Journalist William Weir, writing in the Chicago Tribune yesterday (Sept. 3, 2008), makes a succinct case for marketing the music we generally call "new classical" just about anywhere except among the consumers of classical music's usual product: music composed before 1910. After citing the money and energy expended by one living composer in pursuit of performances by symphony orchestras and their chamber-music brethren, Weir makes his point by way of a quote from Greg Sandow:
"It might be easier if you ignored the mainstream classical world, where new music is not particularly welcome," says Greg Sandow, a composer and classical music blogger writing a book about the future of classical music. "The mainstream audience is the wrong audience, just like you wouldn't show art films at the cinema at the mall."
There's no reason people who listen to Beethoven can't listen to newfangled classical, but there's also no reason to necessarily expect them to. It's a little like expecting someone who listens to Hoagy Carmichael to listen to Radiohead, just because they both fall under the category of "pop."
There's no reason people who listen to Beethoven can't listen to newfangled classical, but there's also no reason to necessarily expect them to. It's a little like expecting someone who listens to Hoagy Carmichael to listen to Radiohead, just because they both fall under the category of "pop."
I once addressed a group of classical music presenters on the importance of performing new music as a way of continuing a tradition that might well die without fresh creative input. I pointed out that in the pop world, the new was expected, that "covers" of earlier music were considered secondary to the primary importance of new creations. Asking for questions from the audience, I expected vivacious debate on the relevance of new classical music. Calling on the first eager hand raised, I got this instead: "Tell me, how can we get more attention from the press?"
It sometimes seems classical-music fans don't even understand the basic ontology of how music is made. Performers are elevated to primary music-makers, while composers are relegated to people who supply some notes for the real musicians onstage. A few years ago, I attended the audition concert of a young conductor for the music-director post at a major orchestra. The first half of the program was devoted to music by a semi-well-known living composer. The crowd loved it, applauding wildly, yet at intermission all I heard was how great the conductor was - not a word about the compositions. The orchestra hired the conductor as its music director, but not a note of the composer's music has ever been played again. Did the audience really not understand that a good 80 percent of what made the music what it was had been determined by the composer, not the conductor?
- KLF
Comments