<p>Thought this was an upbeat, informative piece that other folks on the board might enjoy. </p>
<p>Classical</a> Music's New Golden Age by Heather Mac Donald, City Journal Summer 2010</p>
<p>Loved the descriptions of old-time concert etiquette (or lack thereof).</p>
<p>Thanks for posting the link. It is unlikely that I would ever have stumbled on it otherwise. </p>
<p>Even though I disagree with many things in the article, it article is excellent and very worthwhile reading. It is long, so save it for when you have at least 20 minutes (or longer if you read slowly, as I do).</p>
<p>“Summer” yes, “light” not so much!</p>
<p>One thought I had was that with so many high level classically trained musicians out there, perhaps it’s time for a renaissance of participatory music? Even in this forum, we see many people headed off to college with significant music experience who don’t want to become professional musicians…maybe the time has come for the renewal of community groups - chamber ensembles, orchestras, what have you…</p>
<p>Interesting piece and it is nice to see optimism where usually you see the negatives. That said, calling this a ‘golden age’ is a bit problematic, there are real, serious issues out there in the world of classical music. Yes, there probably are more people playing the music then ever before, there are more recordings, digital downloads, etc, available, but keep in mind that the population of the US and the world is much larger then it was ‘back then’. </p>
<p>I think the really scary thought about classical music is that there is a large network of schools and teachers out there preparing music students (something like 15,000 kids graduate each year, in the US, from conservatories and schools of music) but there is little expanding the base of audience…and that is the root of the real issue. I think the article simplifies when it blames ‘modern’ classical music for the loss of audience (it has a part, I suspect, the academic atonal/serialist music turned off a lot more then it ever drew in IME, and sadly that seems to be what is coming in the next generation, too but blaming that alone misses the reality), but it is a real issue. I used to go to classical concerts in the 70’s, and the audience, while not young, was probably late middle age on average, today it is way, way beyond that.</p>
<p>And where is the next generation coming from or going to come from? Schools have been cutting music budgets as fast as they can, and given the current sneering at ‘elites’ out there, how are music classes going to survive when classical music is about as elite as you can get in many people’s eyes. Even the big orchestras don’t get it. Recently there was an article in the NY Times about the NY Phil’s first year under Gilbert, and they said something to the effect that the Phil wouldn’t be doing what Dudamel was doing, i.e implementing la sistema style programs, that NY already had some great high level youth orchestras so it wasn’t needed. What was missed is that the youth orchestras in the NY area, and in many areas, are not broad based, they represent a)serious young musicians b)who already have access to serious music training due to parents or programs aimed at young serious musicians who need support.By any meaning of the world, these are elite groups (in the sense that they represent a small, top percentage). La Sistema is designed to reach those who otherwise would not be around music and exposing a large group of kids to music is what leads to later audiences,something the elite orchestras are too small to have that kind of impact, too few in number of participants.</p>
<p>What I really shudder about is what happens when the current generations are gone, from another standpoint. Classical music is a subsidized business, from the public radio stations that now carry it, to orchestras and music groups of all sorts. What happens when those making decisions about corporate donations no longer know or care about classical music? The Weils, the Roses and their like are an older generation…are the heads of UBS, Morgan Stanley and the like when they are after the boomers going to support orchestras? Will governments (more overseas then here) subsidize the music if their constituents don’t care or worse, are hostile? Think about the classical music model, and what happens when the pooh bahs who give out grants decide that orchestras and such are not going to bring them the ‘cachet’ they wish…so it isn’t just audiences, it is also the fundamental base of the support structure that may be in danger. </p>
<p>That said, classical music always has struggled in some way or the other, and there are bright spots compared to the bad old days. It wasn’t too many years ago that even being employed by a major orchestra was a part time, no benefit gig, and there is a lot more music out there then there was in the golden age, so that part is nice, and more importantly, there are still kids out there who love the music and have a passion for it (this board being testament to that), and I am pretty sure it will always be around. Still, it would be nice for it to be a more robust future, rather then a limited one, here’s hoping.</p>
<p>I actually think there is a lot of awareness that audience-building is crucial, and that education is a big part of that. Music organizations and conservatories are all doing outreach (though some cuts have occurred during the recession), and many concerts now feature lectures before or after, to enhance people’s understanding and enjoyment. Many outreach programs do reach low-income children, though parents often don’t have the means to continue past this initial exposure, and scholarships at conservatories are hard to come by.</p>
<p>The sad thing is that in our standardized, test-based educational system, music really is considered a frill, and expendable, so yes, school-based programs are suffering, and it is not certain that all of this outreach can make up for those losses. Perhaps the easing of the recession will bring it back, perhaps not.</p>
<p>I think that building new audiences while retaining the audiences already there is the tricky part. Innovations in programs that might appeal to newer members, can often alienate the traditional audience of older, more conservative folks. I have been told that the current strategy is often to mix in a more contemporary piece, with classics, and that may not change for a good while.</p>
<p>I love the idea of participatory, community music anyway. Our community has so many singing groups, community band, community orchestra, all of which also help nurture young people in the area.</p>
<p>Music prnt, I don’t agree that “atonal/serialist” music is what is coming in the next generation. Serialism is now pretty dated. The variety in “new music” is amazing, and with a little education, many traditional classical music lovers can be pretty enthusiastic. I also think that, for lack of a better term (on my part) beauty is again part of contemporary music. The pendulum always swings, but in the 21st century, there is so much composing going on, so much opportunity to share it, there may actually be many pendulums swinging at once! It is a rich and interesting mix, and one that I, for one, hope continues to make its way into, at the very least, mixed programs.</p>
<p>The only other comment I would make is that the amazing technical virtuosity that young people are developing can sometimes hinder the “heart” of the music, and the individuality of the creative artist. Perhaps the efforts to bring back the old, are also an effort to touch base again with those aspects of music, coming from a simpler time that is perceived as more “authentic.”</p>
<p>On a related note (sorry!), there was an article in today’s Times about the NY Phil using text messaging to have the audience vote on an encore…which I thought was creative and possibly a great lead-in to the inevitable message about turning off your cell phone…until they then revealed that the orchestra then sent advertising messages to the audience members and entered their phone numbers into a data bank for future marketing purposes. Boo!</p>
<p>compmom-</p>
<p>I hope you are right, my one wish would be that music is being written and performed that isn’t rigid about anything, my opinions are based simply in what I see. I for a number of reasons have heard a number of pieces by young, up and coming composers, many of whom are from the top grad schools in composition (no names used to protect the innocent and not so innocent), and what I keep hearing is something that sounds like a cheap imitation of Phillip Glass years ago (he has mellowed quite a bit, I liked his violin concertos he did recently and more then a bit of his later works) or it is very dissonant/atonal music that was all the rage for most of the 20th century, and very little of it could I find anything but an exercise in the ‘right way’ to create ‘modern music’. There are of course composers writing music of all sorts (I for one would love to have Michael Giacinno do a concert piece), and I recently heard Magnus Lindberg’s violin concerto and it was quite interesting. Still, it seems like there is some force out their training young composers to write in the ‘20th century’ idiom, that instead of IMO opening barriers, replaced it with the arrogance of the ‘post modern’ types. I keep hearing those wars are over, but then I see a young composer like Jay Greenberg, who if they dare write something that is Bernstein-esque or neo classical or romantic, it is called “slop”, while some jerk that writes a 12 tone piece that sounds like an exercise in puncturing ear drums, is a genius <em>gag</em>…I really hope those wars are over, because a lot of pretty interesting music, that happened to stay with tonality, was left in the dustbin because of a new orthodoxy…may it die the rotten death it deserved from the beginning IMO.</p>
<p>As far as virtuousity being a negative at times, you aren’t going to get an argument from me on that, I have seen plenty of that, kids who music teachers and experts drool over their ‘superior technique’, as if that is the be all and end all, when the kid is about as musical or interesting to listen to play as a CD recording of a synthesizer. Recently I saw a lot of the Menuhin competition, and there was this kid who won the juniors who had really high level technique, but whom I thought was dead musically. I couldn’t understand it when the music magazines, talking about the kids performance, were waxing on about how the kid was so musical, how he played with such soul and such, and I thought I was thinking of the wrong person. Well, some people I know saw the same kid play at a music festival in chamber groups this summer, and said he played technically really well on some tough pieces, but that the coaches and such got frustrated with him that he couldn’t seem to understand about the need to put something of himself into the music, to express it and create something unique. The coaches reputedly were amazed that he could play the piece consistently with the same level of techical polish, but that it also showed no variance in how it was played otherwise…and that isn’t going to cut it with audiences. </p>
<p>I agree there is a tug of war between the old warhorses and trying to introduce new things, and you are correct about them mixing pieces in a concert, mixing an old warhorse with a piece. My hope is with the new pieces, that they reach out to people writing from a variety of viewpoints, rather then the one that so dominated the 20th century (and led more then a few people, including the long time critic for the New York Times, Bernard Holland, to blame this phenomenon for driving people out of the concert halls). The idea that somehow any piece eventually is going to become a classic or be enjoyed or understood by audiences is a false premise; pieces that last do so because they can connect, a lot of what was presented didn’t and in a 100 years will be an academic footnote, while hopefully some will survive. The Rite of Spring and Beethoven’s Grosse Fugue has tough starts, but they ended up becoming classics because they could connect, something I doubt very much with much of the music I am talking about.</p>
<p>Stradmom-</p>
<p>I read that piece, it was interesting. Yeah, sending ads back to the sender was a bit cheesy. I was having more fun reading comments, especially the person claiming that the Phil only drew 30,000 because they had Lang Lang there with all the turning up of noses and so forth at him. Only problem the schnook didn’t bother to notice was a)that day, it was like 98 degrees in NYC with 98% humidity, not a great time to go to a concert in the park, waiting around for hours to get a place and b)there were forecasts for heavy thunderstorms that night. If it had been a nice night, they would probably have drawn 100,000 with Lang Lang there, I can guarantee that:)</p>
<p>The WSJ has a video on its site this week detailing how the SF Symphony is attempting to boost summer concert attendance by interspersing standard classical works with instrumental music from video games and films, such as Final Fantasy and Psycho, accompanied by visuals. It seems to be working - ticket sales are either up or remain steady. SF seems to be the place for innovative thinking in terms of orchestral performance. Wasn’t “Keeping Score” MTT’s brainchild?</p>
<p>The orchestra rep, Mark Williams, voiced his surprise at how strongly the audience reacted to the FF music - I believe he said for many, it seemed like a “trip down memory lane.” It makes sense - people like to listen to music to which they have a strong emotional connection and I guess lots of folks associate FF with their youth? Using a bit of psychology to attract an audience and then introduce them to pieces they might not ordinarily listen to is also the thinking behind programs that feature a “world premiere” of a more contemporary piece. (As mentioned by previous posters, though, if the premiered piece is a bit rough on the ears, then the experience might not have the desired effect.)</p>
<p>On a personal note, while I much prefer the “old standards”, I have to say that I have enjoyed performances of pieces by more contemporary composers, such as Adams and Higdon.</p>
<p>Running-</p>
<p>MTT and the SF symphony have been making a huge attempt at building new audiences, and apparently it is working from what I have been told or read (not living there, haven’t been to a concert so I can’t say personally). Besides the Making Score programs (yep, that is MTT, wonderful programs) they are programming new and different music that from what I am led to believe crosses genres and styles, by no means is it stuffy academic music only or stuff for the ‘purists’. I don’t consider John Adams (at least not for the past 10-15 years) or Jennifer Higdon or Joan Tower or even Phillip glass in the things I was talking about, they all grew up (by their own admission) and realized that strict atonality or strict 12 tone or strict serial/minimalism was ‘the only music’, and it shows in their pieces (on the other hand, others keep on the same old same old, and sadly get commissioned by those who think as they do, that ‘only’ strict X or Y is ‘real new music’). MTT most definitely talks about the pieces as well. It doesn’t surprise me that they would do unconventional things like playing video game music or the like, they learned a lesson that others learned a long time ago (and I am sure the purists rip them for doing this…the Cleveland Orchestra was routinely performing Shore’s “Lord of the Rings Symphony” and got ripped for it…meanwhile from what I have read some of the younger people going to that are going to other concerts). </p>
<p>I read a really fascinating book recently, called “The dictators of the Baton” (written C 1943) and in it they described how Walter Damrosch was able to build interest in classical music in the ‘hinterlands’ of the US (i.e not the big cities). He traveled with his orchestra, and in the towns where they were playing, they would often heed calls to play popular pieces like “the Arkansas Traveller” in between Beethoven or Mozart, and it worked, his orchestra (and some others) would pass through these towns, and in their tracks orchestras would spring up. </p>
<p>Unfortunately classical music is a creature of habit, of dogma and ‘articles of faith’ that often work against itself. Korngold, who is remembered for his lush movie scores back in Hollywood’s golden age (The Sea Hawks among others), wrote a beautiful violin concerto as well as symphonic pieces. The violin concerto is only now starting to become standard repertoire and a lot of that was because in writing it, Korngold used the themes from several of his movie scores as the base, and as a result the gatekeepers (teachers, critics, orchestra conductors, booking agents) kept it from being played (I am just happy people are recording it now; Kavakos is playing it at the Proms this year), though sadly his other pieces are still rare. Likewise, music by 20th century composers who dared to stay more within the realm of tonal music, like William Schuman, Henry Cowell and William Bolcomb were almost totally ignored. </p>
<p>Kind of funny, with the passing of George Steinbrenner, something came to light that sort of casts light on this. Steinbrenner apparently supported the Florida symphony and there was some tension between the orchestra and him because when he gave the gifts (and it wasn’t small), he also put some caveats on it. He asked that they continue doing their popular holidays concerts (performing music of the season) and also made as part of his bequest to them at the time that a certain percentage of the amount he gave (like 25%) should be used to put on ‘pops’ style concerts. The orchestra wasn’t happy, but Steinbrenner made the point that not everyone would go to a concert of Bach and Beethoven and the like (I don’t think he even thought of concerts of Berg or Babbitt) but that the point is to get people to listen to music, and I think there is wisdom in that (note, he didn’t say all the money had to be used for pops music). I think orchestras should promote new music, I think there are a lot of voices out there that need to be listened to, and I think that there are ways to put on music programs that both delight those listening to old favorites, those who want newer music and those who would like new pieces, but want pieces they can connect to without knowing music theory or having to decipher hard to listen to pieces…one of the ironies I found with classical music, as it went into the postwar era, was that the concept of 20th century music, which was supposed to be about no rules or limits, became just as dogmatic and rigid, albeit with former outsiders now saying ‘their’ music was real and everything else was ‘crap’. Yes, there are composers breaking this pattern, and their music is getting played, but frankly when I look at the new programming that the big orchestras are putting on, with some exceptions, and listen to the pieces, I see much of the same orthodoxy driving things…</p>
<p>I would again respectfully disagree that “new music” is still ruled by the orthodoxy described, but there is certainly a time lag between current developments in composing, and what is played at large venues, which may explain the discrepancy in the various points of view we have here.</p>
<p>The Boston Globe had a relevant article today about El Sistema at NEC): </p>
<p>[Reflections</a> on the upbeat to a new movement - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2010/07/25/reflections_on_the_upbeat_to_a_new_movement/]Reflections”>http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2010/07/25/reflections_on_the_upbeat_to_a_new_movement/)</p>
<p>And here is a quote from the next to last paragraph:</p>
<p>"Ultimately, it is not only those passionate about musical access and the plight of underserved youth who will be invested in the success of El Sistema-inspired programs and their preexisting sibling efforts in this country. It is also the embattled classical music establishment itself. Whatever the market research might be telling orchestra administrators, long-term solutions to the problem of dwindling audiences will not come from singles nights, video game takeoffs, or pop stars fronting orchestras. Gimmicks or pandering will not work. Savvy would-be listeners can sniff the desperation.</p>
<p>These problems will require fixes from many angles, but in the end, solutions cannot come without a radical redrawing of the map of who has a stake in classical music as an art form. "</p>
<p>Since this is a college advice site, there is a serious note of warning in musicprnt’s comments - many of the composition departments in the conservatories and universities teach what is called ‘academic’ music. For many of these departments that does mean European modern, still rooted in the serialist style of the mid century. For others it does mean emulating 19th century orchestral music. I have read many a blog post railing against the rules and restrictions of the Academy. (Something I believe is endemic to every artistic period!)</p>
<p>For a young composer choosing where and with whom to study, these questions should be in his/her mind. They certainly were in my son’s. He sought out departments which encouraged a number of different voices and directions, and for which there was no set right or wrong in music - but rather where he could be exposed to a range and supported no matter which direction he chose to explore. Those departments exist - but they are not everywhere - and some of the name brand schools are not necessarily the place to find such an environment.</p>
<p>He is also actively encouraging his peers (musical and non-musical) to find the excitement in music being composed today. For young people used to listening to indie music, rock music, advertising & movie background music, alt-folk, new jazz, video game scores - it is a very small leap to get them engaged in new classical - once they are exposed to it as something thrilling and cutting edge.</p>
<p>Spirit-
I am sure there has always been orthodoxy, one of the ironies of the 20th century ‘modern’ music, both atonality/12 tone and serialism/minimalism,was that when these were new, they complained about the orthodoxy that ‘boxed them out’, about the old farts who wanted to stay with 19th century romanticism, etc…and what seemed to have happened there is that when the ‘young turks’ took over, it became another orthodoxy. I have seen this written about too many places and been told by people I suspect would know that that rigidity is still there, that in some departments if you want to try your hand at neo baroque writing, or neo romantic, or even serialism at a place where atonality is king, and you can find yourself literally made fun of, or told "that isn’t real music’ and so forth (and though I don’t have proof, I would be really surprised to find there are music departments today that still cling to '19th century 'tonal music structure in composition, least not any of the major schools I am aware of). </p>
<p>And yes, there is interesting new music being made out there, I am not saying there isn’t, I have heard wonderful pieces that don’t get stuck on one style, that borrow from many forms,people integrating jazz and latin jazz, folk music, and yes, with serialistic elements and atonality, and some of it even grabs me. John Adams and Phillip Glass (though by no means young any more) have both done much the same themselves with their music, and it is wonderful to listen to. The problem is that with new music, what is being commissioned by the big groups (with some exceptions) is the 1950’s avant guarde. The NY Phil chose a composer in residence, and who is he? Magnus Lindberg, not exactly know for tonal pieces or pieces that can grab a listener easily. Other places, when I see new pieces, it is from a few well known composers mostly, and it is very much orthodox Pierre Boulez style of programming.</p>
<p>Jay Greenberg, a young composing wiz, had written a lot of music that in some ways reminded me of copeland or Bernstein, interesting mixes of jazz and classical and such. A bit of time ago, I heard the violin concerto that he was commissioned to do, and what was it? All harmonics, dissonace and atonal structure, I was kind of sad about that. I also hear a lot of young composers music, kids in college or grad school or just out (programs I routinely attend commission new pieces) and it very rarely is anything other then a copy of strict serialism or 12 tone/atonal music that could have been written in the 60’s or 70’s…Ironically, some of the composers who ‘fomented’ the revolution, like Glass and Adams and some others, have commented on what they have seen in composition programs and rigidiity/orthodoxy that they found troubling. </p>
<p>As far as composition students figuring out where they would fit in, the net is an invaluable tool. Listen to the pieces they themselves compose and ask yourself do they seem to fit my style? If a professor seems to write in strict atonal style, for example, and you like to do more tonal stuff, there could be a conflict here. Depends on the teacher, a good composition teacher IMO will take their own ego out of it, and help the kid find their own voice, much as the best instrumental teachers refuse to teach the kid to play like they do. </p>
<p>I think one thing composers have to realize, and those commissioning the pieces, and that is that orthodoxy, whether it is playing the same tired old warhorses, or playing ‘modern’ pieces that are these academic, hard to approach pieces and telling people "it is your job to like them’ isn’t going to fly. I don’t think gimmicks are going to save orchestras, singles nights and barbecues (well, okay, maybe not that), in the long term it is going to be finding ways to connect to people, and connect to the music, that is going to draw audiences. Maybe by showing flexibility, maybe by showing them that classical music can be as exciting as any other form, or (to the consternation of some) <em>gasp</em> fun, they can do it.</p>
<p>I do think music that is fun, exciting and transcendent does need to part of orchestral programs. However, I think we might disagree on what that is. I hate to disparage a young composer but, from what I’ve heard up to now, I would dread going to hear anything written by Greenberg and I would eagerly go hear anything by Magnus Lindberg.</p>
<p>What young composers do find themselves confronted with - as any artist - is the question of what they bring to the artform - do they have anything of value, and, often that may mean, do they have anything new to offer that hasn’t been written/painted/composed before? Do they have something to communicate that is worth hearing/seeing? Or are they only a wonderful sponge that can soak up what’s out there and squeeze it out again in a new formation? These questions make the young artist yearn to do something that isn’t the standard - and, often, that will mean doing something that is not popular at the time.</p>
<p>I guess I would say that Spirit Manager describes exactly the dilemmas for a young composer deciding where to go to school. We also experienced the range from European modern (especially German) as a dominant force, to schools that “emulated 19th century orchestral music.” </p>
<p>So just a note in support of Spirit Manager’s note to applicants: there really are places where you can find your own “voice,” and it is well worth the extra effort to find them. While looking at schools, it can also be helpful to attend student composer concerts: diversity in style is a good sign. (Students might also consider whether musicians at the school can play “new music” or have only had experience with traditional classics.)</p>
<p>And a note of thanks to musicprnt for raising an important issue.</p>
<p>One other thing: for true originals, the prevailing style is often irrelevant. They write what they have to write, often because it is what they actually “hear” before writing it down. Sometimes true originals are not appreciated at the time of writing, by the academy, judges, or the audience, or even in their lifetimes, but are honored at a later time.</p>
<p>Beethoven had tomatoes thrown at him, and, apparently, so did George Crumb!</p>
<p>So this is what I marvel at: the truly original “voices”, whose music could be written by noone else.</p>
<p>To elaborate on compmom’s “They write what they have to write, often because it is what they actually “hear” before writing it down”: </p>
<p>I know this is the case for the true artist - however, sometimes they need to be set free to trust that. An artist might have the compulsion to communicate in their artform something they’re hearing in their head, seeing in their mind or fingers - but the Academy itself can restrict them by either filling them with self-doubt or binding them with rules that do not fit the art that they’re dying to express. What a young artist should be looking for in a school/mentor is someone to give them the self-confidence, as well as the tools, to set loose that spirit of creativity within them. They need to be given room to explore and be given the courage to make mistakes and have failures. This to me is the hallmark of a great collegiate art program.</p>