orchestral concerts. The question is: Why? I don't think you've ever clearly said. To give a better chance to contemporary composers? To "improve" the audience? To get more of the music you prefer? The motivation here seems to have received little emphasis -- unless I've been inattentive, a possibility.


Perhaps you've been a little inattentive because I think I said it fairly clearly in a post that you replied to, but you skimmed over all the important parts.  In any case, I think I made my essential argument in its most concise and direct form in post #444 on page 30, but I will restate it with slight modifications as a direct answer to your question:

Even if we know what the majority of an audience wants, to argue for programs on that simplistic basis is advocating for the marginalisation of minority interests in favour of populism. This ought to strike people as ironic because the _rest_ of modern popular culture completely marginalises the _whole_ of classical music - old and new - and yet all of us on this forum fight for what space, opportunity, time and money we can, because we strongly believe that classical music is of great aesthetic and cultural importance even if it's only a minority that values it.

But advocates of conservative programs are living by a double standard. As soon as we narrow this audience down from the whole population to just classical fans, these advocates shout, "Quick! Out with the principles! Forget the minority interests! Majority rule! Majority rule!" It's hypocrisy.

I'm simply saying that for _exactly the same_ reasons that we do what we can to support "ordinary" classical music despite competition from the rest of modern popular culture, we should _also_ support contemporary music despite competition from classical populism.


----------



## KenOC

Freischutz said:


> I'm simply saying that for _exactly the same_ reasons that we do what we can to support "ordinary" classical music despite competition from the rest of modern popular culture, we should _also_ support contemporary music despite competition from classical populism.


Thanks for explaining. I feel differently. I do not "support" classical music. I listen to it because I enjoy it, just as I listen to music of other types because I enjoy them. In a Darwinian sense, "classical" may be in a survival contest with "pop" (when has this not been the case?) or "contemporary" with "old", but I have no horse in either race.

I am just happy that there is a far broader choice of music of all types available today than ever before, and more cheaply. I see little reason to dictate to the programmers of any musical ensemble what they "should" have their audiences hear.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I do not "support" classical music.


I've been tempted many times to risk the wrath of the moderators by accusing you of exactly this. Thanks very much for taking the pressure off!!



KenOC said:


> I see little reason to dictate to the programmers of any musical ensemble what they "should" have their audiences hear.


Of course you don't. The programmers are already simply dictating what happens to coincide with your tastes. So it probably doesn't seem like dictating at all. If you already like what you're getting and see no reason to go beyond that, you're not likely to see the dictating that's already going on as being dictating at all. Only if there's a change from the status quo do people start whinging about dictating.

You know, because marketplace.


----------



## KenOC

some guy said:


> I've been tempted many times to risk the wrath of the moderators...


Your post is full of half-quotes and unwarranted assumptions. Also, personal attacks such as this are in bad taste, at the least.


----------



## PetrB

Vesuvius said:


> Someone is simply going to have to scuttlebutt over to a concert or six and take some polls. They seem to work so well around here.


...:lol:...:tiphat:...

Thank you for that!


----------



## PetrB

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not sure if the internet must be seen as a relegation. In the last few years, with the advent of mass communications and social media, innovative musicians are finding ways of reaching larger audiences than ever before, often with very little funding. It's funny that few "classical" composers have managed that yet.


There is a titch more involved in finding thirty-eight players, a conductor, and a hall where they can rehearse, be recorded _and filmed_ to then pop your new work for chamber orchestra up on Youtube... most pop or jazz ensembles are three to five players, the strategy, cost and time involved are entirely different.

There is a criterion pretty well set in stone by all the classical community -- i.e. facsimile performances in midi renditions using the best possible instrumental sound samples are just not generally acceptable; the last 'level' where they are quasi-acceptable is when submitting a score for consideration, and a recorded facsimile performance is sometimes required along with the score. They are an aid and a tool, but where Hollywood and Television might accept them, most classical audiences do not 

BTW, as far as the general listening public goes, chamber music is in about the same proportionate place to symphonic classical as is Jazz to popular songs and rock.

So, there are but a few reasons why "few classical composers have managed that yet."


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> There is a criterion pretty well set in stone by all the classical community -- i.e. facsimile performances in midi renditions using the best possible instrumental sound samples are just not generally acceptable; the last 'level' where they are quasi-acceptable is when submitting a score for consideration, and a recorded facsimile performance is sometimes required along with the score. They are an aid and a tool, but where Hollywood and Television might accept them, most classical audiences do not


I think this is quite true. It's a very high bar for new composers. Maybe even more so now than when a composer could get works into circulation and maybe even make some money by having sheet music published. But that depended on a musically literate, performing public. Sadly, no longer the case.

I still suspect the best bet is seeking exposure via small ensembles in smaller venues, especially student performances. Or composing directly in electronica. John Adams did both early on. To expect otherwise seems impossible.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Never said I did. But I know of no evidence that the *majority* isn't getting what it wants, or that people paid to program concerts (who as I said have a major stake in the outcomes) aren't satisfying the majority as best they can consistent with other financial and artistic goals. It's not really necessary that I have any clue at all as to what the majority wants. It's you who wants to change things...


I suspect your efforts are in vain. The essence of Freischutz's position is that he is not interested in the majority being satisfied. He wants the totality to feel satisfied with concert programming. Since he does not know what the totality wants (as opposed to that of the majority), he is forced into the position of arguing that everything of potential interest should be performed.

The illogicality of this is obvious to the likes of you, me and various others, but evidently not to those who seem to think that, if everything bunches up a bit, there is room for a much wider range of material to be performed in main concert venues. It simply cannot be done with any expectation of success, as it is far more likely to lead to a greater loss of customers than gain of new customers. It is called trying to get quart in a pint pot, but in this worse since the pint pot may crack under the pressure.

The OP still has not answered any of the questions I posed in posts 374 and 377. One of the main ones is whether he has any evidence that niche market outlets including small venues or the internet are not meeting minority interests. This is key to the whole issue. I do not believe there is any evidence of such a shortage, in which case his entire argument collapses. All that we have had is that he considers the internet to be some kind of inferior outlet, unbefitting the works he thinks should be getting much top notch attention in the major venues.


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> I think this is quite true. It's a very high bar for new composers. Maybe even more so now than when a composer could get works into circulation and maybe even make some money by having sheet music published. But that depended on a musically literate, performing public. Sadly, no longer the case.
> 
> I still suspect the best bet is seeking exposure via small ensembles in smaller venues, especially student performances. Or composing directly in electronica. John Adams did both early on. To expect otherwise seems impossible.


Starting with smaller ensembles is quite a long tradition, the pragmatics I would think self-evident. Young players establishing themselves often form small ensembles, and are looking not just to the standard repertoire, but for new pieces written exclusively for them to make them more noticeable -- some of that intent is their actually being keen on new works, and eager to be the first to have their hands on them. The smaller numbers required also make the smaller ensemble pieces a good route for the as yet unknown young composer, access to those age-peer (or near age-peer) perfomers is more at hand than approaching the music director of a large ensemble where unsolicited manuscripts are generally not welcome, for good reasons I think it easy for anyone to imagine.

Pieces with electronics are considered quite legitimate, where pieces rendered with electronic samples as substitute for actual acoustic instruments are hardly ever welcome.

Chamber works, works for a soloist, a singer with a piano accompaniment, or small ensemble accompaniment, then, are very wise choices in the beginning.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Chamber works, works for a soloist, a singer with a piano accompaniment, or small ensemble accompaniment, then, are very wise choices in the beginning.


The other time-honored approach is to be a virtuoso composer, introducing your own works with a sufficient helping of fireworks. This tradition extended well into the 20th century, with even Shostakovich initially intending a career as a pianist. Prokofiev and Rachmaninov are more obvious examples. Beethoven of course...


----------



## PetrB

KenOC said:


> The other time-honored approach is to be a virtuoso composer, introducing your own works with a sufficient helping of fireworks. This tradition extended will into the 20th century, with even Shostakovich initially intending a career as a pianist. Prokofiev and Rachmaninov are more obvious examples. Beethoven of course...


Yes, of course, or be a Paganini, though the caprices are still fantastic music and classics of virtuoso literature, it was not a virtuoso violinist who wrote the Beethoven, Berg or Stravinsky fiddle concerti 

Bach, Domenicao Scarlatti, C.P.E. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninov, Prokofiev, Bartok, each a virtuoso keyboardist and composer. But what of all the others? Schubert, as much as he played well, an anti-virtuoso; Mahler, a pretty banal if not terrible pianist; Stravinsky, only "adequate"... the list goes on and on. There are a number of composers who could readily get around a piano (highly recommended for anyone who wishes to compose) but who were not virtuoso players of anything, but who did become virtuoso composers. Besides, of those mentioned, those others wrote brilliantly for orchestra, chamber ensembles, etc. Sure, if it has a piano part and you are dependent upon volunteer players, or it will reduce costs, play that piano part 

The virtuoso player who also has more than a little gift for composition is actually a relatively rare combination, those then are not automatically mutually inclusive. Too, there is only so much solo piano music which is going to make any kind of dent in the world of classical music (Domenico Scarlatti and Chopin are highly unusual exceptions; maybe one could drop Alkan and / or Sorabji partially at least in that category) before one must turn to regularly composing instrumental music.


----------



## Guest

starry said:


> I just don't think that concerts are the way people normally introduce themselves to new music, and that probably hasn't been the case ever since people had general access to recordings (so way before the internet). People like to sample music in that way first rather than have to pay for and travel to a concert and spend an evening there finding out.


This is it concisely.

Looking at the great length of this thread, one might think that many profound and complex issues have been discussed. I am afraid that it is nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the main issue is extremely simple, but discussion has largely polarised around two opposing camps. One camp, following the OP, thinks that the range of classical music performed in major concert venues and on the radio is too narrow and backward looking, and should be widened to include under-performed and contemporary music. The other camp insists that there is enough competition in the market place to provide outlets for all types music that people may wish to listen to, without any need to dictate which outlets should be used for which types of music.

Along the way, we have had two main red herrings. One is the repeated suggestion that the media moguls cannot be trusted to serve their customers' interests and are merely out to make as much profit as they can ride whilst riding roughshod over minority interests etc. This is simply plain wrong. Another is the suggestion that because the music supply market is not a "free market", this somehow justifies subsidies to be applied across the scene, including to composers of new music, in view of the alleged wider "social benefits" likely to result. Exactly where and how such subsidy might be applied is left unspecified. No evidence of the alleged social benefits is offered, just pure assertion that they must exist.

In support, it has been stated that one possible course of action to correct these alleged "market failures" is that any Government can quite easily subsidise the classical music industry by simply writing out cheques payable to musicians, and this action has no adverse effects except that other possible beneficiaries of subsidy might suffer a shortfall. This is very naive, as it makes no allowance for any of the well-known problems of applying subsidies, e.g. the risk of "non-additionality," "displacement" of competing products by non-subsidised agents. [These terms are well known to people who know what they are talking about in the context of practical experience in assessing and applying any kind of Government aid programme.] The purely monetary aspects are irrelevant but this does not mean that the real effects are neutral, since in all probability negative benefits (lower GDP) would result from any such ill thought out subsidy, as resources almost inevitably become mis-allocated.


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> Yes, of course, or be a Paganini, though the caprices are still fantastic music and classics of virtuoso literature, it was not a virtuoso violinist who wrote the Beethoven, Berg or Stravinsky fiddle concerti


Yes indeed, obviously not a career path suitable to all (or even to many)... 

Looking back, were composers excellent performers?

Bach - yes
Handel - ???
CPE Bach - yes
Haydn - no
Mozart - yes
Beethoven - yes
Schubert - no
Schumann- ??? (but his wife was)
Chopin - yes
Brahms - yes (at least in bawdy houses...)
Wagner - ???

I lose it then, but later the Russian guys. Otherwise I have no idea. Maybe others can add to this.


----------



## Guest

Wood said:


> Hey Bulldog
> 
> I just put Albuquerque into Google Images. It looks like you're in a wonderful location.
> 
> No, sorry but that isn't my intended meaning at all.
> 
> 1. 'Printing money' is a loaded expression which suggests images of Germans carrying wheelbarrow loads of money to represent their four hourly pay packet in the 1920s. Actually the money supply is increased by debiting a government bank account and crediting the classical music organisation's account.
> 
> 2. Choosing to give money to classical music negatively impacts those who would have otherwise received the money. So people could get mad about money going to music when it could be spent on the Health Service, roads, the poor, the military etc.
> 
> 3. Increasing the money supply doesn't automatically mean increasing the rate of inflation. This is one of those myths propagated by academics (like Ken OC?), politicians and the compliant media.
> Where there is unemployed resources in the economy, there is no upward pressure on prices. Inflation will occur as full employment is approached, only in those sectors where there is a shortage of supply.
> 
> It is sad that what you have stated is widely considered to be general knowledge, or common sense. Actually it is bunkum.


Unfortunately, all of the above is highly misleading and inaccurate.

Subsidies will distort markets unless there are good reasons to believe that they are given to correct any differences between "social costs and benefits" and "private costs and benefits." Such effects are often called "externalities" since they reflect any gains or losses that occur outside the confines of the individual, so that market prices do not capture the whole effects as borne by society as a whole (e.g. carbon emissions from automobiles).

In situations where wider social effects exist, then subsidies (or taxes as appropriate) may be needed to correct what would otherwise involve a misallocation of resources. Otherwise, the granting of subsidies will actually create a misallocation of resources by over-stimulating the supply of the subsidised good or service at the expense of lost production elsewhere in the economy. This assumes, perfectly reasonably, that the overall level of employment/income is fixed by macro-economic considerations

The mere financing mechanism of subsidy is trivial in comparison with the magnitudes involved on the real side of the economy affected by mis-applied subsidies. The effect on inflation caused my monetary expansion is also irrelevant as any effects would be very small, and in any case we are likely talking about a diversion of public expenditure away from other areas towards the stimulation of new music.

I can assure anyone reading this that the vast majority of academic or professional economists would concur with what I have written, and refute the simplistic thesis put forward in the text quoted.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> KenOC said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not "support" classical music.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been tempted many times to risk the wrath of the moderators by accusing you of exactly this. Thanks very much for taking the pressure off!!
> 
> Of course you don't. The programmers are already simply dictating what happens to coincide with your tastes. So it probably doesn't seem like dictating at all. If you already like what you're getting and see no reason to go beyond that, you're not likely to see the dictating that's already going on as being dictating at all. Only if there's a change from the status quo do people start whinging about dictating.
> 
> You know, because marketplace.
Click to expand...

This made me grin. It seems to be a confession that you only care about your own interests, and possibly others with minority interests, and if the concert programmers do not cater for them they are doing something wrong.

This is very strange logic. Just think what the result would be if they tried to cater for all conceivable musical interests. There would be such a ragbag of material that it would simply crowd out what most people want.

It is a simple fact that people with minority musical interests should not expect concert programmers to allocate scarce time and resources to it in the main halls. There are plenty of smaller venues where this material can be performed. No amount of complaints from places like this will make one iota of difference to the status quo.


----------



## Wood

Yardrax said:


> Never seen a John Adams T-shirt, though maybe I'm not looking in the right places).


----------



## Winterreisender

Freischutz said:


> Even if we know what the majority of an audience wants, to argue for programs on that simplistic basis is advocating for the marginalisation of minority interests in favour of populism. This ought to strike people as ironic because the _rest_ of modern popular culture completely marginalises the _whole_ of classical music - old and new - and yet all of us on this forum fight for what space, opportunity, time and money we can, because we strongly believe that classical music is of great aesthetic and cultural importance even if it's only a minority that values it.
> 
> But advocates of conservative programs are living by a double standard. As soon as we narrow this audience down from the whole population to just classical fans, these advocates shout, "Quick! Out with the principles! Forget the minority interests! Majority rule! Majority rule!" It's hypocrisy.
> 
> I'm simply saying that for _exactly the same_ reasons that we do what we can to support "ordinary" classical music despite competition from the rest of modern popular culture, we should _also_ support contemporary music despite competition from classical populism.


But fans of classical music in general are happy with their little corner away from the mainstream. We are not asking to have our classical music played on chart radio and at pop music festivals; we accept that it is generally something of a specialist interest, but we have specialist radio and specialist concerts to satisfy our needs.

But if we zoom in on the classical community, why are fans of modern "classical" music not happy with their little corner away from the classical mainstream. Why are they constantly asking to have their modern music played on mainstream classical radio stations and programmed in large concert venues?


----------



## Freischutz

Winterreisender said:


> But fans of classical music in general are happy with their little corner away from the mainstream. We are not asking to have our classical music played on chart radio and at pop music festivals; we accept that it is generally something of a specialist interest, but we have specialist radio and specialist concerts to satisfy our needs.
> 
> But if we zoom in on the classical community, why are fans of modern "classical" music not happy with their little corner away from the classical mainstream. Why are they constantly asking to have their modern music played on mainstream classical radio stations and programmed in large concert venues?


The key difference is that classical music (old and new) generally doesn't overlap with popular culture, so it can be apart from the mainstream so long as the mainstream respects its existence (which it doesn't always). By contrast, classical and contemporary music need to have a much closer relationship because they're part of the same tradition. You might continue to deny that the tradition lives on (and I'm thinking about a thread for that), but you cannot deny - because it is a "true fact" as they say - that new music is still being written for the same musicians, ensembles and venues that are part of the classical music industry. We're all in the same play-pen and have to learn to share the toys.

To go on with the analogy, we shouldn't have to be content with being segregated in a smaller part of the play-pen away from everyone else just because some of those other kids don't like the look of our toys. What if it was decided that _your_ toys were unworthy of sharing and they got segregated in their own little corner while all the new toys came out to play in a big open space? "That would be unfair! There are more of us playing with the old toys!" Well maybe the old toys should have a little more space than the new toys, but so long as the new toys are kept away from everyone else - so long as they're hidden in their own little corner - there are lots and lots of curious children out there who are never going to see or hear the new toys because of how obscured they are, so the number of children playing with the new toys will never have a fair opportunity to get bigger. You point to the smallness of our corner and say it deserves to be that small when, in reality, its size has been artificially manufactured by various vested interests.

"The internet" in this scenario is an absolutely gigantic chest full to the brim with toys of all kinds. Some new, some old, some good, some dull, everyone feeling differently about each one. Some kids like to sit in the chest and just play with whatever comes up, some really just want to find something good without having to wade through all the rubbish toys, and others really need friends or people 'in the know' to recommend toys that they might like, especially if the toys are new. They can't just dive into the chest and find what's good - someone else has to take one out, put it in the pen, and see if the kids like it. Sometimes they won't, but you have to try!

The essential point is this: no one should be categorising the toys and fencing them off in groups of different sizes depending on how many people are playing with them at one snapshot in time. All the different types of toys should be able to move freely about the pen so that everyone gets a fair chance to play with them. Sometimes, we might put a few more new toys in to see if the kids like them - maybe they'll like them, maybe only some will like them, maybe some will have to learn to let others like them, maybe everyone will start crying and throwing things around, how will we ever know if we don't do it?


----------



## starry

Winterreisender said:


> why are fans of modern "classical" music not happy with their little corner away from the classical mainstream.


I think most are, but as I think may have been said here people get provoked by comments that are just prejudicial to that music. It's best to ignore comments just designed to provoke, I think they just condemn themselves anyway. If others get taken in by them that's their problem.


----------



## science

I don't think they are happy with their "little corner." They want more respect; it's a zero-sum game in their minds much of the time. You take a guy who enjoys their "little corner" but isn't devoted to it with sufficient fervor, and they will treat him as an actual _enemy_ of their music. They have to deny this, of course, but I've seen it enough.

(Of course just in my case it isn't only that - I actively deny some of the cultural assumptions that underpin a lot of their music, especial the old elitist definitions of "art" and "progress," and perhaps worst of all I maintain that openly scorning people who don't enjoy our music is a bad strategy for popularizing the music [just in case that's actually the goal]. But my other sins including listening to Brahms and Johnny Cash a lot, and insisting that music before 1600 is even more neglected than music after 1995 or whatever arbitrary line we want to draw - all this together rather than merely my insufficient devotion insures that no amount of listening to Lachenmann or whatever is going to earn me a little shade from the heat of that aforementioned scorn. But that's fine, as long as I enjoy the music, right? And as for the scorn, I'll settle for trying to give as well as I get. It's a lost cause but it's a matter of principle: I will not be out-uglied on the internet!)


----------



## mmsbls

Several posts have been deleted because they contained inappropriate comments or were off-topic. Please remember our Terms of Service:



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.
> 
> Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> ...a musically literate, performing public.


So you do agree with one of the main goals of this thread. Good!

I too am interested in trying to develop a musically literate, performing public. That would change the landscape considerably.

We are, however momentarily, in agreement.


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


>


That's a* guy *in the photo.


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> The essence of Freischutz's position is that he is not interested in the majority being satisfied. He wants the totality to feel satisfied with concert programming. Since he does not know what the totality wants (as opposed to that of the majority), he is forced into the position of arguing that everything of potential interest should be performed.


Forced into the position of arguing for how all concerts used to be in the 18th century, miscellanies, with something for everyone--which inevitably means something that any someone might dislike, as well. But that was OK, then. Everyone was clear about the difference between private (where you are in complete control of what you experience) and public (where you have to give up some of your control because there are other people involved), and so they cheerfully went to concerts knowing that there would be things they wouldn't like. So what? Someone else there would like those things, and since the someone else's were respected (and they of course respected you), everyone was content.

Yes. What a terrible situation to have to be forced into defending.

Otherwise, what we are asking for in this thread, and the other members of "we" can correct me if I get this wrong, is for the present balkanization of the classical world to be reversed. Putting every little group into their own little section with little interaction with other people in other groups has never been anything but unhealthy.

A side thread has been to ask, futilely, that venting be eliminated.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Forced into the position of arguing for how all concerts used to be in the 18th century, miscellanies, with something for everyone--which inevitably means something that any someone might dislike, as well. But that was OK, then. Everyone was clear about the difference between private (where you are in complete control of what you experience) and public (where you have to give up some of your control because there are other people involved), and so they cheerfully went to concerts knowing that there would be things they wouldn't like. So what? Someone else there would like those things, and since the someone else's were respected (and they of course respected you), everyone was content.
> 
> Yes. What a terrible situation to have to be forced into defending.


I have already dealt with this point in my post 374, repeated below (substitute 18thC for 19thC; it makes no difference):



Partita said:


> What has 19th C concert programming practice got to do with anything in this thread?
> 
> This issue seems to me to be a red herring. In the 19th C they clearly didn't have radio or, for most of it, hardly anything by way of recorded material. Given this paucity of media channels, it was inevitable that concert halls would be hosts to diverse musical innovations, as otherwise there would have been much reduced no opportunity for audiences to be acquainted with any of it.
> 
> But that's a bygone age and things have changed enormously. Especially since the 1950s, with the growth of all manner of new media outlets, there has been far less need to stuff modern concerts with all and sundry types of material, merely to allow audiences to gain a wider appreciation of what's available. However, this is your central thesis which is clearly wrong.
> 
> If audiences want greater variety than what may be currently offered in their local concert venue, they can ask for it. If they don't get it, the presumption must be that there is inadequate demand, not that the market is failing to deliver an adequate supply resulting from some kind of market failure.


----------



## Blake

I think they did a movie about this….



Ah, nevermind… that's "What Women Want."


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Several posts have been deleted because they contained inappropriate comments or were off-topic.


The deleting, however, means that we no longer have any examples of what the moderators decide is inappropriate or off-topic. We each of us, clearly, has a different idea as to what "inappropriate" or "off-topic" mean. The only meanings of either that are important, however, are the ones the moderators decide on. And without examples of those, we are back to where we were before those posts were deleted, wondering if and when any more or less innocent remark (or justifiably blunt remark) is going to catch the attention of the moderators and be deemed "inappropriate."

I could find hundreds of comments that have not been deleted that are plenty incivil and disrespectful--comments that have been sitting quietly in dozens of threads for several years. They haven't been deleted, so one could almost conclude that the moderators do not find them incivil or disrespectful.

I also don't think that "inappropriate" and "off-topic" belong together. Side-topics branch off the main topic all the time. And should continue to do so.

And I realize that this post is "off-topic" and so is in danger of being deleted. That is, if my realization matches the realizations of the moderators. In the absence of examples, however, I'm in the dark.


----------



## Nereffid

some guy said:


> The deleting, however, means that we no longer have any examples of what the moderators decide is inappropriate or off-topic. We each of us, clearly, has a different idea as to what "inappropriate" or "off-topic" mean. The only meanings of either that are important, however, are the ones the moderators decide on. And without examples of those, we are back to where we were before those posts were deleted, wondering if and when any more or less innocent remark (or justifiably blunt remark) is going to catch the attention of the moderators and be deemed "inappropriate."
> 
> I could find hundreds of comments that have not been deleted that are plenty incivil and disrespectful--comments that have been sitting quietly in dozens of threads for several years. They haven't been deleted, so one could almost conclude that the moderators do not find them incivil or disrespectful.
> 
> I also don't think that "inappropriate" and "off-topic" belong together. Side-topics branch off the main topic all the time. And should continue to do so.
> 
> And I realize that this post is "off-topic" and so is in danger of being deleted. That is, if my realization matches the realizations of the moderators. In the absence of examples, however, I'm in the dark.


I don't have the willpower to go back and work out which ones might have been deleted, but there were two, anyway, that were nothing other than comments made by 2 posters regarding a 3rd (not addressed to the 3rd). I saw them as being nothing other than personal attacks. I'd call them mean-spirited, myself, and they struck me as quite different from the, uh, regular nastiness one can see here!


----------



## Guest

Partita said:


> If audiences want greater variety than what may be currently offered in their local concert venue, they can ask for it.


The assumption here, that "audiences" have enough knowledge to want the things that aren't currently offered, is one of the things being questioned. I cannot imagine that "audiences" have that much knowledge. You cannot want what you do not know about. Unless what you want is to be exposed to what you don't know yet. And that is where the whole attitude thing comes in. You say that the chief difference between the 18th and 19th centuries is a technological one. I say that it is an ideological one.

You can see the shift in ideology happening in the 19th century. You can see the shift becoming complete, _in the nineteenth century,_ long before technology had any effect at all. You can see the results of the shift in the early twentieth century as well, before any technological effects. The first technology to have any sort of effect was radio, and radio started out as a venue for radical and avant garde art.

In any event, the kinds of attitudes we are talking about in this thread, and the kinds of balkanization that those attitudes have created, which were all in place long before radio or television or the internet, are not attitudes that have been affected at all by the new technologies. Your conclusion "that there is inadequate demand" is actually true. And what we are trying to establish here is why that is so. You would say that it's so because people don't want greater variety. We are saying that it's so because people do not know--are not being permitted to know--what is actually out there. Available has been a word much bandied about on this thread. But it's a slippery concept. "Available" is only important if people know. If you do not know what is available, its availability is worth exactly nothing.

If I've got it right, we are asking for two things on this thread. That the attitudes be examined and hopefully rejected. (Start by assuming that contemporary art music is fine. See what that gets you.) And that there be more opportunities to know things.


----------



## PetrB

Winterreisender said:


> 1.) But fans of classical music in general are happy with their little corner away from the mainstream. We are not asking to have our classical music played on chart radio and at pop music festivals; we accept that it is generally something of a specialist interest, but we have specialist radio and specialist concerts to satisfy our needs.
> 
> But if we zoom in on the classical community,
> 2a.) why are fans of modern "classical" music not happy with their little corner away from the classical mainstream.
> 
> 2b.) Why are they constantly asking to have their modern music played on mainstream classical radio stations and programmed in large concert venues?


Just look at your phrasing here, and realize, de facto and more than likely done unawares...

1.) You, Me & We -- as lovers of classical music in general -- have already wholesale accepted being a minority, and have also to a degree _accepted that segregation from the rest of society by the simple fact of our taste in music.'

2a.) _ Then, out pops all too readily cliche phraseology and logic associated with the pro arguments used by every separatist or fascist who ever thought creating a ghetto to isolate one socio demographic group from the rest of society was actually a good and desirable thing. [In fact, here, 2b.) you've proposed a ghetto within a ghetto for a minority within that minority]. Like those who fall into that easy trap of thinking, you mention the isolation as if it were a good and desirable thing ! 

At least, within the already sort of ghetto of that 3% who decidedly much favor classical music, those who are really keen on the contemporary are not often wholesale rejecting entire previous eras of earlier classical music, where those who like a lot of the pre-modern and pre-contemporary music really seem quite upset or angered whenever a bit of modern or contemporary music shows up 'mixing' with _"their"_ darling children. Indeed, reactions are so strong they are near to similar reactions we already have witnessed and know about, those who are horrified and terrorized about purity of race being spoiled by people intermarrying, or the property values in their neighborhood plummeting to all time lows if 'people of color' or a different religious belief move in.

Questioning why those contemporary music fans "aren't happy with their little corner _away_ from the classical mainstream is a euphemistic gloss on saying _'Why did you not obey when we said. 'Keep Away!'"_ Or, _Isn't the tiny ghetto we built for you cozy enough for you?_

.... Yeah, right. Right after all those who only like older classical music and dislike modern or contemporary music agree to use the servants' entrance and not the main doors of the way in to talk classical or any and all concert halls in the world -- oh, and you have to sit way in the rear of the uppermost galleries so we don't have to be reminded you exist 

_Now, lets lighten this up a huge amount to the in proportion limit that this is all "just music" we are talking about._

Therein lies the wonderment why so many of the more conservative classical music lovers are so wary, suspect and fearful of 'being exposed' to more modern and contemporary classical, especially if you consider 
classical music, 1000 a.c.e. to 2014 a.c.e.
... well then, 1890 to 2014 is one tenth of all of it! I don't think that the music of the most recently past one hundred and thirty years (and its listeners) merits being sent around to use the servant's entrance, or to be condescendingly given its own little ghetto neighborhood, or any of the other so charming things which some people have done instead of facing irrational fears and prejudices. _It has passed its tests and earned its right to sit anywhere on the damned bus it likes, not just the back of the bus._ 
[If, like many, the classical repertoire you listen to spans far less than that thousand years, but, like many that span of what you listen to is from only the mid 1700's to the very late 1800's or 'just a titch' beyond, then modern and contemporary repertoire are more like one fifth of fourth of the music presently in circulation and actively being played.]

Too, then, it is time for a whole lotta people to realize their prejudice _is_ a really strong prejudice and nothing more, and to condition themselves -- no matter how uncomfortable they feel, or how much they feel their comfort zones have been invaded -- to keep their ears open, their mouths shut, and just deal with the other passengers on the classical music bus. Most everyone has paid their fares, the same amount (o.k. kids and seniors, free or discount, and that, really if things were right within the classical music community, would put and end to both the segregation and a whole lotta unproductive talk.


----------



## Nereffid

PetrB said:


> Then, out pops all too readily cliche phraseology and logic associated with the pro arguments used by every separatist or *fascist* who ever thought creating a ghetto to isolate one socio demographic group from the rest of society was actually a good and desirable thing.


Paging Mr Godwin... Will Mr Mike Godwin please pick up a courtesy phone...

:lol::devil:


----------



## PetrB

Nereffid said:


> Paging Mr Godwin... Will Mr Mike Godwin please pick up a courtesy phone...
> 
> :lol::devil:


I thought his theory was how long it took for a thread to run before the word "Nazi" appeared. N.B. I used the more generic term, _fascist._


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> The assumption here, that "audiences" have enough knowledge to want the things that aren't currently offered, is one of the things being questioned. I cannot imagine that "audiences" have that much knowledge. You cannot want what you do not know about. Unless what you want is to be exposed to what you don't know yet. And that is where the whole attitude thing comes in. You say that the chief difference between the 18th and 19th centuries is a technological one. I say that it is an ideological one.
> 
> You can see the shift in ideology happening in the 19th century. You can see the shift becoming complete, _in the nineteenth century,_ long before technology had any effect at all. You can see the results of the shift in the early twentieth century as well, before any technological effects. The first technology to have any sort of effect was radio, and radio started out as a venue for radical and avant garde art.
> 
> In any event, the kinds of attitudes we are talking about in this thread, and the kinds of balkanization that those attitudes have created, which were all in place long before radio or television or the internet, are not attitudes that have been affected at all by the new technologies. Your conclusion "that there is inadequate demand" is actually true. And what we are trying to establish here is why that is so. You would say that it's so because people don't want greater variety. We are saying that it's so because people do not know--are not being permitted to know--what is actually out there. Available has been a word much bandied about on this thread. But it's a slippery concept. "Available" is only important if people know. If you do not know what is available, its availability is worth exactly nothing.
> 
> If I've got it right, we are asking for two things on this thread. That the attitudes be examined and hopefully rejected. (Start by assuming that contemporary art music is fine. See what that gets you.) And that there be more opportunities to know things.


I agree that there is considerable consumer ignorance about classical music even among those who profess to enjoy it. I would hazard a guess that there is far more ignorance than enlightenment amongst the masses than is typical here where the general level seems to be much higher. I have asked people who profess an interest in the subject about their favourite composers and the best that one person could come up was Einaudi. In many other cases, they can barely list more than a few names before they begin to falter. On another occasion, I asked someone I knew liked J S Bach the same question, and they responded Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, and then stony silence. Most people know only a very narrow range of classical music, and some may well like material they haven't heard previously.

I am perfectly happy with the notion that more and better advertising of new classical music, or classical music in general, may be required. I think that children should be obliged to learn more about music than is normally the case in most standard curricula. I have no problems with the idea of using major concert halls to air new music, or old music that is not that popular, provided it does not clash with something else which is based on a proven formula. People should be free to open as many small venues for classical musical pursuits as they see fit, subject to meeting the usual planning regs etc.

I am personally very keen to try out a local venue to listen to new music that I think might appeal, and have done so on a number of occasions (in London and NYC) and have usually come away quite pleased. I am a regular attendee of the BBC Proms, although for the past 3 years it has not been possible. At these events there is usually quite a bit of new material, most of which I am happy to try out.

Despite this, I have no belief that the present mainstream concert programming schedules in major concert venues, or typical schedules played on the various radio channels (even including the UK's Classic FM) is anything other than optimal for meeting their customer requirements in the large. I do not see that any outside interference in any of these schedules would be overall beneficial, other than suggestions and comments made by the relevant audience of that media outlet directly to the programming authorities. For example, I have submitted my views on the recent changes in BBC Radio 3's scheduling, and they are critical in a number of areas. I hope they may change some of them one day to suit my preferences rather better, but if they do not I will accept it, or find some other way to fill the gaps, as I have already done.

However, I do not expect the BBC or any other organisation, radio or concert, to experiment wildly in their scheduling of different types of music merely on the possibility that what they have at present is wrong, and that some other very different combination could be better. It is up to them to experiment at the margins as they see fit, this being the case because I have much greater faith in the efficiency of markets than you evidently do. That is not to say that I always like the results the market produces, just that I do not like any of the alternatives that might result from arbitrary interference by outsiders, especially in the light of some of the peculiar suggestions I have seen mooted here.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> The deleting, however, means that we no longer have any examples of what the moderators decide is inappropriate or off-topic. We each of us, clearly, has a different idea as to what "inappropriate" or "off-topic" mean. The only meanings of either that are important, however, are the ones the moderators decide on. And without examples of those, we are back to where we were before those posts were deleted, wondering if and when any more or less innocent remark (or justifiably blunt remark) is going to catch the attention of the moderators and be deemed "inappropriate."


Leaving the examples in place would give rise to a less comfortable posting environment than we want at TC. We do have our Terms of Service that describe generally what is not allowed. We could display specific examples of posts that violate the Terms of Service, but I doubt that would help much. Some members would ignore them, or disregard them, or push the limit, or contend that their post differed in some critical way, etc. We could end up spending a lot of time with little benefit.



some guy said:


> I could find hundreds of comments that have not been deleted that are plenty incivil and disrespectful--comments that have been sitting quietly in dozens of threads for several years. They haven't been deleted, so one could almost conclude that the moderators do not find them incivil or disrespectful.


I'm not sure what percentage of total posts on TC moderators have viewed, but I assume it's small. _We simply never see them_. I expect that there may be many examples of posts that violate the Terms of Service somewhere on TC. We also do not delete every single post that we deem inappropriate.



some guy said:


> I also don't think that "inappropriate" and "off-topic" belong together. Side-topics branch off the main topic all the time. And should continue to do so.


People have complained that we don't always tell them when posts are deleted. When we delete many from one thread, it's simplest to post a comment in the thread with a short explanation. I use "inappropriate or off-topic" as a generic explanation.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> The music industry has a problem that all its demographics are guilty of. Listeners are guilty, recording companies are guilty, concert organisers are guilty, and the list goes on.


Life's a compromise. So long as we actively partake of our consumer society - and also when we don't - we're all guilty of something. Why should our musical habits be any different?

If I am accused of exercising choice over what I buy to listen to, and what I go to see, I'll gladly confess my guilt.


----------



## Freischutz

MacLeod said:


> Life's a compromise. So long as we actively partake of our consumer society - and also when we don't - we're all guilty of something. Why should our musical habits be any different?
> 
> If I am accused of exercising choice over what I buy to listen to, and what I go to see, I'll gladly confess my guilt.


I have absolutely no idea what relevance this has to anything.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> I have absolutely no idea what relevance this has to anything.


Not sure how I can help you understand my point. You were pointing the finger at everyone involved in the transactions about music. I would reject the idea that everyone's 'guilty'.


----------



## Winterreisender

PetrB said:


> Just look at your phrasing here, and realize, de facto and more than likely done unawares...
> 
> 1.) You, Me & We -- as lovers of classical music in general -- have already wholesale accepted being a minority, and have also to a degree _accepted that segregation from the rest of society by the simple fact of our taste in music.'
> 
> 2a.) _ Then, out pops all too readily cliche phraseology and logic associated with the pro arguments used by every separatist or fascist who ever thought creating a ghetto to isolate one socio demographic group from the rest of society was actually a good and desirable thing. [In fact, here, 2b.) you've proposed a ghetto within a ghetto for a minority within that minority]. Like those who fall into that easy trap of thinking, you mention the isolation as if it were a good and desirable thing !
> 
> At least, within the already sort of ghetto of that 3% who decidedly much favor classical music, those who are really keen on the contemporary are not often wholesale rejecting entire previous eras of earlier classical music, where those who like a lot of the pre-modern and pre-contemporary music really seem quite upset or angered whenever a bit of modern or contemporary music shows up 'mixing' with _"their"_ darling children. Indeed, reactions are so strong they are near to similar reactions we already have witnessed and know about, those who are horrified and terrorized about purity of race being spoiled by people intermarrying, or the property values in their neighborhood plummeting to all time lows if 'people of color' or a different religious belief move in.
> 
> Questioning why those contemporary music fans "aren't happy with their little corner _away_ from the classical mainstream is a euphemistic gloss on saying _'Why did you not obey when we said. 'Keep Away!'"_ Or, _Isn't the tiny ghetto we built for you cozy enough for you?_
> 
> .... Yeah, right. Right after all those who only like older classical music and dislike modern or contemporary music agree to use the servants' entrance and not the main doors of the way in to talk classical or any and all concert halls in the world -- oh, and you have to sit way in the rear of the uppermost galleries so we don't have to be reminded you exist
> 
> _Now, lets lighten this up a huge amount to the in proportion limit that this is all "just music" we are talking about._
> 
> Therein lies the wonderment why so many of the more conservative classical music lovers are so wary, suspect and fearful of 'being exposed' to more modern and contemporary classical, especially if you consider
> classical music, 1000 a.c.e. to 2014 a.c.e.
> ... well then, 1890 to 2014 is one tenth of all of it! I don't think that the music of the most recently past one hundred and thirty years (and its listeners) merits being sent around to use the servant's entrance, or to be condescendingly given its own little ghetto neighborhood, or any of the other so charming things which some people have done instead of facing irrational fears and prejudices. _It has passed its tests and earned its right to sit anywhere on the damned bus it likes, not just the back of the bus._
> [If, like many, the classical repertoire you listen to spans far less than that thousand years, but, like many that span of what you listen to is from only the mid 1700's to the very late 1800's or 'just a titch' beyond, then modern and contemporary repertoire are more like one fifth of fourth of the music presently in circulation and actively being played.]
> 
> Too, then, it is time for a whole lotta people to realize their prejudice _is_ a really strong prejudice and nothing more, and to condition themselves -- no matter how uncomfortable they feel, or how much they feel their comfort zones have been invaded -- to keep their ears open, their mouths shut, and just deal with the other passengers on the classical music bus. Most everyone has paid their fares, the same amount (o.k. kids and seniors, free or discount, and that, really if things were right within the classical music community, would put and end to both the segregation and a whole lotta unproductive talk.


I'm not sure if you are seriously suggesting that the division of music listeners according to musical tastes resembles fascism? 

Here's another example (already alluded to by a few earlier posts). I am a particular fan of Renaissance and Medieval music, which is very rarely programmed in large concert halls, especially in the same concerts as the established repertoire of the Romantic era, yet I accept that there are regular early music concerts at smaller venues (e.g. churches or early music festivals) which cater to my specialist/niche interest. I don't go pointing the finger at fascist concert programmers who want to segregate me and my fellow Renaissance enthusiasts into musical ghettos.

It's quite simple really. Fans of Renaissance music accept that their music is a slight niche away from classical music more generally. Fans of Bluegrass music accept that their music is a slight niche away from country music more generally. Fans of Death Metal accept that their music is a slight niche away from rock music more generally. It seems as if you are the only ones who want to force your niche music into the mainstream.


----------



## Guest

I have not seen any ideas on how a more comprehensive range of classical music might be programmed at the main concert centres on in radio schedules, assuming this to be a desirable aim.

There have been suggestions about the type of classical music that should be given greater prominence, but I am not referring to that aspect. 

I am asking instead about the actual methods by which the programmers and schedulers of these events should be tackled to ensure that they do provide a more comprehensive array of music than they would otherwise be inclined to do. I accept that individual audience members may wish to lobby for change, but what procedures might be applied if the programmers do not change their schedules sufficiently to meet the concerns expressed by the pro-lobby here? 

If anyone has any ideas, other than nationalising the relevant media caboodle and forcing them to comply, it would be interesting to hear about them.


----------



## Wood

Winterreisender said:


> I'm not sure if you are seriously suggesting that the division of music listeners according to musical tastes resembles fascism?
> 
> Here's another example (already alluded to by a few earlier posts). I am a particular fan of Renaissance and Medieval music, which is very rarely programmed in large concert halls, especially in the same concerts as the established repertoire of the Romantic era, yet I accept that there are regular early music concerts at smaller venues (e.g. churches or early music festivals) which cater to my specialist/niche interest. I don't go pointing the finger at fascist concert programmers who want to segregate me and my fellow Renaissance enthusiasts into musical ghettos.
> 
> It's quite simple really. Fans of Renaissance music accept that their music is a slight niche away from classical music more generally. Fans of Bluegrass music accept that their music is a slight niche away from country music more generally. Fans of *Death Metal* accept that their music is a slight niche away from rock music more generally. It seems as if you are the only ones who want to force your niche music into the mainstream.


What in God's name is Death Metal??


----------



## Winterreisender

Wood said:


> What in God's name is Death Metal??


something best left underground


----------



## Guest

Winterreisender said:


> It seems as if you are the only ones who want to force your niche music into the mainstream.


Indeed, this is the point that I alluded to in my previous post.

It's the main area of this entire discussion that has not been probed carefully enough, despite its quite obvious potential for completely undermining the whole thesis that a wider range of music allegedly needs to be performed in the main venues.

It would be useful if we could get some clear suggestions from these people about exactly how they do propose "forcing" their musical suggestions onto an unwilling media industry, should this prove to be case, as seems highly likely.

Here's a challenge. I don't reckon they can come up with anything that sounds remotely plausible. But I may be wrong. We'll see ...


----------



## PetrB

Winterreisender said:


> I am a particular fan of Renaissance and Medieval music, which is very rarely programmed in large concert halls, especially in the same concerts as the established repertoire of the Romantic era, yet I accept that there are regular early music concerts at smaller venues which cater to my specialist/niche interest.
> 
> .... It's quite simple really. Fans of Renaissance music accept that their music is a slight niche away from classical music more generally.


You're right in that if you want Medieval or Renaissance music, you should expect a specialized venue, not because the music is that much more distant in time from later classical, but all to the point, the instruments used and the techniques to play those should not be expected of ensembles made up of current, up to date instruments.

There is no such real split when it comes to later classical music and modern contemporary music, so no reason to expect it on apart programs 

I still maintain the slightest squawk, the more "suspect" of what this new music being suggested for a greater degree of integration on the same programs which regularly program older common practice music is more a matter of irrational fears, or a complaint from those whom I would call musical tourist sentimentalists, who only want to visit and revisit the common practice 'greats,' with which they are most comfortable.

Programming newer works regularly is quite in place with many of the worlds' 'major' orchestras -- it is the smaller town's orchestra, lesser funded, with a likely far less adventurous audience, where it becomes perhaps more a retro museum with nary an even occasional tip o the hat to later music.


----------



## Guest

Winterreisender said:


> Fans of Death Metal accept that their music is a slight niche away from rock music more generally.


I used to be a big fan of all sorts of metal, as well as electronica, punk, progressive, new wave, alternative, grunge - virtually the whole rock scene. On top of all that, I was also keen on folk, blue grass, blues, doo-***, country, Irish, soul, r&b, even some rap, and hip-hop. There isn't much of any of this of notoriety that I don't possess on CD. I don't play much of it these days but that's another matter.

The point is that when I was into that material in a big way it never occurred to me that there was anything odd about the fact that the only way to see some live bands was in often quite pokey venues, such as "pubs" or small backstreet venues in some cases with a few undesirables lurking around outside, etc. I thought nothing of it.

It never occurred to me, and I do not recall coming across anybody else who may have thought otherwise, that it was a pity that most of it wasn't on at places like the Birmingham NEC, O2, Wembley Arena etc. It was simply obvious that venues like that had a largely different clientele, and there was no way that merely wishing for better and bigger venues on that scale was ever going to happen.

The kind of sentiments being expressed here by some about some of the less popular styles of classical music is a complete aberration compared with the attitude that I experienced in other genres. To all intents and purposes it is a waste of time even thinking about it, quite frankly, as it won't get anywhere in view of the lack of any plausible solutions.


----------



## Freischutz

It's been fun playing 34 pages of Whack-a-Mole, but seeing as the moles never stay down no matter how hard the hammer, it's time for me to call this game quits.


----------



## Guest

Freischutz said:


> It's been fun playing 34 pages of Whack-a-Mole, but seeing as the moles never stay down no matter how hard the hammer, it's time for me to call this game quits.


You mean you are quitting before attempting an answer to my simple but fundamental question asking how you propose to force changes that you propose upon what is most likely to be an unwilling industry?


----------



## PetrB

Winterreisender said:


> It seems as if you are the only ones who want to force your niche music into the mainstream.


With the majority of concert programming slating works from ca. 1750 - 1890, and the majority of that from the romantic era, then 20th century early modern (still relatively rare on many a subscription season, both symphony and opera cicuit) and of course the music of the 13 years written in or since 2001, are easily a third of all extant classical music.

That bulk of repertoire from 1890 to the present, then, does not nearly qualify as 'niche music' from outside the mainstream, _but is instead one-third of what could usually be programmed which is rarely programmed._ lol.

The more consistently you fire away at that idea, the more you look like a horrified conservative fending off "modernism" from intruding into the niche of your habituated comfort zone than anything else, regardless of the liberal cant, "I like some modern music."


----------



## dgee

I'm happy to see all sorts of music in alternative or modest venues (and a lot of the music I think we are talking about is not for conventional size or combination forces). In fact, that is where a lot of the interest is going due to failures of symphonies and opera houses to programme with a bit more conviction

But what if a professional symphony orchestra or opera house is the medium composed for? Regardless of whether these "deserve to be heard" or whatever, where will I hear Gruppen , Spiegel, Imagin'd Corners, Uaxuctum, Kraft or any one of a number of "fully specced" modernist operas? As I don't live in a major world city where these things do come up now and again or a festival town, the answer is either by travelling, or through the unstinting efforts of one or a few charismatic individuals to make something like one of these happen.

The thing is, and I can speak with some authority here having been involved in programming, it will not be through strongly worded letters or beseeching from the artistic committee or even appealing to the previous success of similar ventures. Remember, the majority of people who make programming decisions are less well versed in music than most of the people on TC, are risk averse and keen to exercise their own power and see what they want reflected in final decisions. They need to bowled over by a charismatic vision from a strong-willed person. This stands for lots of non-standard programming, not just modern

So, yes, there is a lot of unwillingness to programme bleepy bloopy yucky chaotic noise but there's also a lot of resistance to programming all sorts of other stuff too. I don't think it reflects a very clear understanding of what people want (ie the market) and nor do I think it represents a healthy situation for large music organisations.

In mind of the fact that most people don't know what they are going to hear at the orchestra when they go (not even is as classy as TC members), I think programming should be broader. Both across the season and within individual concerts - recognise the audience is dying and something could be done to programming to recognise there may be some different audiences (younger particularly) that, in my experience, often respond well to newer music (rather than just lots of classical music that sounds like "classical music" - that's kinda for oldies and the fine music for relaxation crowd) and that performers like more variety and this creates some excitement that spills over into a more alive music-making experience

To be fair a lot of orchestras are tying this and having some success, but while the vocal, wealthy subscribers cling on they'll err on the side of conservatism and not serves the audience(s) they don't know about. Think of programming as political not market and you'll be closer to the mark


----------



## dgee

I'll make that point again at the top of a post - the model for programming is political not market


----------



## PetrB

Partita said:


> You mean you are quitting before attempting an answer to my simple but fundamental question asking how you propose to force changes that you propose upon what is most likely to be an unwilling industry?


No, quitting after playing 34 pages of Whack-a-Mole, is how I read it anyway.

Besides, not answering questions put by other thread participants is not something exclusive to any one participant here


----------



## mmsbls

Partita said:


> I am asking instead about the actual methods by which the programmers and schedulers of these events should be tackled to ensure that they do provide a more comprehensive array of music than they would otherwise be inclined to do. I accept that individual audience members may wish to lobby for change, but what procedures might be applied if the programmers do not change their schedules sufficiently to meet the concerns expressed by the pro-lobby here?


It seems there may be 3 possibilities with only one of them seemingly viable.

1) Government subsidies with associated mandates for contemporary music. I'm not especially keen on this; furthermore, I think most of us believe this outcome is quite unlikely at least in a major way.

2) Pressure from within the orchestra community. Those who support more contemporary music could write letters to, talk with, and otherwise push their local orchestra leadership. If enough people pushed contemporary music, I suspect we'd see a change, but I think we all believe that's rather unlikely.

3) Contemporary music supporters could work to increase the demand in venues outside of the large orchestras. If these venues saw significant increases in demand, eventually orchestras could take notice and begin to program contemporary music. To me this option is the only one I see as viable.


----------



## mmsbls

PetrB said:


> With the majority of concert programming slating works from ca. 1750 - 1890, and the majority of that from the romantic era, then 20th century early modern (still relatively rare on many a subscription season, both symphony and opera cicuit) and of course the music of the 13 years written in or since 2001, are easily a third of all extant classical music.
> 
> That bulk of repertoire from 1890 to the present, then, does not nearly qualify as 'niche music' from outside the mainstream, _but is instead one-third of what could usually be programmed which is rarely programmed._ lol.


I think the term niche market usually is defined by demand rather than possible supply. I believe Winterreisender was assuming that contemporary/modern music has a demand significantly smaller than earlier classical music, and therefore, qualifies as a niche market.


----------



## mmsbls

dgee said:


> Remember, the majority of people who make programming decisions are less well versed in music than most of the people on TC, are risk averse and keen to exercise their own power and see what they want reflected in final decisions. They need to bowled over by a charismatic vision from a strong-willed person. This stands for lots of non-standard programming, not just modern....
> 
> To be fair a lot of orchestras are tying this and having some success, but while the vocal, wealthy subscribers cling on they'll err on the side of conservatism and not serves the audience(s) they don't know about. Think of programming as political not market and you'll be closer to the mark


I was going to ask more about how decisions are made since I'm largely ignorant. You seem to say that much of the programing decisions are made based on the programer's exercise of power and are ultimately more political. On the other hand you say the vocal, wealthy subscribers have a lot of say as well, which of course seems to point to the market. I'm guessing that both play a role. Do you think the programers are more driven by non-market issues or market ones?


----------



## PetrB

mmsbls said:


> I think the term niche market usually is defined by demand rather than possible supply. I believe Winterreisender was assuming that contemporary/modern music has a demand significantly smaller than earlier classical music, and therefore, qualifies as a niche market.


Oh, now mentioned, I realize I stand corrected


----------



## dgee

mmsbls said:


> 3) Contemporary music supporters could work to increase the demand in venues outside of the large orchestras. If these venues saw significant increases in demand, eventually orchestras could take notice and begin to program contemporary music. To me this option is the only one I see as viable.


This moderately sensible (and let's not limit it to contemporary, let's call it underexposed or something) - but the stumbling block is that the average punter when deciding that they'd quite like to go to some classical music will most likely choose the opera house or symphony hall. The prestige matters, programming less so. It's a shame because there are probably lots of other experiences than people would enjoy more than another Traviata or Schubert 9 (heck Winterreisender, they might even go to a early music show and like it!)

While I love the contempo horror chaos that frightens old ladies and children I don't think the current programming for symphony and opera house is doing classical music any favours and totally lacks strategic cojones. In fact that could be another thread that I'm too lazy to start


----------



## dgee

mmsbls said:


> I was going to ask more about how decisions are made since I'm largely ignorant. You seem to say that much of the programing decisions are made based on the programer's exercise of power and are ultimately more political. On the other hand you say the vocal, wealthy subscribers have a lot of say as well, which of course seems to point to the market. I'm guessing that both play a role. Do you think the programers are more driven by non-market issues or market ones?


I've posted elsewhere in this thread how programming works but in a nutshell a, usually ambitious, artist generated proposal is put forward and then kicked around by (more conservative) management with budget and practical constraints in mind and then it goes to the board for sign off. The board get to hear all the rumblings of the well-to-do subscribers, or are those subscribers themselves, put on their own musical preference hats and then make decisions in an iterative process with management and some of the talent (music directors, artistic committee etc)

To me, this looks like a political model where power rather than market preference decides the final programme. Even the initial inputs are not derived from market preferences. It does not behoove the artists to come up with too whacky a programme - they know from whence their bills are paid! So essentially it's weakly artist driven and then strongly moderated by management and governance always with a certain audience (older conservative subscribers and believe me they always are because younger people do not subscribe!) in mind.


----------



## PetrB

dgee said:


> This moderately sensible (and let's not limit it to contemporary, let's call it underexposed or something) - but the stumbling block is that the average punter when deciding that they'd quite like to go to some classical music will most likely choose the opera house or symphony hall. The prestige matters, programming less so. It's a shame because there are probably lots of other experiences than people would enjoy more than another Traviata or Schubert 9 (heck Winterreisender, they might even go to a early music show and like it!)
> 
> While I love the contempo horror chaos that frightens old ladies and children I don't think the current programming for symphony and opera house is doing classical music any favours and totally lacks strategic cojones. In fact that could be another thread that I'm too lazy to start


I like it, the "Programming which Does or Does not have cojones" thread.

It's sub-heading could be:
"The Audiences who Do or Do Not have cojones" thread.


----------



## BurningDesire

Mahlerian said:


> Maybe not Adams or Glass, but you can buy Schoenberg T-shirts...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or magnets...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or pencils with his signature...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...just _who_ buys this stuff, anyway?


I want that Schoenberg shirt


----------



## PetrB

BurningDesire said:


> I want that Schoenberg shirt


It is a nice alternate to the Mahler shirt which has on it, "More Cowbell!"


----------



## Bulldog

Here in Albuquerque, the New Mexico Sym. Orchestra recently sent out its new season programming. With very little exception, every concert was nothing but well-known works by well-known composers from early romantic to late. It didn't appeal much to me, but I need to keep in mind that many concert goers only hear this music when attending concerts.

There is a more adventurous type of programming at concerts in Los Alamos which is loaded with serious PHDs working at the labs.


----------



## hpowders

Sounds pretty much what my local orchestra does. The place is always 3/4 empty. So depressing.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

How could theaters and opera houses get fuller? Well, with strippers, sexy girls and free beer. When the people enter to the room, will be given glow sticks .


----------



## Blake

OldFashionedGirl said:


> How could theaters and opera houses get fuller? Well, with strippers, sexy girls and free beer. When the people enter to the room, will be given glow sticks .


I think they have those. It's called strip clubs.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

Vesuvius said:


> I think they have those. It's called strip clubs.


Lamentably many people are just more attracted to the visual part of a concert, rather than the perfomance itself. And who knows? maybe some stripper dancing to schonberg will attract some people.


----------



## Mahlerian

By the way, here's a Philip Glass t-shirt for everyone's viewing pleasure(?).










Looks a bit like David Bowie there...


----------



## Blake

OldFashionedGirl said:


> Lamentably many people are just more attracted to the visual part of a concert, rather than the perfomance itself. *And who knows? maybe some stripper dancing to schonberg will attract some people.*


Welp, that possibly might kinda' maybe cater to some of my sensibilities.


----------



## Serge

Mahlerian said:


> Looks a bit like David Bowie there...


Looks like Pushkin.


----------



## hpowders

OldFashionedGirl said:


> How could theaters and opera houses get fuller? Well, with strippers, sexy girls and free beer. When the people enter to the room, will be given glow sticks .


I'm already lining up for my ticket!!! Of course, I'm really going for the Beethoven. :lol:


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> Sounds pretty much what my local orchestra does. The place is always 3/4 empty. So depressing.


You would think that 3/4 empty might make some on the board take that live - or - die risk, and perhaps program some music which at least provokes curiosity. They could plump up the revenues with a few added nights of good 'n' popular film score suites, which has been proven to bring them in. They could even program, say, John Adams' _Short Drive in a Fast Machine,_ as either intro, beginning of the second half, or a finale, and then put another Adams work on the regular programming -- being sure to mention it in that movie night concert's program.

At some point, a quick death is better than a long-drawn out one. May as well go for it, then, rather than prolong the agony.


----------



## PetrB

Serge said:


> Looks like Pushkin.


Philip Glass does not look nearly Octoroon enough to be Pushkin!


----------



## PetrB

OldFashionedGirl said:


> Lamentably many people are just more attracted to the visual part of a concert, rather than the perfomance itself. And who knows? maybe some stripper dancing to schonberg will attract some people.


I think _that_ is Richard Strauss' opera, _Salome._


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Partita said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking instead about the actual methods by which the programmers and schedulers of these events should be tackled to ensure that they do provide a more comprehensive array of music than they would otherwise be inclined to do. I accept that individual audience members may wish to lobby for change, but what procedures might be applied if the programmers do not change their schedules sufficiently to meet the concerns expressed by the pro-lobby here?
> 
> 
> 
> It seems there may be 3 possibilities with only one of them seemingly viable.
> 
> 1) Government subsidies with associated mandates for contemporary music. I'm not especially keen on this; furthermore, I think most of us believe this outcome is quite unlikely at least in a major way.
> 
> 2) Pressure from within the orchestra community. Those who support more contemporary music could write letters to, talk with, and otherwise push their local orchestra leadership. If enough people pushed contemporary music, I suspect we'd see a change, but I think we all believe that's rather unlikely.
> 
> 3) Contemporary music supporters could work to increase the demand in venues outside of the large orchestras. If these venues saw significant increases in demand, eventually orchestras could take notice and begin to program contemporary music. To me this option is the only one I see as viable.
Click to expand...

Looking at each:

1) Government subsidies for contemporary music. It would be a "Pandora's box" of problems deciding what music to subsidise. It is most unlikely that there would be anything like enough political support, given the very limited amount of public interest in this kind of music (a tiny fringe within a small fringe).

2) Only a slim possibility exists here. It might work if concert organisers believe that there will be adequate audience interest (either immediately or in the longer term) from programming music that is more contemporary. I doubt they will act solely on the recommendation of the orchestra community itself. Besides, it is likely that the concert organisers/venue owners will already have factored their opinions into their calculations of what to perform.

3) I find this one to be unconvincing. It doesn't seem plausible that contemporary music supporters could significantly increase the demand in venues outside of the large orchestras. They themselves might attend more frequently, but it is not clear how they could generate sufficient additional demand from other potential supporters. It assumes that the smaller venues lack the capacity to cope with any extra demand. The bigger venues might well feel that, despite possibly bigger demand, smaller places have a comparative advantage in staging such music, being possibly more atmospheric etc.


----------



## mmsbls

I think they're all long shots. Number 1 won't happen. Number 2 would happen only if some catastrophe occurs within orchestra circles (funding decreases significantly for most orchestras) and a few go contemporary rather than more conservative. Number 3 requires significant, sustained effort from a growing number of advocates. It could happen, but I doubt the desire is there. Such effort usually requires a more personal issue (racism, gay marriage, etc.).

I hope I'm wrong. It would be nice (for me) if 5 to 10 years from now orchestras chose a broader program with more new music and the public embraced the change. It would also be nice if governments around the world rejected war as a solution to anything.


----------



## Guest

Before I went out today to do that "life" thing some of you may have heard about, you know, eating, drinking, hanging out with friends, writing poetry, fixing carburetors (OK, three out of five), I thought, what the esteemed contributors of this thread really need to be reminded of is the original intent of the this thread, which was not to propose and carry out practical solutions, but to identify the problem with some precision and discuss the kinds of things that have to happen for the practical solutions to be able to be carried out.

Once the problem is identified and the attitudes that have caused the problem have changed, the practical solutions will practically happen all on their own.

Also remember, as I've pointed out already, the present circumstances have not always been in place. Things were different not much more than two hundred years ago. And the things that were true then took some effort on the part of people who were beginning to favor the old over the new to convince everyone to follow along. But they succeeded. By 1870, old music had won, and new music was in the state it is still in--technology notwithstanding--of struggling, without hope, against massive indifference (at best) and enormous rejection (at worst).

Obviously, if you do not see that state of affairs as troublesome, you're going to reject the solutions. Indeed, the solutions might seem threatening to the world you want to preserve. So in this thread, the solutions don't seem to be being attacked because people think they won't work, not really. More that the solutions are being attacked because people, some people, are very probably afraid that they will work.

Because if they do work, there will be more contemporary music available for everyone. On the internet, on the radio, in concerts. The subgroup of "everyone" that doesn't want that to happen is of course going to bend their best efforts to seeing that that never happens. Just as the people who believed in the early nineteenth century that new was better than old didn't want to see the new edged out and replaced with the old. As we know, it was.

I doubt if anyone wants to see the new edge out the old, just by the way. Might be fun to try, but soft. Let's just try to achieve some sort of balance, some sort of parity. 

And the best place to start is to acknowledge, as the "contemporary 'art' music" thread posits, that contemporary music, even the most extreme (if that's what you feel expresses the situation best), is perfectly fine. Start with that.


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> Once the problem is identified and the attitudes that have caused the problem have changed, the practical solutions will practically happen all on their own.


I agree. Unfortunately I just think that changing attitudes is an enormous endeavor. It's mind boggling difficult. It seems to take at least a generation once a problem is openly discussed (assuming it actually changes).

Thinking about this thread, I was wondering what percentage of TC members would dislike the general practice of programing contemporary music in orchestra concerts. I realize I have relatively little confidence in my answer. I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage were as low as 10% or as high as 50%. I do assume the percentages would be higher for the general classical music listening audience, but that's still a pretty wide range.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> I think they're all long shots. Number 1 won't happen. Number 2 would happen only if some catastrophe occurs within orchestra circles (funding decreases significantly for most orchestras) and a few go contemporary rather than more conservative. Number 3 requires significant, sustained effort from a growing number of advocates. It could happen, but I doubt the desire is there. Such effort usually requires a more personal issue (racism, gay marriage, etc.).
> 
> I hope I'm wrong. It would be nice (for me) if 5 to 10 years from now orchestras chose a broader program with more new music and the public embraced the change. It would also be nice if governments around the world rejected war as a solution to anything.


You basically agree with me that the chances are very slim. (1) has no chance. (2) Seems very unlikely.

We perhaps differ over item (3) where you think there might be some prospect. Here I think the kind of material we are taking about, save for some possible exceptions, is better performed in smaller venues, and to lobby for a switch to much bigger places purely for the sake of it would be doing nobody much good. The suitability or otherwise of smaller or bigger venues involve lots of delicate balancing of various considerations, and this is what markets exist for to resolve.


----------



## Guest

Partita and mmsbls, this exceedingly difficult and unlikely change of attitude thing has happened before.

There was a time, which lasted for at least a hundred years and probably more, probably quite a lot more, when the common assumption was that new is better than old, when people went to concerts _in order to_ listen to new music.

Then from about 1810 to 1870, that changed to another assumption, which was that old was better than new, that even new things that sounded old were treated with suspicion.

60 years. So that's three generations? Pretty much. More than mmsbls's rather hopeful one generation. So yeah. I know all that.

Does that mean don't start?*

It's happened before. Let's see, shall we, if it can happen again, if only as just one more swing of a constantly swinging pendulum.

*For anyone invested in the current notion, any excuse to not start will do. Natch.


----------



## science

I wonder, objectively speaking, in absolute terms, are there less composers at work than there were in the past? Is there less new music per year (disregarding of course the unapologetically popular musics and only counting the musics that aspire to something like "classical" or "art" or some other culturally-elite status) than there were in the past? 

Like, in 1513, how much new music was composed? Compared to 1613, 1713, 1813, 1913, and 2013? Granted that most of the music of the past disappeared, and maybe we should limit ourselves to stuff that was performed publicly at least once. 

I know it's impossible (probably) to get anything like accurate estimates of how many works were composed in those years, but what I'm thinking is that 2013 may well have seen the most new music of the classical/art/whatever sort, and that what we're complaining about might turn out to be (despite our best intentions) the relative status of our music (vis-a-vis popular or folk traditions - or vis-a-vis old music in that tradition) rather than its absolute availability. 

So, would any of the wiser folks here have a sense of how much actual new music was produced (in absolute terms, not relative terms) over the various centuries?


----------



## DavidA

science said:


> I wonder, objectively speaking, in absolute terms, are there less composers at work than there were in the past? Is there less new music per year (disregarding of course the unapologetically popular musics and only counting the musics that aspire to something like "classical" or "art" or some other culturally-elite status) than there were in the past?
> 
> Like, in 1513, how much new music was composed? Compared to 1613, 1713, 1813, 1913, and 2013? Granted that most of the music of the past disappeared, and maybe we should limit ourselves to stuff that was performed publicly at least once.
> 
> I know it's impossible (probably) to get anything like accurate estimates of how many works were composed in those years, but what I'm thinking is that 2013 may well have seen the most new music of the classical/art/whatever sort, and that what we're complaining about might turn out to be (despite our best intentions) the relative status of our music (vis-a-vis popular or folk traditions - or vis-a-vis old music in that tradition) rather than its absolute availability.
> 
> So, would any of the wiser folks here have a sense of how much actual new music was produced (in absolute terms, not relative terms) over the various centuries?


I don't think it's quantity of composers but what they produce. The composers today who produce accessible music tend to be swallowed up by the film industry. John Williams and Bernard Herrmann are two examples. Now whether they could have produced great 'classical' scores if they had concentrated on that genre is something we can only speculate on.


----------



## BurningDesire

PetrB said:


> No, quitting after playing 34 pages of Whack-a-Mole, is how I read it anyway.
> 
> Besides, not answering questions put by other thread participants is not something exclusive to any one participant here







:3


----------



## mmsbls

some guy said:


> 60 years. So that's three generations? Pretty much. More than mmsbls's rather hopeful one generation. So yeah. I know all that.
> 
> Does that mean don't start?*
> 
> It's happened before. Let's see, shall we, if it can happen again, if only as just one more swing of a constantly swinging pendulum.


We've debated the likelihood of change occurring, and that's always fun. But of course, you're right that whether the chance is 90% or 3%, if something is worth doing, you might as well push for it.


----------

