Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Future of classical music?

Oh my, you guys just made this old farts day.

I was tempted to add a post to this thread but the discussion has degenerated into petty bickering so I don't think it really matters any more.

Copake
hope you realise we re having a little fun at the expense of Jason. Do not hesitate to participate..

You're so sensitive. This country was built by petty bickering. 250 years ago, that's how things got done in this great country of ours, may our forefathers rest in peace on this Holy Day.

Anyway, if either Harold Camping is right, we have until Sept. 21, 2011 before the entire universe burns up, and if the Mayans are right, we have until the Summer of 2112 before the end of days, so Classical music might have a shorter future than you all suppose it does.

I suggest he read this:

http://www.rejectedjokes.com/picture_library/idiotsguide.jpg

I'm going with the Mayan's they seem jazzier.

Andromaque:
OMG!! I don't think I have EVER been called that before! On this Holy day of all days too!!! What happened to British eloquence???

Steven:
However—in this context—I think it can be seen as a badge of honor.

Indeed. I can confirm that the way Jason used the term in question, it is actually quite an affectionate one. It's that irony thing again: we Brits are only (gently) rude to people we actually like. People we don't like we ignore entirely

Michael B.

Well, since I said "most" rather than "all", I probably don't need to reply to you bringing up Bach and Schubert. But, since you did bring them up, it's hard to resist...

As I understand it, the issue with Bach in his own time was that not only was much of his music considered kind of difficult in a sort of academic way, it was also thought to be old-fashioned and dry (rather than advanced in the cutting-edge sense). Plus, as far as I know he never tried very hard to achieve international recognition, anyway, and just stayed put in his little world. Within that world, his music actually did pretty well, I think. That vast collection of cantatas did get performed, after all. And the complaints about how fancy his organ playing was in church didn't come from classical music lovers, exactly. And although I don't agree, I can easily understand why some people felt he was out line, considering the purpose for which he was hired.

I actually don't know that much about the relative acceptance of Schubert's music or reasons it might not have been accepted, other than the obvious reason that he died right as he was starting to become famous, which tends to put a damper on things. Of course, the Liszt arrangements of a lot of the songs, plus the Soirees de Vienne, meant that at least his name was widely known.


Well, "hit" to me means that it got a lot of performances, for a new work, not that everyone under the sun loved or loves it.


I'm not sure how much that has to do with the topic though, because the problem wasn't with the music's style or any real difficulty people had with it.



You are right, they do have a fairly large audience these days.

But I don't agree that things are much the same today as they always were. For one thing that is unarguably quite different, we don't have the sort of composer-performers that were common in the 19th century, who, as often as not, would be playing a lot of their own recent compositions in their concerts. That meant that concert-goers were constantly exposed to new music in a way that is far from true today. Just try to imagine what it would be like if all the pianists on the international scene today were playing their own new concertos and sonatas instead of (or along with) the old chestnuts.

I also don't think there has ever been another musical era in which a major style embraced by some composers, some performers, and some critics was resisted for so long as what happened with "high modernism" in the last century. Sure, there has always been some resistance to new trends, but nothing like that.

Michael 'nailed' that one. My apologies, I should have chosen a better word. But I have been called an 'old fart' for daring to love church music, something most of my generation thinks is just a big laugh, even though I am politically and theologically very liberal.

Every member I mentioned I respect for their astute contributions. They represent an older generation, and as such, there is much to learn here from their experience.

A large audience? Compared to what? Vaudeville?

I work in the recording/studio industry. I have plenty of pow-wows with A&R people and industry executives. In essence I wrk with and confer with these people. I'm also aware of what's hot and what's not, not just where I work, but in the music business industry, and money-wise, from the standpoint of sales and merketability, classical performance recordings occupy the bottom rungs on the ladder along with Balinese gong music and reissues of Tiny Tim's recordings.
Anyone walking through a CD mega-store will realize this immediately as they hunt for the classical section, if they have one.

Man this burns me up too. It's so hard to find a good retail store for classical music. I understand stores stock what is in demand, but it is frustrating for us classical lovers.

By the way, do I get a prize of initiating a long lasting thread?

Oh dear. You again. Oh well.

You challenged us to 'find the classical section' in a typical CD store. I challenge you to find in a typical book store the aisle where the overwhelming 'best-seller' -- no other book even comes close -- is on display.

Sure! You get to read it I'd be interested to learn whether the thread has made you more, or less secure about the future of classical music.

Many posters have made me feel much better, thank you, especially, Tomasino.

No. You get the prize if it goes 20 pages without a lock down.

Most of these larger stores are in malls or prime retail space, paying mega-bucks for rent. They can't afford to stock items with a long shelf life.
My guess is that a new release just by Chris Brown or Rihanna alone generate more gross sales nationwide that week than the entire catalog of classical recordings available in all the same stores do for the whole year, this being the main reason why Chris Moneytrain won't ever see the inside of a jail cell for tuning up Rihanna, God Bless Puffy and JayZ.

For years, any Barnes & Noble store in NYC with a music department devoted a very significant amount of space to classical CDs. I moved to the suburbs a year ago and can't vouch that this is still true, but it used to be.

Steven

The Barnes and Noble near my home has a steadily shrinking classical department. Thank goodness for the internet!

I think this is a large part of it. G.F.Haendel tended to the opposite pole.

Schubert's short lifespan was surely a factor. He was 'of the provinces' and never found a way into the 'big time' in Vienna. Self-promotion was not his thing.



It seemed to me relevant in two respects. First, Rach nearly quit composing large scale works. Second, the 1st Symphony is musically quite innovative. Thereafter Rach tended to 'play it safe'. Leaves one wondering what he might have achieved if his crisis following the reception of his Symphony had been avoided.



Some have tried, John Ogden for example, but I agree that they are few. Perhaps the demands made of a modern virtuoso are a bit daunting. There have been a few composer/conductors, for example, Pierre Boulez, Esa-Pekka Salonen, but again rather few.



This is a valid point. However, it is too early to say with any confidence whether the time span is a fluctuation or is truly anomalous.

What is sure us that the 20th century was anomalous in several respects. War has been with us for ever, but the first war destroyed the society that supported much of the musical activity of the 19th century. The second world war virtually finished Europe off for a long while.

For some reason, the US did not 'take up the slack' -- a lack of tradition, perhaps, possibly also the emergence of the affluent society. Charles Ives, for example, arguably the most talented of American born composers, made the conscious decision to sell insurance rather than live in penury in a freezing garret. As Elliot Carter put it, 'You don't make money by composing classical music.'

Add to this the 'technological revolution' which opened up new opportunities for experimentation, and compound all these factors with a general tendency to turn inward in the sense that composers worked to impress each other rather than 'speak to a public', and you have one very confused century, musically speaking.

As for a 'major style', I'm not sure what you're referring to unless this is the 'style' Morricone gave up to write film music, and Salonen recently rejected, crediting his experiences in LA with opening his mind to the notion that music is, after all, about melody!

To end on a positive note, while I agree with your point that the days of composer/performer seem to be over, or at least 'on hold', many composers are now writing for specific artists and ensembles. An excellent example is Gidon Kremer. If anyone gets the chance to attend a concert given by Kremer and his ensemble 'Kremerata Baltica', don't hesitate. It's an unforgettable experience.

http://www.kremerata-baltica.com/introduction.htm

I wonder whether YouTube will decrease interest in live concerts especially in more expensive venues like NYC. It certainly has for me, and I rarely go to concerts in NYC unless they're free or moderately priced. If I want to hear Kissin, I can see nunmerous great Youtube videos and get a closer view than I could in any concert venue.

If I was richer, then things would be different, but the least expensive seat at Carnegie Hall is close o $40 now.

Hopefully, YouTube will increase interest in classical music whether or not it affects attendance at live concerts.