Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner 'Classical' music is dying and that's the best thing for it

Pardon the provocative title but it's the one used for this article by pianist Charlie Albright(2014 Avery Fisher Career Grant and 2010 Gilmore Young Artist Award), in this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/opini...being-reborn-opinion-albright/index.html

I'm not at all sure I agree with some of his opinions but at least he is looking for ways to increase interest in classical music and using those ideas in his concerts.

At least in NYC it certainly seems true that the audience for classical music is getting older and older except for a young Asian contingent. I don't think the young Asian audiences in Asian countries or in the U.S. mind the "rules" that have become standard for most classical concerts so I'm not sure Albright is correct in pointing to those rules as one cause for declining interest. As far as I know those rules were present in the mid 20th century when I believe classical music had a greater if still limited following.

As much as I dislike some of LL's performance practices, musical and otherwise, I think he has done an incredible amount to help popularize classical music so for me at least that makes up for any other 'sins'. I think classical music can be helped a lot by young highly charismatic performers like Dudamel, Charlie Albright, and especially people like cellist Nathan Chan who somehow combines an incredibly likable stage presence with the highest artistic qualities.

So what's your opinion on all this, especially on the Albright article I posted at the beginning?

Something will bring it around. I became a fan of classical thru heaven metal. When I was learning guitar many, so many years ago it seems, we listened to the great Randall Rhoads. . He was the guitarist in Ozzy Osbournes band and was trained in classical. Everybody I knew started listening and chasing classical. It may not be as popular but there's no death in store for it.

The BBC Proms concerts - 75 concerts over 2 months - are almost invariably all sold out, but up to 1,350 'Prommers' can still queue on the day and get cheap tickets (£6) for standing room in the huge Royal Albert Hall. There is no lack of audiences, young or old. If anything, audience numbers get bigger year on year. There is a children's concert, a jazz concert, a movie concert, a musical (this year, it was a semi-staged Oklahoma!), a World Music concert, plus several chamber music concerts in smaller venues.

How are they different from normal concerts? The audiences are still dead quiet during performances (except in the children's Prom and the jazz Prom), but they can clap between movements if they wish (there are no BBC police with handcuffs to drag culprits away), there is obviously no dress code, there is an air of informality about the concerts, and conductors and soloists frequently talk to audiences (Barenboim gave one of his usual political speeches in his concert this year), usually to introduce a new piece or before an encore. There was one concert this year where the first half was the orchestra, conductor and presenter introducing the Eroica Symphony to the audience, which also required their participation (to sing the tunes and canons), following which the whole orchestra played the work standing up (except for the cellos and basses), and from memory. All visiting orchestras and soloists are encouraged to give encores, especially music from their homeland (though I remember when the St Petersburg PO played Nimrod with a Russian accent for their encore ), and their programs are frequently longer than in most classical concerts, often with over two hours' music.

Personally, I wouldn't go to any concert where you have to dress up (I leave them for those with dresses for the occasion, which I don't - I can't even remember the last time I wore a tie). But I wouldn't go to one where audiences can chat and talk over drinks either - that is a cocktail party, not a concert. (And I don't drink alcohol). But I would happily attend - and have attended - informal concerts, where people can come & go, sit or lie on the floor, go to sleep if bored (as one would be if the pianist was playing New Age stuff ), eat their burritos - just as long as there's not too much noise, and where the performer(s) chat to the audience. In fact, my own monthly recitals are totally informal - I certainly don't dress up, and people sometimes ask me what I'd just played in between pieces (there's no program, and I often decide what to play next depending on how I feel and the vibes I get from the audience). My audience can enjoy (or not) what I play in any way they like, walk out if Chopin doesn't appeal, and come back in again for the Stockhausen later.......

When I was in music school in the 1980s, one was required to attend a large number of concerts and recitals each semester. One of the faculty members, the grande-dame-operatic-voice teacher, would publically and very unpleasantly berate students (anyone she recognized from the school, not just her own voice students) who didn't "represent the institution" well by looking too "slouchy" at a concert.

Once, unshaven and disheveled in clothes full of holes, I turned around to find her glowering at me in the lobby during an intermission. I blurted out, "I was studying for a math test tomorrow that I'm going to fail and didn't have time to dress!" That excuse seemed to satisfy her.

Most of the "church-clothed adults" back then (apart from the voice teacher) didn't seem to mind Bohemian-looking young people in concert audiences. So, I'm not so sure why the youngsters today are uncomforatable.

I didn't read the article. However, after showing a video of myself playing Chopin Ballade #4 to a bunch of co-workers and having almost all of them ask me if I wrote the piece, I don't think anything is going to stop classical music from dying.

I should add that was why I felt comfortable playing it for them.

In the NW suburbs of Chicago, the local high schools have a very healthy orchestral program, along with a very good youth symphony. In Chicago, the Classic Youth Symphony and Protege Philharmonic are going strong. All hope is not lost.

Personally, when I spend good money to attend a concert, I don't want to see performers, or other audience members, looking like they just finished mowing the lawn.and yes, I am there to hear the music, not the crinkle of candy wrappers or someone clearing their throat at fff.

I think an attempt to overshadow the brilliance of classical composers by offering cheap gimmicks like improv, is a shabby way to attract audiences. It merely feeds the awful habit of getting instant gratification, one of the ills of today's overly impatient society. Better ways to attract listeners to classical music include offering informal settings, such as the Seattle Symphony's Friday night, one hour, "Untuxed" concerts, supporting funding for youth programs and, much as I hate to admit it, supporting performers like Lang Lang , who attract less knowledgeable but appreciative audiences. Even Valentina Lisitsa, while not one of my favorite performers, has found a way to reach a wider audience using the internet. Classical music just needs to continue to find ways to reach a changing, hurried and over-stressed audience.

Speaking of Charlie Albright, I heard him perform once. He demonstrated brilliant technique, fast, faster, fastest playing and loud, louder loudest volume. I didn't not hear any subtlety or musicality, just volume and speed. My ears couldn't take it anymore and we walked out during intermission.

Let me guess: you cannot improvise.

I think the premise is faulty. Classical music is healthier than it's ever been – and more popular – and the article proves it. To quote from the article:



I've noticed that people are a lot more willing to listen to any genre of music. It used to be the music you listened to was tied up to your identity (and even politics), but now people will listen to whatever sounds good, without worrying.

Improvisation, when audiences probably do not even know where it's happening in a concerto, is a curious thing to latch onto. The presumption is that improvising doesn't sound dull and overpracticed (yet, it often is prepared, just not notated, and rather mediocre). Or that audiences do not respect classical "cover" musicians who don't "play their own stuff."

Personableness (talking to the audience before or during a performance, doing meet-and-greets) is now more important, but brings to mind the Seinfeld joke that people are more afraid of public speaking than death; so, it's better to be the one in the box than the one giving the eulogy at a funeral. It's hard enough to play well, let alone talk about it (for some people)!

I like some crossovers, such as 2Cellos.

I attended my first Schoenberg Gurrelieder a few weeks ago at the Royal Albert Hall, a BBC Proms concert which was packed to the rafters. Sir Simon Rattle conducted the London Symphony Orchestra and six soloists and three huge choirs, one of which was from Barcelona.

Earlier that day, I took part in the (free) Proms Extra Sing event, where the choirmaster for the evening's concert taught the attendees (which numbered about 300) to sing the choral parts of Gurrelieder. The scores were handed out to us when we went into the hall. Most of us could sight-sing but even so, the highly chromatic (but not atonal) choral parts taxed our reading abilities. (We almost heaved a sigh of relief at the extended C major conclusion ). But we all had a lot fun learning the music, and hearing about the tricks the choirmaster got up to (with Rattle's approval) to make sure the important choral lines got heard above the thick orchestration - like everybody singing other's parts when the choral part was subdivided into three by the composer, and even re-writing the final mighty C major chord - as you can hear here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b091w7fy

And then, just before the concert itself, there was an informal talk about the genesis and construction of Gurrelieder given by a musicologist, also free for anyone to attend. (You can hear it on the above link from 1:59 onwards).

And you didn't need to wear a tuxedo for this event, which was also televised. (I wore a T shirt and running shoes). There were many young people in the audience.

The following day, Bach's St John Passion was performed - with the audience asked to sing in the chorales. Just like they did in Bach's day. Again, there was a free pre-concert talk about the work, and again, it was televised.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b091w29y

That is the way such high-profile (and huge) concerts should be done. With plenty of enjoyable educational opportunities for those who wish to avail themselves of them, and audience participation where appropriate. Without dumbing down, but with no elitist overtones either.

Improvisation in classical concerts is best left to those pianists who can do it well, like this pianist, in her first concert in Scotland. Someone in the audience sang her the Scottish anthem (which she has never heard), and she improvised on it as her encore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tIVrt4417U

BTW, she played it in the same key as the guy who sang it (she has perfect pitch, and reproduced the tune exactly and immediately).

Improvisation can be more than just "parlor tricks" I would add Robert Levine as another example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlp4RqHgoOU

And there is something intriguing about this ensemble: http://www.thescrollensemble.com/en/

This kind of thing can add some fresh air to 'yet another interpretation of the standard repertoire' recitals. Unfortunately the age of the performer/composer is long gone and improvisation in the "classical" realm is mostly a lost art.

There is some movement to bring on a revival: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByQ-Ds1ffl8

I certainly have nothing against improvisation at concerts (Beethoven was famous for it, so it's hardly a cheap gimmick) or a more casual dress code - one regularly sees college students in jeans at Severance Hall, and it's hardly had a negative impact on the concert experience.

But Albright neglects a point that has been made elsewhere: until there are composers supplying new music people actually want to hear, gaining new audiences will continue to be a struggle.

Speaking strictly from my own experience, I think Classical music is actually in BETTER shape now than it was, say, 40 - 50 ago. I come out of a Catholic Midwest background, and when I was growing up through the school system, there was very little attention paid to Classical music -- the extent of musical activities in High School was the Band and the Choir. And indeed, there was a kind of hostility towards Classical music as being an uppity and snobbish affair. In the 60s and early 70s, I really think the hostility really increased in intensity, as the burgeoning of popular music in its various forms became so readily available. Add to this the exhaustion of musical language within the "serious" music community, wherein the only new music that could be written had to be Serial in nature, resulting in new works that were invariably "challenging" in nature. The "tyranny of the row" was IMO pretty much done by the mid 80s, and ever since then composers have by and large moved to genres informed, but not dominated by, serial techniques. But I also believe that one of the effects of the 60s revolution was actually to create a greater appreciation of "the Arts", which continues really to this day. At least here in Madison, WI, Musical Education in all forms is very solid, well supported -- and the high school and college Music students are far, far more sophisticated than I remember from the 60s. And the same thing was true in Morris County, NJ, where I had lived for 30 years or so. So I certainly don't see it as "dying". And at least here in Madison, there is also a problem of "graying" established concert forms, but there is simultaneously a preponderance of more informal, lower cost, high quality musical options available, provided by younger talented musicians to appreciative audiences with a wide age diversity.

I have a couple comments on this:

First, having grown up in the suburbs of NY in the 1970's and 1980s, I had absolutely NO exposure to classical music - none. My parents listened to show tunes, my friends to rock and roll. When I began to play piano four years ago, I had no intention of learning any classical music. It was only once I began to learn about different keys and scales, and began listening to the recitals, that I realized how beautiful this music was, how much more interesting to play and learn than pop music (with repetitive IV-V-I progressions), and how much more educational and mind-enhancing classical music was. But then, I had to learn about the musicians and composers, and learn the pieces. This takes a lot of time, and I have a long way to go. I learn through YouTube and Apple Music, and of course this forum. But my friends and family who know I play stare blankly when I tell them I'm learning pieces by Chopin, Beethoven, Bach, etc. They've heard of them, but can't name or recognize any of their works. One of the problems is that when you only hear something once, and it is unknown, it doesn't often take you as much as something you're familiar with and hear repeatedly.

Second, I've learned that some of the best rock musicians are classically trained, such as above mentioned Randy Rhodes, and that many of the best rock guitarists are the ones who can really play; they clearly learned classical music and incorporate pieces of it into their music. Unfortunately, even this is diminishing as rock is giving way to hip-hop, rap and other non-musical music. If you gave Beethoven a Les Paul guitar, he'd probably play the same music, through a Marshall stack, and he would be the one of the best rock stars around. It's not only the music that is changing, but the instrument which is used to play it that changes as well. Who knows, maybe Bach would think a modern piano is too modern and wonder what happened to the Harpsichord?

Finally, young artists like Lisitsa on YouTube or Lang Lang live certainly help the cause. I've already seen her and would go again. Only by reaching out to people with modern social media will interest be revived; let's face it, most kids under 30 aren't going to find out about shows through the New York Times weekend section.

Does this help? Should we champion the cause to bring classical piano back into the mainstream? It can be done but it'll be expensive and time consuming. Fortunately, however, this art has already stood the test of time and will endure, even if in low numbers, through the centuries. On the other hand, will anyone really remember Justin Bieber 100 years from now?

Interest in classical music is very much alive and well here. However, it is possibly much less defined by the concert than it used to be. The article seems to assume classical music is synonymous with the concert, but from what I see I doubt this is the case any longer. Several of my friends are diehard classical devotees who rarely hear it outside their living rooms.

I got a nice warm feeling when I read this, especially considering the author, whose opinions I consider to be generally unimpeachable. I genuinely feel rejuvenated after discovering the amateur piano competition universe and the various music associations with their associated performance opportunities that exist in my area. After years of listening to DVDs, MP3s, MP4s, YouTube videos, and lord knows what else, I had almost forgotten the thrill of live performances, where you can't rewind, you can't edit, and it's all out there every second that you're listening. I believe there's still enough critical mass to keep live classical music alive and the London Proms are to some extent a testament to that, as others have pointed out. Speaking selfishly, I just hope the amateur competition scene stays alive because I am having a blast. Though I would really like to win one some day . . .

I just started a new job teaching Middle School Music Appreciation and Chorus, so I haven't got the time to read the article.

However, I will say that my middle schoolers absolutely LOVE it when I take a few minutes of class time to play for them, with them gathered around the (crappy) piano. They are blown away. I've showed parts of my performances on YouTube, and they are mesmerized. They go home and watch them with their parents, then come back to me with requests... "Do you know how to play Fur Elise?" "Do you know the Moonlight Sonata?" "Can you play the 4 Seasons?"

So maybe there's hope that the audience isn't dying off.

Coaster - thank you for making my day!

There is a lot to be said for accessibility.

Some of it is what you dress up in to go to a concert, for sure. If we think about the popularity of opera in Italy in the 1800s, or the popularity of Broadway, maybe music can stand some under-dressing on the part of its audience.

And I would argue that if we support the idea that you have to be good in order to deserve to practice an art (or a sport, or a subject in school) - we are asking for trouble. Sports got there recently - we glorify sports, yet we have participation rates that are pitifully low. If you're not already good, you probably won't even play in high school, let alone college, and then what will you do for recreation after you graduate.

Music probably came very close as well, or may still be there - I know that the members of this forum are the best argument against what I'm about to say - but if you're not playing Beethoven sonatas by the time you're 8, is there a place at the table for you. We know that the answer is "there is a place for everyone", and that the beginners are welcome and encouraged here. But I think that there is a different world existing in parallel with this one, where the bad ju-ju of "if you're not really good, go find something else to do" is practiced. Anything you can do to change that (and I think many people here are), is a step in the right direction.