Nyt: How About Some More New Stuff?

http://www.nytimes.c...?_r=2&ref=music

Discuss!

A comment about this I posted on FB:

The reason there's so little "new music" in the Philharmonic's concerts is because there's so little good music written lately [and that they're audience will like and hence buy tickets for]. If the NYP really wanted to push for more good music they would commission more. But they don't have the financial resources to commission 10 new works every year. That's almost a quarter of a million dollars, just for new music. Its very expensive! And the irony is that all that money doesn't guarantee the "good music" that they're looking for.

Unless you hire a cop out composer who knows how to write music that "people will enjoy". But, one sacrifices creatvity, orginality, and musical purpose. I can't think of any good examples, though.

Instead of commissioning works, they could very easily simply ASK local composers or big name composers for their work. Composers would most certainly jump at the offer to have their music played free of charge.

Not the high quality ones they're looking to attract. And besides, do you really think its in a composer's best interest to compose for free? Even if its the New York Philharmonic. Its one thing if they're a young composer in high school or even undergraduate. But a composer in his 40s or 50s? They have to pay the bills too.

Composers begin begging for their works to be performed, but also want money for their works and (sometimes) they want to stay true to themselves. It's a difficult compromise... If they charge so highly for a performance of their compositions, it's less of a chance for them to be performed. If they aren't performed, no way their authors might become famous, so commissions will never come their way. But if they get to actually have a work performed, and they come out with something 'strange', their works might not be liked by audiences and that means the end. No more comissions, no more chances... How to achieve a balance???

And for that reason I have always been reluctant to write for orchestra. The modern orchestra is a monstrosity which can only be profitable if you do stick predominantly with war horses --- or just do safe orchestral arrangements of old pop - say a potpourri of Rolling Stones.

Of course I exaggerate - there is a middle ground, Glass did Heroes Symphony based on Boiwe' Heroes album. But yeah the expectation today that something such as Carter's Symphonic works would be performed in today's environment if he were not known would be highly unlikely.

Anyway, whatever symphonic work I write, I will look to local orchestras or independent ones and avoid NYPhil and the more famous ones. I will also be quite realistic that it will never be played unless I start my own group. Unless, of course, they approach me due to fame and reknown.

PS. Tokke what do you mean by good music - that it is playable?is ther a style associated with good music? And note what the LA phil is doing - far more interesting and the more I read about it the more I think LA is the place to be for classical musicians.

Good music meaning music that is not bloated with complexity for the sake of complexity (and there is a lot of that) and music that has a profound effect on the audience. Most pieces are just "meh" to the audience which is the fault of the composer not considering the human reactions to his piece. Some new works are very good technically but have little effect on the audience. I saw this with a Rouse piece recently. The piece objectively was good, but the audience thought little of it. Its that composer-audience connection that threatens new music, not the orchestras. The orchestras have to program what will sell tickets and new works simply can't. When was the last time you've every seen a program made up of completely works written in the 20th Century? I don't think I ever have (except when its a one-work program like Mahler 8 perhaps).

BTW, your comment about LA being the scene for classical music doesn't hold water. Just because the LA Phil is doing a lot of new music (relatively) doesn't mean that everyone else is. New York (the city) by far has the upper hand there.

No, not to compose for free. Works that they have already been commissioned to write for orchestra that could use more exposure. I should have clarified.

How come composers like Mahler and Beethoven were able to connect with the audience but composers of today can't? The technical ability hasn't much changed in those several hundred years so what's changed? Is there something in the water?

No one ever raves about today's composers like they do Mahler, Beethoven, Brahms, Shosty, Stravinsky, even Sibelius. Why? Do we chalk that up simply to longevity? Is the requirement of a composer's popularity to be dead? Tchaikovsky's life clearly refutes that one. He was enormously popular in his lifetime. And he still is today. The question is how is Tchiakovsky's output different than, say, Adès, Adams, Carter, Ferenyhough, Glass, Ligeti, Muhly, Stockhausen, and the countless others?

BTW, this is not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know.

Tokke... Your questions about the same subject are simply boring... I remember you from a long time ago...

BTW, Chopin, Schubert, even Mozart while they do appear to have been famous, they did die peniless and probably buried somewhere but unknown where (*I think*... I'm not sure about their biographies, but anyhow you get the idea).

Now, lets compare 1830s with 2011:

* population then: not sure but around 1 bil? 2 bil? Not much more I reckon

population today: 6 bil? 7 bil and counting? (no, I won't take a look at wiki, thank you. No reason).

* available options for people to listen then: Concert halls, pianos at home, various recitals, - THE END -

available options for people to listen now: billions of songs up for free through youtube, Mtv or other, recitals, CDs, ishits, etc...

* Other things to do while living then: Try to survive, have sex with your cousin (?!?!?!), play various boring games, etc...

other things to do while living now: WOW! TV! Internet,

need I say more?

We are spoiled for choice. And as we are that, the composers go more and more autistic and the rest of the audience goes further away! And this's been happening since the early days of the 1900s... (Remember Ives? Worked as an insurance seller (?) but composed some amazing music imho).

Yes, there is no reason why contemporary music should stay autistic, but I won't agree that there's something wrong with the music itself, but with the marketing associated with it!

Good points, Nikolas.

I think it's also good to point out that about 90% of the living population in the time of Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, and other composers of the late 1700s to mid/late 1800s most likely did not even know of those composers. That's not just an opinion that's based in fact. The large bulk of the classical repertoire was written for wealthy aristocrats, kings, queens, nobles, etc. The growing middle class finally came to the hall in the late, late 1800s and early 1900s. The lower classes (the 90%) had other means of musical enjoyment to occupy their time: folk music being the most predominant (which was later exploited by many composers in the 20th Century, such as Bartok).

The only reason, I believe, that we revere the works of earlier composers today is because we still have access to their scores AND we are conditioned by our culture to enjoy their music as works of high art that bespeak to our humanity. Thus, I can agree with the final paragraph of the article:

But it was not quite a century ago that the composer Edgard Varèse denounced American orchestras as “mausoleums, mortuaries of musical reminiscences.” Our arts institutions are always in danger of falling onto this path of least resistance. Endless debate about dueling Brahms interpretations takes the place of discourse about new work.

Many American orchestras fail in challenging their audiences in new music. The aristocrats of the 18th and 19th centuries who programmed those revolutionary works by Mozart, Beethoven, and others were able to expand the repertoire - why can't American Orchestras?

Because the audience doesn't want to hear the new music. We're just going in circles here. How do you change the audience's mind when it clearly has made a verdict that the music of today (and I use the term "today" rather loosely since its really the music of 25 years ago and earlier that they're rejecting) is not going to attract them to the concert hall.

BTW, Jason, I'm not even gonna touch your "90% didn't know" historical arguments since you won't be moved no matter how well I present the real world for you.

[/left]

Because the audience doesn't want to hear the new music. We're just going in circles here. How do you change the audience's mind when it clearly has made a verdict that the music of today (and I use the term "today" rather loosely since its really the music of 25 years ago and earlier that they're rejecting) is not going to attract them to the concert hall.

That's not entirely true at all. Audiences of today, just as those of yesteryear, are on in the same in their consumption of new music. The only difference today is that we have a larger repertoire to draw work from. Today, we prioritize profit over art. Programs our designed to draw in the dollars of the audience member. Challenging audiences by having programs full of the music of today doesn't do this. The reason? Basic psychology. We all have a fear, to some extent, of something new. This basic psychological rule was the same in 1790 as it is today.

It takes time for minds to change. I can say in the last 10 years I have seen more orchestras program works by several early modernist composers. When I first attended symphony concerts, you were lucky to see the non-atonal works of Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg on the program. Today, you see several major orchestras across the country (and several non-major orchestras as well) regularly program the atonal works by these three composers. What is shocking, even more, is that I have seen in attending these concerts that audiences do receive them more appreciatively today. Again, it takes time - just as it took time for audiences to accept something as tame as the Rite of Spring. 'A watched pot never boils!'

BTW, Jason, I'm not even gonna touch your "90% didn't know" historical arguments since you won't be moved no matter how well I present the real world for you.

We've already had that debate and you failed to present any tangible proof to support your arguments. Truth is, the peasants in Bulgaria who tended the fields of their local rulers during the time of Mozart or shortly after, had no clue who he was or even heard his music. The times were different then. You couldn't just pull up YouTube and search to your hearts content. You also couldn't afford to just take $20 and head down to the symphony hall and buy a ticket to hear their works. Most people up until about 1880 couldn't afford to do that and that is fact, i.e. the real world. We are very fortuanate today that we have the ability to do these things.

Tokke: Nice going in ignoring my post! ;)

Now... I will admit that contemporary music has managed to detached somewhat itself from 'the real world', and sometimes the composer himself... But at the same time there IS some wonderful music out there, and some amazing composers out there (some of them are even amongst us), and certainly many works that are worthy of performance... I know very well that my music is being performed, it just takes time!

Now of course the following quote:

How do you change the audience's mind when it clearly has made a verdict that the music of today (and I use the term "today" rather loosely since its really the music of 25 years ago and earlier that they're rejecting) is not going to attract them to the concert hall.

Still there is a point on how to change the audience mind? Well... to give them a real taste of what contemporary music is about; to educate them and train them about the aesthetics of more recent works; to offer them a real opportunity to meet, see, read, perform and listen to contemporary music in a contemporary fashion (eg. not in extremely unrealistic prices, with scores you can only find in a few music stores and Vinyl records that are out of print for decades)...

Alright. Multi-quote time.

That's not entirely true at all. Audiences of today, just as those of yesteryear, are on in the same in their consumption of new music. The only difference today is that we have a larger repertoire to draw work from. Today, we prioritize profit over art. Programs our designed to draw in the dollars of the audience member. Challenging audiences by having programs full of the music of today doesn't do this. The reason? Basic psychology. We all have a fear, to some extent, of something new. This basic psychological rule was the same in 1790 as it is today.

It takes time for minds to change. I can say in the last 10 years I have seen more orchestras program works by several early modernist composers. When I first attended symphony concerts, you were lucky to see the non-atonal works of Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg on the program. Today, you see several major orchestras across the country (and several non-major orchestras as well) regularly program the atonal works by these three composers. What is shocking, even more, is that I have seen in attending these concerts that audiences do receive them more appreciatively today. Again, it takes time - just as it took time for audiences to accept something as tame as the Rite of Spring. 'A watched pot never boils!'

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?

We've already had that debate and you failed to present any tangible proof to support your arguments. Truth is, the peasants in Bulgaria who tended the fields of their local rulers during the time of Mozart or shortly after, had no clue who he was or even heard his music. The times were different then. You couldn't just pull up YouTube and search to your hearts content. You also couldn't afford to just take $20 and head down to the symphony hall and buy a ticket to hear their works. Most people up until about 1880 couldn't afford to do that and that is fact, i.e. the real world. We are very fortuanate today that we have the ability to do these things.

*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.

Tokke: Nice going in ignoring my post! ;)

GASP! A shocking accusation!

Tokke... Your questions about the same subject are simply boring... I remember you from a long time ago...

BTW, Chopin, Schubert, even Mozart while they do appear to have been famous, they did die peniless and probably buried somewhere but unknown where (*I think*... I'm not sure about their biographies, but anyhow you get the idea).

Now, lets compare 1830s with 2011:

* population then: not sure but around 1 bil? 2 bil? Not much more I reckon

population today: 6 bil? 7 bil and counting? (no, I won't take a look at wiki, thank you. No reason).

* available options for people to listen then: Concert halls, pianos at home, various recitals, - THE END -

available options for people to listen now: billions of songs up for free through youtube, Mtv or other, recitals, CDs, ishits, etc...

* Other things to do while living then: Try to survive, have sex with your cousin (?!?!?!), play various boring games, etc...

other things to do while living now: WOW! TV! Internet,

need I say more?

We are spoiled for choice. And as we are that, the composers go more and more autistic and the rest of the audience goes further away! And this's been happening since the early days of the 1900s... (Remember Ives? Worked as an insurance seller (?) but composed some amazing music imho).

Yes, there is no reason why contemporary music should stay autistic, but I won't agree that there's something wrong with the music itself, but with the marketing associated with it!

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?

Now... I will admit that contemporary music has managed to detached somewhat itself from 'the real world', and sometimes the composer himself... But at the same time there IS some wonderful music out there, and some amazing composers out there (some of them are even amongst us), and certainly many works that are worthy of performance... I know very well that my music is being performed, it just takes time!

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.

Now of course the following quote:

How do you change the audience's mind when it clearly has made a verdict that the music of today (and I use the term "today" rather loosely since its really the music of 25 years ago and earlier that they're rejecting) is not going to attract them to the concert hall.

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.

Still there is a point on how to change the audience mind? Well... to give them a real taste of what contemporary music is about; to educate them and train them about the aesthetics of more recent works; to offer them a real opportunity to meet, see, read, perform and listen to contemporary music in a contemporary fashion (eg. not in extremely unrealistic prices, with scores you can only find in a few music stores and Vinyl records that are out of print for decades)...

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?

[/left]Truth is, the peasants in Bulgaria who tended the fields of their local rulers during the time of Mozart or shortly after, had no clue who he was or even heard his music.

Well - having 40.000 people showing up at your funeral procession (Beethoven) or having 60.000 requests for a space on it (Tchaikovsky) isn't exactly what I would expect for a composer that only got an elite's attention. Especially in the 19th century, without TV and Internet. But hey, it's just a thought...

Quite. Jason ignores some of the facts and causes history to magically change into a social class thing.

Honestly Tokke, I think the Jason and Phil do bring up good points as well as Nik but I think it is neither the composers, audience or orchestras fault.Rather today we have a ton of information we can access - unprecedented amounts. Yet, has the quality of the information received really changed much? I don't think so. In fact there is far more access to either mediocre music or secured oldies of classical music. I imagine orchestras are afraid to do a call for scores because every Jack and Jill with access to Final 3.0 would submit the Symphony Tragique in A minor or Sad Orchestral Weeping in C minor. So, one problem is 1) access to an overabundance of music

Another is historical, there is much bad and quite a few lost masterpieces we no longer hear because after th first performance or a second, it is no longer performed because it had "no legs: with audiences. So, as musicologists are showing we've overlooked a few jems along the way and a few composers who ought to supplement a few more well known ones --- here for example is one:

And today some wonderful composers get short shrift, for example George Perle wrote far better serial music than Schoenberg - but Perle had the advantage to learn from Schoeny and build upon him. Yet how often do you hear one of Perle's piano works or his Piano Concerto?

Now another problem today is that orchestral music has changed dramatically - as shown by Boulez explosante-fixe. But much of the "complexity" comes from the money required for players to get re-accustomed to perfectly workable techniques which just players don't get enough practice using sometimes (well, if they do contemporary chamber music than they are OK).

Finally, what's the big deal about complexity? Mozart used dynamics to a greater degree than prior composers in his mature period - and forget about Beethoven (some of which is still extremely difficult to pull off). Does that mean we don't play the Jupiter or 9th - both extremely complex works? Think of it this way Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra is one of the early 20th century orchestral pieces which are quite popular with audiences and at a concert with the Mannes orchestra, out of a Hovanhess, Kernis piece (based on very modal medieval music), the Rite of Spring was the favorite.

So, I agree with the author of the NYT article, New York Phil is a very conservative orchestra and despite its efforts, it is still hamstrung by patrons who are very guarded about programming.

It's perfectly understandable that that many people would show up to their funeral. I'm not saying those composers weren't highly revered. Nor am I saying they were unknown period during their lifetime. At any rate, the convo isn't about the extent of a composer being known during his lifetime.

I think the most important part that Justin wants us to address is this:

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 didsomething 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?

So the question is then, what do you think caused these composers to be loved by those who listened to their works? In the case of most of these composers, I would argue three things:

1. They challenged their listeners ears.

2. Their music spoke to their listeners' time, place, and humanity - what we call today 'music we can relate to'

3. Their audiences were more attuned to the intricacies and culture of music composition.

I think one of the best examples of this is Beethoven's 9th Symphony.

The music was far ahead anything being written at the time. Reports of the concert show that the audience wasn't sure how to process the work BUT appreciated the overall intricacy of the work and it's importance to the repertoire. The work spoke the listener's time, place, and humanity. The work challenged their ears. Despite people not being able to fully process the work, it was appreciated and revered from its very premiere.

So, one problem is 1) access to an overabundance of music

I think this is a key point to make, because the effects this has classical music in general, and it's popularity, is making things look way bigger than they are. I think it's funny that Tokke is asking for advice on what Beethoven did to connect with his audience, isn't it kinda obvious? He wrote music that spoke to them, in the medium that music can speak the strongest, feelings. Today that position is held by a lot more composers than the few that dominated the scene in Beethoven's time. Sometimes when I have this conversation, the neo-classicists make it sound like the whole world would suddenly start going to concerts again if we would just compose in the same way they did in the romantic era. But strangely enough neo-classicist composers exist, and they're not really dominating the scene either.

I think it's a generation thing that is keeping the big audience for the old composers alive. There's a generation that grew up listening to this music, and it's the music they can relate to, so that's what they listen to. But I think it's a bit arrogant to forget all the other music genres which we're also competing with. Because of the easy access we have to music now, there can no longer exist a cultural elite which can overrule public taste, and keep pushing music forward. Now a days, amateurs rise to world fame in few years. And I don't think it's just because people have no taste anymore, or that they got lucky. It's because it doesn't take complexity or new styles for music to touch other people. If you can write a song that makes people happy, obviously a lot of people are gonna like the song and listen to it, and why shouldn't they?

I think contemporary, classical music is doing fine things taken into consideration. It makes no sense just uncritically comparing it to Beethoven's popularity, because who did he have to compete with? He had a lot of other composers writing in the same genre. Is that how the scene is now a days? Obviously not. Now a days a modern composer is competing with a vast sea of different music genres, all fine-tuned to a specific, aesthetic mindset. There's a lot more people with access to music, and there's a lot more people just in general. Is it really fair to assume that it's not also gonna be much harder to gain popularity, and especially if you're trying to do something new in a world where people rarely take time to concentrate on what they're listening to.

The comparisons are way out of proportion, because there are so many factors that have not been taken into account. I think the most important thing is humility, something I think is rare now a days in the cultural debate. The classical music has been forced to share the audience with a million other genres, and the classic audience and composers are busy accusing each other of the current condition. I don't think it's worth taking a debate on what to do with the new music before we agree that it makes no sense comparing the music scene now to how it was in 1810 or 1910 etc.

:toothygrin: :hippie: :cool: oh my, this is getting juicy!!!

The truth is, the average american could care less about an orchestra and the american orchestra could care less than yesterday's trash about modern compositions.

SO WHAT DO WE DO?

My bible says don't throw pearls to pigs. Therefore, Maestrowick finds people who want to play music and pay me to write it in all forms (R&B, jazz, rock, musicals, you name it!.) Use the aforementioned money to market so everybody will know you and pay you more. At the point, the american orchestras will want to commission you and you charge them an arm & leg for a composition. It works!!!

(PS: If you try this, make sure you said you learn this from Sir Wick via :yc:

So what if Beethoven never wrote the 9th and Tokke or somebody else (just using Tokke to make it vivid) would write the 9th today and post it on YC tomorrow. What would happen? Would this composition blow up and circulate thru the social media's, getting millions of views on Youtube and get performed by all major orchestras? Or would it get some recognision on YC never to be heard more then 40 times, because it's romantic and that's from yesterday?