Leaderboard

Alright. Multi-quote time. I think this has way more to do with you actually noticing change within that time period and viewing the change in your overly optimistic rose-color glasses. I remember you just a year or two ago being a stanch "neo-clasisist" and would cringe at the sight of something without a tonic. I think you changed. I don't think the entire audience when with you, however. I'm more interested in why composers can't seem to connect with audiences today as they could back then. Yes, people like Stravinsky and Mahler and Beethoven were ridiculed in their own time, but what about composers like Tchaikovsky, Handel, Liszt, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Meyerbeer, and others who were enormously revered by their audiences in their lifetimes and still are by today's audiences (with the exception of, perhaps, Meyerbeer)? No one is answering this. These guys did something right, and I want to know what it is! And clearly, sometimes the aforementioned composers' works were considered "new" in style or execution or whatever. Interestingly, though, these works tended to be the most coolly received by their audiences. I don't disagree that audiences are slow to change. That's obvious. But is there a way to connect with them and still be considered on the cutting edge of musical progress? Or have we passed the ability to be both at the same time? *yawn* FWIW, the same "90%" you speak of doesn't go to concert halls today either. So its a moot point. Avery Fisher is not filled up by your every-man on the street (though some are in there, but they don't make up even the smallest plurality of people). It is filled with rich aristocracy, upper-middle and upper class people who go to expensive arts (like Classical Music Concerts) because they can afford it. The average person can't. I go only when I can get free or discounted tickets, otherwise I'm out of luck. This is because I am part of that "90%" of rich people who don't know anything. I do agree with you that there has been a shift in information flow of music, however. Obviously recorded music and the internet were game-changers. GASP! A shocking accusation! The comparison stuff is obvious. None of that refutes the fact that the composers of then did connect with their audiences in a way that composers of late simply can't do. I'm curious to what you mean by going more "autistic." Do you mean more childish or simple? I'm not talking simply of performances, I'm talking of an audience connecting with music and causing them to have a fundamental reaction to it. Most contemporary premieres these days are very "meh" reactions, which is awful. Its better to have an audience cheer and throw you flowers, or to boo and throw tomatoes, than to just forcibly applaud to your work because the Mozart Symphony is coming up next. That's what really bugs me about contemporary music today. People don't react to it. And I've always been of the school that "good music" fosters this kind of reaction. That's why I love Mahler, because I can get a very heavy reaction out of his music, just like a lot of other people. seems to be rather influenced by the opinion of the writer about that kind of music, rather than being factual! ;) No it's more what I've seen in New York during my 10 years there. Since this writer is a New York Times critic that goes to the same concerts I do, its conceivable that the observations would be similar. I agree that music marketing sucks. I take issue with the fact that we should have to *train* audiences to like stuff. Can the music not speak for itself?

East west symphonic choirs is the best choir sample library! But it is a huge library about 50 gb, it's used more for professional scores or classical operas, if want something less pro cine samples voxos or requiem pro is the best choice