Recently, a New
York City chapter of the American Federation of Musicians published an email
newsletter that turned heads within the classical orchestral world. As
discussed here, one newsletter headline read, “How do you really
feel about 21st century repertoire?” and continues, “In many ways, the future
of classical music depends on the repertoire. But, as a musician, what do you
really think of new work?” The body of the short article encouraged musicians
to weigh in with their thoughts in an effort to understand the relationship
between composers, performers, and audience members. As pointed out in the above link, the objective of the post may have been noble, but was approached in the
wrong way. “With its inclusion of ‘really’ (in italics, no less), it is
improbable, at best, to imagine that a healthy discussion is what is intended,”
Rob Deemer writes. Reading the entire section of the newsletter, the
implication that performers do not (or should not) enjoy contemporary music is
apparent.
Why would a
professional organization include such a connotation in their newsletter? Is
there truth to their implication of the distance between audiences, performers,
and musicians? What exactly is the perception of the state of contemporary
instrumental music?
To answer the
latter two questions, I’ll direct us to this article, written in 2012 but
chronicling future concert programs through 2013. The Guardian, one of
the UK’s most popular news sources, paints an optimistic picture. The writer
describes that “audiences are flocking to work previously regarded as austere
and impenetrable,” before listing the conductors and orchestras that are
routinely programming avant-garde works. Among the reasons listed for the increase
in popularity of contemporary works are campaigns targeting people within other
artforms and musical interests, for example performing contemporary classical
music alongside bands such as The Aphex Twins or Joanna Newsom.
This optimism seems to be an abrupt change in the contemporary music world, as Alex Ross painted a rather bleak picture in 2010, describing a number of NYC performances
where audience members walked out. “A full century after Arnold Schoenberg and
his students Alban Berg and Anton Webern unleashed their harsh chords on the
world, modern classical music remains an unattractive proposition for many
concertgoers,” he writes.
As
performers, how can we combat this trend, if it exists in America? The music of
Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Ives can provide us with new technical demands that
don’t necessarily exist in the great Classical and Romantic repertoire (not to
mention the techniques demanded by Crumb, Xenakis, Boulez, or Berio). The modernists
make us think and reflect upon why their music is so original. To address both
the audience and performer’s perspective, I’ll close by quoting Alex Ross, who
makes a great point: “Listeners who become accustomed to Berg and Ligeti will
find new dimensions in Mozart and Beethoven. So, too, will performers. For too
long, we have placed the classical masters in a gilded cage. It is time to let
them out.”
No comments:
Post a Comment