Must We Applaud?

A very fascinating open letter to Alan Gilbert, the Music Director of the New York Philharmonic.

http://cityarts.info/2010/03/24/must-we-applaud/

As composers, do you agree with the author's sentiments? Is feedback lost amongst the audience? Are people not liking modern music because composers aren't writing what people want to hear? (My opinion is in the affirmative to that last one.)

Sound off! Share your thoughts.

W/E, most of those new pieces will never be played again probably so who cares? I'm for applauding out of respect and people are still free to do whatever they want anyway. Also, I applaud the musicians playing, not the music itself. I don't sit in front of score and applaud, so when I applaud I do it for the PEOPLE, not whatever they played.

And this goes back to a problem everyone already knows: orchestras are a fossil, there's no way to keep them financially viable and still actually play new works because all their money comes from Brahms and Beethoven. They also have this bullshit where they'll include a single new composition in between Beethoven and Brahms, so people will go for the Bs but HAVE to listen to the new piece unwillingly. Everybody loses.

Much rather people who don't care for modern music don't go to the concerts where its played, then none of these problems would exist.

PS: The article is written by one of those "everyone has to write like Beethoven" dipshits apparently, so HA HA HA w/e, his opinion is void if he's grouping the entire 20th century in one bag (and we're not even in the 20th century anymore.)

PS2: Ok nevermind let's do some quotes, this is a lollercoaster waiting to happen:

The determination of an audience to hear something played again provides a filter that is both powerful and subtle. Powerful, because it makes sure only great music gets through. (The proof of this is the repertoire. Who do we think chose it?) And subtle because it selects works—not composers. (We play a small fraction of Stravinsky’s output.)

HAHAHAHA, this is thinking for a second that it matters to anyone what people want. Art doesn't work that way, sorry. Entertainment does, perhaps.

So, now, let's replace every instance of "composition" in that article with "entertainment" and "composer" with entertainer. Like so:

The determination of an audience to hear something played again provides a filter that is both powerful and subtle. Powerful, because it makes sure only great music entertainment gets through. (The proof of this is the repertoire. Who do we think chose it?) And subtle because it selects works—not composers entertainers. (We play a small fraction of Stravinsky’s output.)

Much better, let's try the next one?

Here now is a proposal: Invite New York to a Risky Venture—an attempt to set composition entertainment back on its feet. Create a 20-minute segment for each and every concert in which five or six short pieces by living composers entertainers will be played. Personally invite the audience to boo if they are miserable and to yell encore if they want to hear it again. And then play those pieces again right away. Repeat them on the next concert as well. When you have 45 minutes of encored pieces, record them. Keep doing this until something catches on in the composition entertainment community.

Yes! MUCH better!

Now I actually agree with this.

A very fascinating open letter to Alan Gilbert, the Music Director of the New York Philharmonic.

http://cityarts.info...ust-we-applaud/

As composers, do you agree with the author's sentiments? Is feedback lost amongst the audience? Are people not liking modern music because composers aren't writing what people want to hear? (My opinion is in the affirmative to that last one.)

Sound off! Share your thoughts.

I'm mixed on this one. Is audience feedback good? Sure. Is it law? Hell, no.

Gould says no. ;-)

I think this guy has the right idea - I've harked on this principle before. People applaud even mediocre performances of works by mediocre composers even at the college level. It's just become a tradition... at the end, we applaud. I think it's silly and the author of the article is on the right track, if the patrons don't like to piece, they should respond determinedly negatively, not apprehensively positively!

"Here now is a proposal: Invite New York to a Risky Venture—an attempt to set composition back on its feet. Create a 20-minute segment for each and every concert in which five or six short pieces by living composers will be played. Personally invite the audience to boo if they are miserable and to yell encore if they want to hear it again. And then play those pieces again right away. Repeat them on the next concert as well. When you have 45 minutes of encored pieces, record them. Keep doing this until something catches on in the composition community. People would come for such an experiment."

Gold.

Applause is just a basic courtesy, good manners, like saying please and thank you, and from the standpoint of a performer who puts a lot of effort into what he performs, even if the audience is not impressed, a little applause is just common decency.

However, we all know the difference between hearty, sincerely appreciative applause and the kind that is merely a formality, and that difference speaks volumes. Need we really go any further than that?

I'm not really in favour of changing traditions like this just because someone decides it has no meaning anymore. Must we always change things just for the sake of changing them? Sheesh.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Take all the music that you enjoy listening to and writing... imagine that this is the music people "politely" applaud to even if they despise it. How quick are you to accept their judgment? Not very... I'd say.

Composition is an artistic form of personal expression. That composers are willing to share something (sometimes) deeply personal to them with a great number of people is, in its own right, something worth applauding.

Forget this guy's Western, Ethnocentric view that music should be written for the audience's approval. We are divided socially and culturally to the point that no one form of music is going to please everyone. Sure, we hope the audience will enjoy the music. In the end, we're the ones to say whether it's worth writing.

An audience -can- give us some idea of whether or not our ideas are communicated with enough interest and musicality. Feedback from the audience is helpful in that regard, just as it's beneficial to have feedback from performers who play our music as they are the medium through which ideas are conveyed effectively. I believe a good performance happens when the performer is convinced by the music they perform, which I happen to think is conveyed in its own right to the audience during the performance.

So, even if we have audiences "boo-ing" new music, how are we to know if it's the music or the performer? Even then, if the audience "gets" the work and still boo's, how do we even account for -why- they are boo-ing? At the end of the day, this is rubbish and nothing more than an attempt to impose this person's sense of what new music should be on the composer. There are plenty of other performers out there if this guy doesn't like my work. I'd rather not waste my time on someone like this when a good performer could probably do a better job in conveying my work with meaning and musicianship, actually delivering on his end of the artistic spectrum and not depending entirely on me to do that for him.

I'm inclined to agree with the author of the article. Personally, I think 90%, if not more, of today's modern classical music is pretty much worthless and a paying customer definitely has the right to express their approval or disapproval within reason. However, many works now considered masterpieces now were poorly received initially (Stravinsky's Rite of Spring comes to mind). In the end, the true arbiter of the quality of one's work is the test of time.

I'm inclined to agree with the author of the article. Personally, I think 90%, if not more, of today's modern classical music entertainment is pretty much worthless and a paying customer definitely has the right to express their approval or disapproval within reason. However, many works now considered masterpieces now were poorly received initially (Stravinsky's Rite of Spring comes to mind). In the end, the true arbiter of the quality of one's work is the test of time.

Fix'd for you.

Out with the "test of time" fallacy, and you're obviously missing the whole bit about art, so again if you're agreeing with the idiot writer you're probably also not talking about art at all but just musical wank material that sounds like what everyone already hears.

Fix'd for you.

Out with the "test of time" fallacy, and you're obviously missing the whole bit about art, so again if you're agreeing with the idiot writer you're probably also not talking about art at all but just musical wank material that sounds like what everyone already hears.

I'm just expressing my opinion. If you feel the need to censor other people's words to make your point, well then, shame on you.

I'm just expressing my opinion. If you feel the need to censor other people's words to make your point, well then, shame on you.

"Censor?"

Really? You DO realize your post is still intact, right? I'm just responding, haha.

This amuses me... not that much really, but still...

At one point in time, I would've most likely agreed with the author. But after actually devoting substantial time to working in ethics that aren't what is performed 95% of the time by major orchestras world wide, I think the author is flawed on several fronts.

First, bkho made mention of this in his post - despite agreeing with the author, if you look at a multitude of what is considered masterpieces now. Many of these received horrid reviews during their premiere. Audiences always fear what is new - and it is only after the new fades into the old - that the work itself is appreciated by the public for its masterful composition. Look at Schubert, for instance, his work was received by a small circle of friends and well loved - yet, he had to wait how long after he died till his works were removed from being shelf lining and recognized for what they were? We fail to appreciate new aesthetics that we weren't brought up (nurtured) with. I think this author fails to realize this fact.

But those failing reviews of "new aesthetics" don't put bums in the seats.

But those failing reviews of "new aesthetics" don't put bums in the seats.

I don't really know about that, Justin. If you look at two symphonies here in the midwest: the Chicago Symphony and the Indianapolis Symphony (my hometown symphony) - you'll see two different schools of thought. The Chicago symphony does program new works - and usually has a fairly packed house on those nights. Those people come to hear the new works (and recently new works). Yes, they program the warhorses - but Chicagoans are very picky about what they want to hear AND they expect a varied concert program. In Indianapolis, it's quite different. Many of the older patrons there don't care for new works at all. The younger patrons, myself included - when I lived there, wanted a mixed concert program. So they symphonies solutions was to create a concert series for younger patrons that catered to their demands. A lot of symphony orchestras are taking lead in this - albeit slowly (large ensembles go slow on nearly everything). Personally, I think you will start to see as the older patrons begin to 'retire from life' symphonies and orchestras throughout the world will start to program more and more modern works. That's been the case now for what.... 300 years?

Seems we're putting a lot of faith in the "business" of performance without any thought for the "purpose" of performance. The purpose is, by and large, an "artistic" purpose. This doesn't tend to mesh very well with the "business" of performance. So, there's a fine line between saying we should be aware of the "business" of performance (which is true, we should be aware of it) and that we should cease concerning ourselves with "art" because of "business."

Very true, Shaun. For symphony orchestras, though, it is very much a business as well. You have to have the capital to pay the musicians AND you have to have the capital to pay the bills at the concert house. Symphony subscriptions count for about 75% of an orchestra's budget. SO, you have to make sure that your packages and program have works that people want to hear. Most orchestras are wrestling with the young patron. Largely due to the fact that we have such instantaneous means of enjoying music. Older generations didn't have the iPod, iPad, Zune, iPhone, cell phones in general, and good laptops to the point that are generation currently does. The more savvy orchestra's are taking note of this and designing programs that appeal to us in numerous ways. Some of the programs work... others don't. That's just the way it is.

But those failing reviews of "new aesthetics" don't put bums in the seats.

50 cent does it much better, yeah. If it's about money, why don't the orchestras just drop all that classical repertoire and start playing music more in tune with what would REALLY bring in the $$$s?

Yeah because Beethoven and Brahms may be popular but they're but tiny little spots in the musical landscape compared to the really big hitters in terms of $. It's the elephant in the room nobody really wants to talk about, but if you're going for BUSINESS, then really the argument that modern music doesn't bring in money is dumb. I mean there are groups that live off performing only string quartets from Alois Haba, for gently caress's sake. It's not like there's not plenty of people who would pay to listen to modern music. It's just that orchestras shoot for a different niche audience, but besides it being a survival thing it's also much easier for them!

After all playing Mahler is a fuckload easier than playing Xenakis or what have you, where players can't "autopilot" most of it and need to actually learn parts (stuff like each violin needing to learn single parts, bla bla bla.) I mean playing Mozart doesn't compare to how much rehearsals and crap you need to do to perform a Schnittke symphony. The return for the effort is also not as great as if they play any ol' tired piece that they can have 2 rehearsals and do OK, obviously.

Like I said before, I'd rather avoid orchestras altogether until they get split into groups that would actually perform modern music without needing to fall back to the tired old crap just for survival's sake.

Personally, I agree with SSC. If I wanted to hear beethoven or mozart, I can always either youtube or purchase a recording of my favorite works by my favorite conductor of those works. I always was eager to hear the newer works at the ISO - some were great and others weren't. But, I understood due to working there, that the symphony needed to bring in income to maintain their concerts - and for the patrons in the city.... modern works just weren't profitable.

Well in no case I'm saying that old pieces shouldn't be performed. I'm just saying that when they're performed out of necessity it's undesirable. I still like to go hear Beethoven live every once in a while. I mean that's not the problem.

The problem is that in survival it asphyxiates anything else that could as well exist. Hence why I say division.

One thing I might point out is that listening to music on YouTube or CD or even Vinyl doesn't compare in the slightest to hearing it live in the concert hall. It is very much an experience of going to the concert hall and listening to 100 live people create lovely sounds with pieces of wood and metal in their hands. No recording will ever replicate that feeling. So there is very much a value in going to the concert hall, otherwise the concert hall would be irrelevant.

Hearing a 100 people with wood, strings metal, skins and levers produce some indifferent or terrible performances and wondering why did you waste your time and money.

Had that feeling with a performance of Mahler by a German orchestra this summer - pretty indifferent performance.

I gave a tiny applause.

Applauding as a thank you is ridiculous UNLESS the concert is free to the public. If there is a fee to hear the concert and the performance is terrible or mediocre then the only persons who deserve applause are the donors who subsidized the concert so you wouldn't have to pay the true cost of seats.

One thing I might point out is that listening to music on YouTube or CD or even Vinyl doesn't compare in the slightest to hearing it live in the concert hall. It is very much an experience of going to the concert hall and listening to 100 live people create lovely sounds with pieces of wood and metal in their hands. No recording will ever replicate that feeling. So there is very much a value in going to the concert hall, otherwise the concert hall would be irrelevant.

See, I take it this way -- if there's a definitive version recorded, it's best to hear that. Some of this argument is similar to the arguments from Attali about the star system and concerts as jukeboxes, so it's a bit better articulated there.

But really, when I listen to, say, jazz, I'd rather hear the album. Yeah, sure, I might miss a sicker solo or what have you, but the recording is often just more polished. Now here, I'm talking about standards, of course. Heading to the upper room of Blue Nile to hear Justin Peake's new project is better than missing out on the music.

With music that isn't improvisational, it'd certainly be best to hear something that's well mixed and the right take, versus being subject to the acoustics of the cheap seats, clams, and a sound guy who's had one too many.

Also, shame on your vinyl fetish -- digital can do all the same things and more that analog can on the user-end -- recording is a bit different, but still generally holds.

Weirdly I find applauding can sometimes ruin the atmosphere for example clapping at the end of Arvo Part's Fur Alina for example would ruin it I feel. But generally I'd rather people went with how they felt because if they clap for the sake of clapping its a pointless gesture.

I agree with what Ferk said in regards to definitive performances. Oftentimes, with those warhorses... the Conductors take so much liberty with the score that the interpretation they give versus what the composer wrote is immense. Take for instance, one of my personal favorites, the 2nd movement of Beethoven's 7th. That movement has been interpreted so many ways by so many orchestras - when the definitive recording of it was made (which mind you, followed Beethoven's instructions completely) the work was different. Perhaps that is more my interpretation of what 'I' expect out of the work itself - but listening to it performed live, on vinyl, on cd, on youtube, and on the definitive version made me feel glad that I purchased the definitive version.