Half Full or Half Empty?

I'm aware that the world does contain pessimists--those "when I was a kid" types who reminisce about the happy past and moan about an impending Armageddon. But why does classical music seem to attract doom-and-gloomers to an extent that few other art forms do? Sometimes I feel like the trump of doom is sounding at full force both from within and from without. Pop culture calls classical music a dying genre for a dying generation, and even music critics--so-called "supporters" of the art--forecast decline. (Example: "A new dark age [may be] descending upon humanity that could wipe out even the memory of classical music. Will this future come to pass? It’s impossible to say, however, the current direction the orchestral side of classical music is heading seems to be one of near extinction. . ." The Partial Observer) Such an outlook certainly isn't new, but membership in these self-destructive ranks is now widening to include classical musicians and composers themselves.

I'll never forget an assembly at Arizona State University where a Pulitzer Prize-winning composer delivered a speech to the student body that began like this: "We all know that classical music is dying--that cheap entertainment is desensitizing audiences and killing art. Nobody wants new classical music. Nobody needs new classical musicians. This is the world in which your generation must learn to live." Is it really? I do feel like most classical musicians (even the brightest, most ambitiously optimistic!) see their art form as an "endangered species." Why? And based on what--antiquated, 19th-century assumptions? It was so refreshing to read Cook's statement in Chapter 3 of his short introduction to music: "There is no reason for saying that classical music as a whole is in a state of crisis. Classical music is not dead, probably not even dying. But what has kept it alive is a dramatic transformation of its role--a transformation [that] has been barely acknowledged in academic writing. In other words, if there is a crisis in classical music, is not in the music, but in our ways of thinking about it."

The time is ripe for discussion, and the better able we are to deconstruct our 19th-century assumptions, the better able we will be to see the future of classical music in an optimistic light. I did some sleuthing around on the internet, and although I ran into a lot of doom-and-gloomers, I also found a heartening number of classical music optimists out there! (You can click on the links below to read the full articles or just glance over the excerpts I've posted.) Fellow idealists: Enjoy!

Hope for the Future of Classical Records

"As a major record label, I believe we have an obligation to make recordings that are relevant. And to me relevance means that people actually listen to our recordings. If the public does not respond, that is an indication that we have done something wrong. When we release that rare standard repertoire recording that is truly brilliant and extraordinarily different from what is already available, we find that the public does respond. Evgeny Kissin's first recordings ever of the Beethoven Piano Concertos, which we just recently released, is already making an enormous impression. So, even though we haven't completely given up on standard repertoire recordings, we've been obliged to broaden our artistic horizons dramatically. And I think that ultimately this is the good news that has come out of the crisis facing the classical record industry. Because rather than drift towards commercial oblivion with new recordings of old music that don't sell, we have started doing something about it. The effort is paying off with a surge of compositional creativity that I believe will benefit the entire classical musical world and audiences, in particular, for many years to come."

Education is the Future of Classical Music

"During the past decade, reports about the impending death of classical music have arrived with such regularity that doom-saying is practically a full-time activity for several arts journalists. Today's pop culture, they say, combined with the serious decline of music education in many school districts — has built a society in which classical music is terra incognita to most people. While debates go on about the future of classical music, there are encouraging signs of life in this art form all over the globe. Some of the optimism is generated by classical-music downloads, which have taken off like a rocket as symphony orchestras launch their own private music labels and offer both downloads and live streaming on the Internet. Never has so much classical music been so widely accessible: a trip to YouTube will let you see and hear great performers of the past and present singing arias, playing piano preludes and conducting orchestras."

"Here at home, Seattle Opera did a demonstration of the opera segment they're taking to the kids: a scaled-down, colloquial-English version of the first act of Wagner's mighty "Ring." The presentation had everyone riveted, as the three young "Rhinemaidens" teased and taunted the ugly dwarf who was later to take a revenge that corrupted and ultimately ended the world. The parallels to contemporary playground bullying were scarily clear. Аs long as music education — that is, education about all music, playing all instruments — can be brought back to thrive in our schools, kids will have the right to choose what they love to hear and play, and the means to do both with intelligence and good training."

Gangs of New York

I was watching Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York yesterday on Netflix and, while the movie doesn't have anything specifically to do with the arts, it nonetheless provides a glimpse into the class conflicts and divisions in mid-19th century New York City.

For those who haven't seen the movie, it opens in 1846 and shows a battle over the Five Points area of NYC between Irish immigrants and the "nativists" - Americans who were born on U.S. soil and believe that immigrants should have no right to live in America. I won't give away the plot, but it is basically a tale of revenge and justice between the son of one of the Irish immigrants (Leonardo di Caprio) and "Bill the Butcher" (Daniel Day-Lewis) the nativist leader.

Some interesting things I got out of the first part of the movie:
1. Scorsese's portrayal of NYC is shocking, even for someone familiar with history. The complete squalor that the immigrants live in is stunning. This squalor is also sharply contrasted with the decadent lives of the rich in another part of town.
2. The Irish, most of whom are very recent immigrants, have a starkly different culture from other Americans. They have strange rituals and dances, and some in particular "come from a deep part of the old country, and no one knows what they're saying, but they love to fight the police."
3. Bill and his nativists, rather than simply wiping out the immigrants, do their best to assimilate them. When the movie jumps forward to 1862, Di Caprio's character finds that many of his father's most loyal followers have become acolytes of Bill. They now wear the clothes of the nativists, suppress and exploit more recent Irish immigrants, and do their best to eliminate their own Irish accents and origins. This seems in line with mid to late 19th century thinking about "educating" audiences and essentially, "making them like us."

So, I'm not saying that Gangs is a great film or entirely historically accurate (though it did win some awards for production design and period accuracy), but it is worth seeing at least the first 45 minutes if you haven't seen it before.

Possibilities for the Future

In the time that I have been attending this class I have redirected my thoughts towards the future of classical music more so than I first believed I would. Upon finishing the book Highbrow Lowbrow I felt a personal responsibility to react to what I had learn of the world past and create a brighter future for the world of classical music. I ruminated on the possibilities of contribution I could make toward this goal and found the answer is very hard to come by. After further reading with Music: A Very Short Introduction I realize that one of points Nicholas Cook resonate with me strongly.

The point Nicholas Cook makes that caught my eye more than the rest is the hierarchy of roles that come into play when attending a classical concert. The idea that Music itself as an entity is the top of the pyramid followed by the composer, that is only the genius composer, who merely writes Music's will on paper. Next is the conductor who reenacts the composers intentions leading its sheep (the performers) down the correct path. At the bottom of this pyramid lie the audience whom if deemed worthy may receive this blessing from the quasi-god known as "Music" (Capital M intentional).

While I do believe music is a very influential part of culture and life, I am skeptical to very it in such godly terms in which the tradition might lead us to. That is, for the planets themselves to revolve around a system that is clearly man made and not universal to the world, but one kind of culture alone seems a bit far fetched. Allowing myself to understand that this concept is quite possibly out of date also allows me to feel it possible for our generation to come up with a more innovate one that might resonate with the public and perhaps even ourselves greater than the one in place now.

I have never thought about music outside of performance as deeply as I have since entering this class and I believe that says something about our culture today. I suspect that many of my fellow students, rather they be longing to perform, compose, or conduct have thought much outside of how they can make their dream come true in such a shirking world. In other words how to make their dream come true with so few jobs available to them.

I personally have not thought much outside of this because I have in a sense been told that this is just the way it is and all I can do is try my hardest and say my prayers that something works out. This to me is a very bleak and depressing world to approach. Until now in attending this class have I realized that this world does not necessarily have to be the world I accept if I choose to do something about it. While I have my ideas as to what may have expand our world others may have different ones, but I would like to hope that everyone has something in mind other than just accepting the fates and hoping for the best.

A Testimonial

Hello friends, I have more of a testimonial today, and less a continuation of a line of our conversation. It has been a rough couple of days in my family world, and it is in these really hard times that I remember how much music means to me. In the last few days, I have had bits and pieces of so many comforting compositions float through my head, and provide a comfort I really need. Some of this music I have not listened to for years, yet, there it is, fresh as the day I first heard it.
Removing myself from my current situation, I find this fact really encouraging for the long-term engagement of new music-lovers. If we can get just one person to have a powerful connection to a piece of music, it will really stick with them for life. The music we love is both powerful and eternal, and that is a real light in darkness.

My website

I will follow the previous trend and post the link to my website as well:

www.davidbalandrin.com

Cheers,
Dave

Cultural work entry on Wikipedia?

Hi all,

I have to admit, I'm still struggling a bit with the definition of "cultural work." Perhaps we can discuss it again tomorrow?

Nevertheless, I noticed that there is not an entry for "cultural work" in Wikipedia, though the term is mentioned in several biographies as sections (for example, John Doe: Early Life, Education, Cultural Work). Perhaps we can, as a class, contribute a new "cultural work" entry to Wikipedia?

Please let me know what you think.
Dave

While reading this weekend...

Hello Everyone,


While I was reading "Music: A Very Short Introduction" by Nicholas Cook, and it really made me think about pop music's and classical music's lasting qualities. Thinking about most popular music, a song will be listened to and spoken about for certain amount of time, but all of a sudden, no one will ever speak about it after a few months or a year at best. If you think about Bach, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Mozart, and any of these "classical" geniuses, you realize we are still talking about their music almost 300 years later. Even if you think about certain jazz musicians such as John Coltrane, people might say that he is a "legend" or a "genius," and he died over 40 years ago.

I don't want to say in this post that classical music or jazz music is "real" music and all others have no lasting qualities, but I just want ones reading this post to think about how we treat music. Do we listen to something like we are reading a book, and never read it again? Do we treat it like a movie, where we watch it once, might watch it again because it was so deep that we missed a few things so we rewind and replay the scenes? Do we treat music like text books, to sort of "show" that we are educated - like certain pieces we have heard or studied show a right of passage in a way? Sometimes if I'm learning a piece of music or studying/transcribing a solo - another fellow colleague or one of my teachers will be impressed by this "work" that I did, almost showing an accomplishment instead of just an enjoyment of diving deeper into the music by just understanding. Also the way we may play a concert, we may never look at the piece/sonata/symphony again after a one time performance - either because we are sick of the piece, or because the audience that listens to us doesn't demand of it.

The common listener who might not know much about music does not have to necessarily hear a piece and think about all these things, but I just want everyone to realize and be aware of the evolution of music, of how we think about it and how we treat music and their musicians. Look at our public schools for instance, it is not important I guess to have music or art in a child's life because the schools don't want to spend the money because they can't afford it, and it is the first program to cut because it is considered the least important and just an extracurricular activity. There are many talented musicians out there, but they don't receive the great recognition they deserve, many musicians out there are poor, and part of the reason for this is because our society places it as a low point to other things in the world. Music has been an important part of my life, and I want others to experience this joy that I have received through music.

Is it a big deal that we think of music differently today and we treat music as a "one-hit wonder" or talk about an artist's music hundreds of years after they die because we realize how important these composers are to music history? I also want to pose the question of how we will think of the popular artists today 50 or 100 years later, and will certain history books speak about how Eminem, Lady Gaga, or Jessica Simpson were powerful figures in the early 2000s and late 1990s. I was listening to Jamin' 9.45 one early afternoon, and heard "Back in the day Buffet," and they played a Ludicris song from 2000, and said that this was "old school." I feel definitely feel old, and when I think of old school I think of Mozart symphonies or even John Coltrane's Giant Steps not Ludicris' "What's your Fantasy."

These are just some things I thought about when reading about popular music and classical music in this week's reading. I hope some of you guys can build upon this thought or agree/disagree with what I am saying.

Matthew's Link from the Previous Post

Matt

Alex Ross Op-Ed

Hello All!
Saw this in the paper this morning, and I thought that I would post it as food for our on-going conversation. Enjoy!

~Kyle

Alex Ross on the MET's new Ring Cycle.

From a Composer's Viewpoint

I recently spoke with a fellow composer about his compositional process. Evaluating our dialogue from within the framework of Nicholas Cook's ideas about 19th-century constructs opened my eyes to just how readily we (the supposedly "educated") accept the validity of those constructs. "When I wrote in the 80's," he said, "I avoided 3rds and 5ths like the plague. Of course, we all know about that era; composers couldn't use even remotely triadic materials." Couldn't? Or wouldn't? And why? Why are we so influenced by what the academic masses tell us we can or cannot do? (And yes, there are elitist "masses"--masses cultivated by critics who exploit herd mentality just as shamelessly as the purveyors of popular culture do!)

The composer continued: "This is one of my favorite compositions. It's essentially abstract in nature." He handed me the score. "I had been writing a lot of rhythm-and-blues numbers at the time, and I wanted to return to my greatest love: contemporary classical music." Two things immediately struck me as interesting in these statements: 1) This composer saw his rhythm-and-blues and his classical contemporary composing as two entirely separate entities, each with an affixed hierarchal value (he had to "return" to the exalted form after dabbling in the lower), and both immoveable within separate spheres, unable to overlap. 2) This piece that he labeled "essentially abstract in nature" was accompanied by a page-long program note.

"This contains no programmatic elements," he wrote in the program note. And yet a piece lacking programmatic elements was somehow enhanced by a program note?

I love what Nicholas Cook says about this in his typically clear and astute way: "Within the concert hall, 'pure' [instrumental] music reigns supreme. But the victory of music against the word [in the 19th century] was a flawed one. For as word was eliminated from music it began to fill the space around music. The paradox lies in the fact that if music needs to be explained through words, then it must stand in need of explanation, it must be in some sense incomplete without it."

When I was applying for grad schools, I very nearly removed the following statement from the biography on my website (for the very reason that the academic world seems to look down on programmatic music): "Words, to me, are music. I can't read a well-crafted poem or listen to a theatrical performance without musical voices threading their way through the spoken narrative. When setting a text, my own voice joins with the writer's in a unique way to form a new, or rather, renewed creation. Almost every piece I compose is inspired somehow by a poem, a theatrical idea or even just a word or phrase. Tonal music originally developed from vocal models, and my style tends to be governed by the lyricism and melodic phrasing associated with vocal writing, no matter my medium." Now I'm proud of myself for leaving it be.

My website

Here is a link to my website.

Jaunter Sears Website

Personal Website

Dr. Jackson asked that I post the link to my personal homepage:

Erica's Website

I haven't listed or uploaded samples of any of my most recent compositions, and my biography is outdated as well. Maybe posting a public link will motivate me to update! :-)

Placido Domingo and the L.A. Opera - creating music of the future?

Hi all,

I found these articles in the LA Times.

L.A. Opera to deliver 'Il Postino' premiere on Thursday

Placido Domingo Says L.A. Opera's 'The Postman' Is Special Delivery for Latinos

Placido Domingo renew contract with L.A. Opera through 2013

The most fascinating thing is the opera premiere, though. It is a new work with a Spanish libretto that draws on popular culture (it is based on the 1994 film "The Postman"), and it is no accident that Domingo (like Gustavo Dudamel with the LA Phil) is trying to appeal to the heavily Latino population of L.A. I would also guess that this target community is not prone to listening to lots of classical music.

Daniel Catán, the composer of "Il Postino," has a fascinating history:
"An almost preternaturally amiable chap, Catán is the product of a mixed Anglo-Latin cultural upbringing. Descended from Russian-Turkish-Jewish immigrants, he was born and raised in Mexico City and later studied philosophy at the University of Sussex in England and music at Princeton University with Milton Babbitt. Among his influences he cites Stravinsky, Ravel and Alban Berg. He and his wife, a professional harpist, have two grown children and make their home in South Pasadena."

This sounds like the future of classical music to me: music that is rooted in the tradition of Western art music, but is nevertheless forging out in new directions and trying to reach new audiences in exciting ways!

Explorers and Couch Potatoes

Minnesota State University currently offers a course entitled, "Explorers and Couch Potatoes: Active and Passive Media." The class seems to be geared towards media writing majors, and it provides an in-depth analysis of the two major types of audiences in the world of contemporary media: the active audience and the passive (the explorers and the couch potatoes). The course description makes it clear that modern media writers must approach these two audiences in very different ways, and it defines the gulf that separates the two audiences in very clear terms (see the chart below).

For me, one of the most provocative points that Levine makes in Chapter 3 of Highbrow/Lowbrow deals with classical music's shift from cultivating an active audience to demanding a passive one. Levine writes: "To make art possible, performers and audiences had to submit to creators and become mere instruments of the will, mere auditors of the productions of the artist." He goes on to explain that, by the turn of the century, classical music no longer belonged to the performers and their audiences; instead, it belonged to an immortalized classical canon. Symphonies and operas had become gallery artworks, meant to be accepted according to a set of criteria established by music critics. Audiences no longer attended concerts of classical music with the idea that they themselves would be expected to pass judgement. They no longer threw tomatoes when disgruntled or shouted raucously for encores. Instead, they came with the proper attire (no three-foot hats allowed!) and the proper mindset, sitting passively and accepting whatever type of "art" was offered. Classical music had become a mode of one-way, rather than two-way, communication.

The gulf between explorers and couch potatoes was widened even further by the advent of film. In a movie theater, audiences were removed from the performers by much more than just a curtain and a spotlight. In fact, nothing at all was required of such an audience; nothing spectators could say or do would alter the performance to any degree.

Read the description of active and passive audiences below, and tell me what you think about 21st-century music and the type of audience it demands. Does contemporary classical music cater to an active or a passive audience? What about aleatoric music? Popular forms? Should we be trying (as modern composers and performers) to reach out to an active audience, a passive one, or both? Is there a way to approach passive audiences on their own terms and re-teach them to be active listeners? (If the text below gets cut off for some reason, you can visit the original site here: http://www.mnstate.edu/hanson/MC210/MC210_active&passive_media.htm)

Active (Newspapers, Magazines & the Internet)	Passive (Television & Radio)
About half of all American adults read a newspaper daily (readership is weighted toward greater age, education and affluence; somewhat stronger in suburban and rural settings)	About two-thirds of all American adults watch TV news (consistent across all ages, education levels, incomes and other demographic data)
Active audience seeks out information of interest ("pull" strategy)	Passive audience receives information with little focused effort
Newspapers reach mass audience limited by geography. Magazines may appeal to general or specialized interests. Internet sites may serve either.	Generally broadcast to mass audiences, limited by extent of signal. Cable TV has introduced more specialized targeting. Radio formats also permit some degree of "narrowcasting."
Readers are usually fully engaged in the act of reading	Viewers/listeners are often distracted ... their attention must be captured first
Readers must be literate in English	Literacy isn't a factor — commonly used by children, non-native English speakers and others who get little from the printed word
Substantial cost factor (subscriptions, newsstand purchase, computer & Internet access) — though library users can access at no personal cost	Little cost for access to local stations beyond buying the TV or radio — though cost is a factor in access to cable or satellite services
Audience has greater interest in public affairs — usually well-versed in our culture	Broader audience whose interest in public affairs can't be assumed. Often serves as introduction to our culture
Nonlinear or "random access" format — reader can easily pick and choose material of personal interest	Linear (sequential) presentation of information — audience can’t skip around or go back
Time element is wide open, depending on reader's needs	Broadcast and viewed in "real time" (though TV programs can be taped for later viewing or references)
Text media are well-suited to provide in-depth material including details and background information	Broadcasts provide generally weak format for providing details and background; usually focus on summaries and overviews
Relies mostly on words to portray emotion, action, drama, humor.	Strong format for presenting emotional, dramatic and humorous content (visuals and sounds)
Audience is primarily seeking information	Audience is seeking a combination of entertainment, relaxation and information

How to make it happen (?)

In this week's New Yorker, there is an article about James Dyson, the inventor of the vacuum that bears his name, written by John Seabrook. In one section he talks about the initial US launch of the vacuum. When it came to the US in 2002, most retailers were selling cheap vacuums that sold for about $100, and here was the Dyson priced at $399. It seemed absurd. Who would spend that much on a vacuum?!?!? Yet, within the first months of it being on the market it sold 10 times the initial projections, and went from being carried in one chain store, to six. What was it that made it so successful? Dyson knew that by sticking to his guts and trusting the design and capability of the vacuum, people would come to realize just how much better his product was. Seabrook states that;

"Dyson had grasped what the companies trying to make hundred-dollar vacuum cleaners had forgotten: that a lot of people... are willing to pay a premium for a machine that will deliver an emotional experience."

Doesn't that just say it all. We, as musicians, don't need to change our product, we need to re-brand ourselves! We have a product that has been tested over hundreds of years and packs a strong "emotional experience", but we've put it in an old ratty box. We need to run away from the old ideology that makes classical music about being "intelligent" or not; "educated" or not; "cultured" or not. We need to remind people that art music is about life, about love, about loss, about grief and joy. We need to help people connect with the music we love, and have honest emotional experiences.

article on james levine - boston.com

http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/exhibitionist/2010/09/james_levine_sp_1.html

An interesting article about the upcoming season of the BSO as well as James Levine recovery from surgery - this upcoming year will be his 7th year as the music director of the BSO - it leaves a lot of unanswered questions of his health as well as his future of directing the BSO in the air...

Some sad local news - Charles Ansbacher

Charles Ansbacher, director of the Boston Landmarks Orchestra, dies at 67

In response to the "Blame Game"

It is known throughout the world that history, will and forever more be condemned to itself. We "artists" always feel neglected by the general population...however maybe it is them who feel neglected by us. I find it irresponsible in todays culture to commit oneself to music, and only study one genre and/or style. We live today...in a culture where almost every piece written can be heard, a culture that can literally store an entire library of recordings on a device that can now fit in our pocket. Classical music is no longer at the forefront of our day simply because it is not required as it once was...but maybe that is our fault. Maybe we could try and understand the words of Tony Blair in saying, "people...need to take more responsibility". If things need to change, we need to change them. I agree with everything that was written...however I find myself pointing the finger at me, rather than others...

Re: two worlds collide

Hey everyone, this is my first post, I'm new to this "blogging" concept, and it is interesting. I enjoyed reading your post Jaunter, and I have to say I'm a saxophone player at a conservatory, and that just doesn't sound right either. Usually someone who plays saxophone is a street musician or plays in clubs without an educated background. If you think of some of the best saxophone players, none of them really had an education, but were either self taught or had the natural talent without having the education. Today there is already a prejudice I believe between where people go to school, instead of how good of a player they are. If a musician does not go to a conservatory like Julliard, people assume they do not know much about music - Once you say a particular school, people immediately start to judge your talent as a musician. Our craft requires extreme precision with no error. If you do a test and get a 60% that is considered passing, when you are musician, if you hit only 60% of the notes, you are considered extremely bad. The point to all of this is that people usually judge musicians by their background, and I agree with you Jaunter, that there is a great deal of prejudice among the music world as well as the whole world -

Matt

Two worlds collid.

I believe that it isn't intimidation, but the sense of not belonging to the scene itself that the general public is feeling. Because people feel like they do not belong to the social group and are even shunned from it, they retaliate with negative reactions towards it.

I often find myself torn between two worlds. The world I was raised in and the world I want to be a part of. The world I was raised in is one of the general public and more specifically the low to middle class African-American diaspora. In this environment I often feel embarrassed to admit that I am a classical musician and usually won't admit it at all. Too often people including my own family would tease me for appreciating and being apart of something so out of their own culture. This is also the reason that I am afraid to admit my true background in a conservatory setting. I fear that a will not be accepted into this world if I admit just how far placed my own cultural background is from the conservatory.

It is the fear of prejudice that has been cast from both the general public and classical music appreciators alike that there is such a divide in the two worlds. If this prejudice were to disappear and people truly became accepting of others, then they would be able to accept one another into new worlds unexplored. New worlds in which if they open themselves to it could be a sea of pleasures they once thought was a swamp.

Some thoughts on musical divergence and schism

Hi all!

I am excited to join this fascinating online conversation! I really enjoyed our first class and I am looking forward to our discussions for the rest of the semester.

For my first post, I wanted to run an idea I have had for some time by the community and get your input. Several years ago, I was wondering about the issue that many of us have already brought up: why, in our modern times, does classical music suffer from a "stigma" of elitism and snobbery? In addition, it seems that many regard classical music as being boring, out of touch, and wholly irrelevant to our modern times? Though classical music has never been popular in my lifetime, it nevertheless seems that just a few generations before mine, classical music was certainly more popular and generally accepted than it is today. So, what happened?

My theory (which I admittedly have not seriously researched) is this: starting in the period following World War I, the arts gradually began to move away from focusing on aesthetics and public appeal. Some of the movements representing this shift are Dadaism (visual art), strict twelve-tone composition (music), and avant-garde poetry (literature). As the pendulum shifted away from creating aesthetically pleasing works, it swung towards an increased emphasis on the artist and, in particular, the medium or method used to create the art in question.

For example, Arnold Schoenberg is remembered less for his music than for his system of musical composition. Visual artists like Jackson Pollock are remembered for how they produced their works (i.e., paint splatters, or something like "Canvas, covered with layers of graphite mixed with fecal matter and human hair"). Writers like Kenneth Goldsmith who wrote Fidget (a recent work of poetry in which he wrote down every action he performed for 24 hours) are remembered for some innovation of composition, not for the writing itself. In each case, the work becomes almost irrelevant - what is important is the artist and his/her technical method of production.

By the 1950s and '60s, some aspects of these artistic movements had become nearly anti-public and openly confrontational with the audience. The public, alienated from the arts that used to fulfill their entertainment needs, sought something new to fill the void. In stark relief to art music (which unfortunately was considered the descendant of classical music and had, in my opinion, become quite elitist) true "pop" music was born: short, easily listenable tunes that made no attempt to challenge the audience in any way. Pop was created to be the ultimate definition of aesthetically pleasing art - a welcome relief for a public that had grown tired of being simultaneously both ignored and shocked.

I believe that this massive schism caused the most damage to the field of music, where two entirely separate, radicalized and fragmented super-genres came into being: on one hand the "ivory tower" of academic art music, and on the other, easily digestible and disposable commercial pop.

Of course, these are rather broad and sweeping generalizations. And like all generalizations, I'm sure parts of it are false. But I do think that there is something to this argument. At the very least, it is our responsibility as musicians to do all we can to heal the wounds that have been inflicted on music, and close the rifts that so widely divide classical music from all other genres.

New from Alex Ross!

I saw this and I wanted to share!

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Listen-to-This/Alex-Ross/e/9780374187743/?itm=4&USRI=listen+to+this

I'm totally excited!

The Blame Game

Who's fault is it--this modern phenomenon that has locked contemporary classical music behind the doors of conservatories and widened the gulf between composers and the general public? When did academia become so elitist and exclusive, and when did our modern audiences turn off their ears to new developments in the classical realm? Why are the various camps and counter-camps in modern compositional thought so often hostile one to another? What, exactly, has changed in the process of communication that we call music over the past century?

Like many of you, I am coming into this class with more questions than answers, and the more questions I ask, the more questions I seem to find. But as complicated as the situation becomes and as difficult as it is to pin the blame (is there even blame to pin?), these questions must be asked. They are vital to us, as musicians, and to the future of classical music. If we don't understand where we've gone wrong and where we've gone right in the past, how are we to construct the future?

We, as classical musicians, work tirelessly training ourselves to be good performers or composers. But if our performance/composition doesn't connect with an audience, then our attempt at communication has failed (no matter the level of our technical proficiency), right? I think so. Then what's the solution? Do we write/perform to suit the general tastes of the broadest possible audience (the lowest common denominator)? Do we continue writing/performing in highly academic ways, hoping that some day our audience will "get it?" Do we try mingling the two--reaching out to our audience with new and interesting ideas from within an accessible framework? I certainly lean toward the third possibility, but I think there might be a completely different perspective altogether. What if we stopped focusing so much on training composers/performers and started training listeners? Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that we send every child in America to a music conservatory and teach him/her the finer points of set theory and counterpoint; I'm suggesting that we help our audience understand things musically on an intuitive level. I have an inkling that something of this kind might be accomplished using Eurhythmics, but I need to let my ideas percolate a little longer. :-)

In the meantime, check out this youtube video that I posted about a year ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUYKj2oetYE

Food for thought...

There are only a few shows on TV that I watch on a regular basis, but one that I really try to see is Anthony Bourdain's "No Reservations." There is just something in the mix of beautiful locations, his free-wheeling prose, and incredible food which captures my attention. On the most recent episode, he has returned to Paris to mark the occasion of his 100th episode. This is kind of a homecoming for the show, as the very first episode, some six seasons ago, was filmed in the same city. This time though, the focus of the show was to examine a shift in the food-world of Paris; from the high-cuisine of the Michelin star-rated restaurants, to a more casual and simpler way to dine. What he found was that these new 'rogue' chefs DIDN'T throw out the old to create something wholly new, but rather they built upon what had come before them. They stripped off what was anachronous and created a dining experience that was more at ease with itself in the context of our contemporary culture.

As I watched the show, I couldn't help seeing connections to the Prologue in "Highbrow Lowbrow" and to our current musical world in the States. Could we fire up our concerts and recitals by boiling-off some traditions that no long serve us? Should we really roll our eyes when an excited audience member claps between movements of a symphony? Do fancy gowns and tuxedos really guarantee a better performance? Given an attentive audience, could Schubert songs return to ale houses and still retain their sophistication?

I seem to have more questions than answers as I begin this semester, but for today, I just wanted to offer a little food for thought.

Welcome, Colleagues!

Welcome, colleagues from Longy School Future of Classical Music '10!

As soon as you can, please make your way to Alex Ross's blog, www.therestisnoise.com. He keeps his ear close to the ground; he has a feed; and he provides a list of other music blogs as well (see below. You will also enjoy Greg Sandow's blog, http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/.

Also,

Subject :	Alex Ross, No. 3 (list of music blogs)
Link URL :	http://www.therestisnoise.com/2004/11/music_blogs.htm

Subject :	The Source
Link URL :	http://www.thesource.com/
Category :	General
Description :	"covering hip-hop music, politics, and culture"--Wikipedia

Subject :	Vibe
Link URL :	http://www.vibe.com/
Category :	General
Description :	"features R&B and hip-hop music artists, actors and other entertainers"--Wikipedia

Subject :	ArtsJournal
Link URL :	http://www.artsjournal.com
Category :	General

More to come. Help me grow the list!

Looking forward to reading your posts and to seeing you Tuesday!

"A morning Scherzo , Slowing to Adagio"

From NY times

When I was looking through NY times, there were lots of news, but this was interesting to me. A morning Scherzo, Slowing to Adagio! If a reader doesn’t know the musical term, it would not make the one become interested. I like this title, Francisco j. Nunez, the founder and artistic director of the Young People’s Chorus of New York City, a youth chair, starts his busy morning like scherzo, but as the time is going to dinner or later, his life tempo is getting slower like Adagio. Really quick lunch should be prepared, and those kinds of arranging finally make his dinner nicer. I think we could also apply this to our life, not just for daily life.. Time has been flying, and the end of semester is coming up. How was the beginning of this semester, and this almost finished end of this semester is really comfortable Adagio? How fast it is?

BSO 12/5/09

I attended the Boston Symphony Orchestra concert this past Saturday night. It was a wonderful concert with a program that included Bartok's Divertimento for Strings, Martinu's Violin Concerto No. 2 and Dvorak's Symphony No. 8. Christoph von Dohnányi conducted in Levine's absence.

I enjoyed each piece on the program, but did see something after the concerto that I had never seen before. Frank Peter Zimmerman was the violin soloist. His intense and beautiful performance created quite the ovation from the audience. The applause seemed to be non-stop, but then Zimmerman came out to play an encore. I expected to hear a fast, flashy piece that would excite the audience even more. Every encore I had heard up to this point was like that. However, Zimmerman took a different route and performed a slow movement from one of the Unaccompanied Suites by JS Bach. It created quite an aura in the hall. At the end of the encore, the audience was just as excited as when they heard the fast paced end of the 3rd movement of the Martinu. How interesting and intriguing I found this to be. Has anyone else been to a concert where the encore is a slow, beautiful piece?

violist's heritage through music

In this past Sunday’s Boston Globe Arts Section, I enjoyed reading a fascinating article. The title of the article, “An emotional link to a nation’s past: Armenian composer’s powerful music brings trio of collaborators together,” says a lot in itself on the content of the article. In my new identity as a violist and violinist, I am always on the lookout for articles about either instrument, but finding one about viola is still more rare than those on violin. Also, the topic of music linked to one’s heritage also tends to grab my interest, and this article certainly fulfills this need.

The article discusses the recital this Tuesday, 12/1 at Jordan Hall, with Kim Kashkashian, one of the most famous violists existing today, Tigran Mansurian, who will play piano and sing, and percussionist Robyn Schulkowsky. Mansurian and Kashkashian have collaborated for more than two decades, and the collaboration continues with this recital, as it features pieces composed and arranged by Mansurian. Both of Armenian descent, their program pays homage to their heritage in including songs by famous Armenian composer, Komitas Vartabed. Kashkashian’s first exposure to Komita’s music inspired her so much to eventually create a recording with Mansurian’s music, as well. There is a rawness to the sound of Mansurian’s vocals that, as Kaskashian describes, “really let through the incredible depth of emotion and knowledge of the people, of the land, of the circumstances of the nation – its blood.”

Kashkashian relates the power of Komitas and Mansurian share in their music: “bring the ancient past into a form that modern Armenians – and Westerners – could understand and embrace.” The program they present this Tuesday will feature ancient religious chants arranged by Mansurian for viola and percussion, two groups of Komitas’s songs, four of Mansurian’s songs, and a duet for viola and percussion. The writer of the article also addresses Kashkashian’s “uncommonly expressive tone – shadowy yet lyrical – from the most introverted of string instruments.” I thought this was a fascinating description of viola, but I think it is often how listener’s think of the instrument. It is sandwiched between the upper voice violins and the bass voice cellos. Kashkashian’s description of her own tone and playing is inspiring: “The thing that any musician is trying to do is to take the expressive tool offered them and say something that is, on the one hand, as true to the composer as possible, and on the other, that expresses the deepest, innermost regions of their own hearts.” With this, I truly hope I will be lucky enough to attend this concert.

"Debussy's Homage, With the blanks Filled In"

from New York Times


When I looked through news, there was news about Claude Debussy, one of the fascinating musicians to me, and I was curious of what happened to him. It was about unfinished works.
Sometimes, unfortunately, there is no chance to listen to these kinds of great music to us because before finishing the last one, some composers pass away. I also imagine what is the end? How they could make progress on the music. Some people said the unfinished works should be left alone, but some people want to listen even though extra some touching is needed. The writer, Anthony Tommasini, was at one of those kinds of concerts. He said some details and his feelings from it. For me, the works that are made up by other musicians still made me feel some frustration sometimes because it is not original version, but at the same time, I appreciate I don’t have to miss that. When I remind that most of art such as paintings or architecture have reworked, it could happen.

Is there actually an answer?

Before this semester started, I wondered if this class would uncover an answer as to what the actual future of classical music is. Since about halfway through Hewett's book, I have been waiting to find out what his prediction is. He ends his book with the following:

"The essential fact about music, which is that it dies, and has to die in order for it to glorify this present moment happening now, is systematically denied in our passive musical culture, just as mortality is denied. The result is precisely the lack of emotional intensity that Jung observed in contemporary life, and which we can observe in those forms of music most symptomatic of the present day. Restoring that intensity is something we crave, but we never think that its lack may be partly in ourselves, and with the way we relate to music. Instead we instinctively delegate. In pop music and world music, we always look for performers with that mysterious daemon, and in art music we look for composers with some special 'vision' that will seize us like a revelation. But perhaps we've delegated for too long. Perhaps it's time to look to ourselves."

I think he makes some interesting points, first being that there really is no answer. If there were a clear cut solution, an absolute future for classical music, there wouldn't be a need for these books or for this class. The truth is no one really knows. It is virtually impossible to predict what will succeed and what will fail. Do we ever really understand why certain products become a phenomenon?

Also, the idea of delegation is a very real one. It is far too rare that people today want to take the reigns responsibility. A fair amount just want to tag along for the ride. It makes me think of a choral situation. When sight reading music or cutting off at the end of the phrase, it doesn't work if some singers wait for their neighbor to do the work. It is audible when someone poops out early and doesn't sing through the end of the phrase cutting off with confidence. I think this is what Hewett is saying about our future. We have to all be leaders rather than followers. Classical music isn't going to regain its popularity on its own. It isn't going to step out form behind the mask of violent movie scenes and images of decadent chocolates unless we do something about it. What it is we are supposed to do is not clear, but something is better than nothing.

Musicians have to have perseverance in order to be successful. We push ourselves and do all we can to fight for our spot within an expanding pool of people reaching for something that is diminishing. Are we being selfish? Should our efforts be focused on the greater good versus our personal career? Can we fully commit to both?

The more I think about all of this the more circles I find myself running in. Does anyone else feel the same way?

'Expression makes comeback.’

When Classical period music compares with Romantic period music, it is obvious that it is sensation, and really new. And, it seems that the new genre was very welcome to people. My feeling to modern music is not always comfortable, comparing to that period’s people. I was curious of it, and come to think maybe that is the environment that supported the new music, which is the modern music to that time. After classical music time or already in, people became interested in nature, beauty, and enjoyment for human. I think maybe those phenomenon made people open mind to and understood very well about new music. So, I think what is issue to and surrounds me today could be related to my future favorite contemporary music. It also could be proved that people come back to the traditional structure as in the book. I don’t mean completely it goes back to original point. Just we need some connection to lead to or lift up the new genre, as the sensational invention has been really not too much sensational.

small, but vital audiences for contemporary classical music

This week, I'd like to respond to the following blog. I found the link for this blog when I was looking through Alex Ross's external links on his blog. This one was listed in the music business section, but I found it quite relevant not only to the future of classical music, but also specifically to our reading this week from "Music, healing the rift." Here's the link to the blog:

http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/

Greg Sandow, as I learned from his blog, is a music critic and a professor at Julliard. The title of the article I read on his blog is, "Left behind (3)." And, as he describes, the article can be described as: "Finishing my impulsive three-part series on how/why contemporary classical music -- as presented by mainstream classical music institutions -- isn't really part of current culture." I haven't had a chance to yet read the other 2 sections of this series, but he summarizes pretty clearly here what arenas he discussed before this third installment. 

Sandow compares the reception of contemporary visual art to that of contemporary music to demonstrate how much less receptive the general audience is still to new music vs. new art. For instance, he discusses how because contemporary classical music is still seen as "an oddball" branch of classical music, the general perception of what contemporary music embodies is somewhat out-dated. As he writes, "atonal music dominated prestigious composition in the 1950s, and still retains -- in the classical music world -- its dominant prestige, along with a sense of somehow still being new, even though since its dominance we've had waves of new styles, starting with minimalism in the 1970." This idea is not so far off from the thought question we had for chapter 7 in Hewett this week regarding modernist vs. neo-tonal music.

I found this imagery enlightening: the draw a museum like the MOMA can fetch for a general audience, with museum-goers lined about around the block to see a Jackson Pollack exhibition in comparison to a tiny audience for a contemporary music concert. As he writes, in the "excuses" section there are reasons for contemporary classical music to have less of an appeal then modern art, for instance, music takes time, it doesn't reflect the current times happening around it, etc. BUT, in his solutions section, his attention to the significance of "small, but vital audiences," in attendance at a classical contemporary music concert was refreshing for me and opened up some new thoughts about new classical music appeal. Perhaps classical music producers are far to concerned about appealing to a mass audience and thus over-sex the appeal of new music, or they program what people still think of as new music, or atonal as Sandow presents earlier. He argues that we need to present music to represents the current times and culture, and also to work with the perhaps small, but genuinely infatuated audience that does show up for a concert of new music. 

Expression

One of the ideas in chapter 6 of Music: Healing the Rift that I found interesting was the discussion on expression in new music. In particular, the ideas were based around the idea of either intentionally avoiding any expressive qualities in the music, or having oblique expression in the music.

I find these ideas interesting since, as a composer, these are issues with which I have to struggle in every piece. Expression in my music is a rather strange thing, and I don't always have an answer as to the role of expression in my music. Frankly, I believe that Stravinsky was right when he said that music is incapable of expressing anything at all; it is in fact the person perceiving the music who is feeling--music is simply the mirror from which those feelings are reflected. However, I realize that a person perceiving music is always going to have an emotional reaction to music, whether or not I intend one in my music, and so a strange conflict arises between the creative intention and the perceived intention.

I found recently in a piece I wrote for solo violin that this issue of expression became much more important to the way I write than is usual. When writing a piece, one is faced with the challenge of being a creator with an intention, but one also is faced with the role of the perceiver who is looking into the musical mirror and can't help but have a reaction. It was this conflict of roles that I found to be the greatest challenge in writing the piece; how to balance my ideas with my reactions to the actualizations of my ideas. In past pieces, this wasn't as much of an issue, simply because I was battling with other challenges of things like notation, clearly presenting ideas, etc. But in this piece, since the music materials were not as difficult and in some ways were more traditional, this conflict in roles came to the foreground.

To be honest, I am not entirely sure that there are any conclusions to draw based upon the experiences I had in writing this piece. The piece in many ways challenged the way in which I work, and I believe my work on this piece actually has presented me a situation with which I am going to be faced more intensely in the future. I have the sense the struggle of identity in the compositional process is going to be a prolonged problem of mine.

I know I haven't written much on what HTR had to say on these issues; however, I decided to write on this because I believe the text actually helped me articulate some of the difficulties I was having in this last piece, and I just thought I'd share this new development of mine since it found resonance with the readings.

Mingling of cultures, and new genre.

I remember Platon said creating is a sort of thing to imitate another. When we think the world that changes and improves, it moves little by little. I think it means the next item is developed, copied, and modified from the formal item. For example, there is Mozart. Mozart himself is a great musician, but we also know his father made him traveled and experienced many countries and music, so he could create and applied the music into his own music, and recreated it. Another example could be found in other musicians, whose music has folk characteristic such as Grieg, Debussy or Chopin. With using the new resource, the music can be distinguished from other traditional style.

I examplfied just in classical music, but it is the same in any genre.
The idea of ‘breaking down barriers’ (p68) When someone tries something new first time, it could be not acceptable, but if it is tried and reshaped over and over, I think we would have another valuable thing. There was not Jazz, kabuki, musical or movie sound track in the past, but we have these now.

What it takes to get in

It is said that classical music is inaccessible to low-income citizens based on concert ticket pricing, but what is said about its accessibility to study it?

Here you will find information on what is needed to get into some well known institutions (I am using piano majors to unify this example)

New England Conservatory: http://necmusic.edu/apply-nec/audition/piano

Eastman School of Music: http://www.esm.rochester.edu/apply/aud_rep.php#piano

Oberlin Conservatory: http://new.oberlin.edu/conservatory/admissions/auditions/keyboard.dot

To sum it up, you need to have certain skills before these colleges take a second look at your application. Most people aren't born with these skills, and therefore have to learn them from a teacher. With years and years of study, one can get these skills.

Lets look at how much this education could cost. 5 years, $30 a lesson, one lesson a week. With 52 weeks in a year, that comes to $7,800. Now imagine if I used a number that actually approximates the actual price of a lesson.

It is simply not possible for a person interested, but not educated in music, to decide to attend music school half way through senior year of high school. You need years worth of skills and the money to pay for them. A public school student with good grades and various math / science courses under his/her belt has a fair shot at engineering school. The math / science courses needed to get into engineering school are provided by the public school, the music education is not.

We, the lucky ones, owe so much to our parents. They gave us the option to choose music school. Unfortunately, not all parents posses the resources needed to provide such options.

At the very least, early education must provide every student the option to move on to higher education, in all fields, free of preliminary costs. Hard work is the only thing it should take to get in.

new classical music concert - appealing to a wider audience

This week, I would like to respond to a concert review I read in the New York Times. Firstly, the title of the article, "Creative Confections for Woodwinds and Strings," grabbed my attention. Indeed, as I learned from the review, this concert aimed to attract their audience via a catchy title, or fun party-favors, and then presenting them with intriguing, new music. For instance, the title of the concert was, “m&m’s: microtones & minimalism," and, "concert-goers received "martini glasses filled with complimentary M&M candies." Also, as reviewed in the article, "Flyers and announcements hawked the “American Modern-tini,” a custom-made concoction." The logic behind attracting an audience with fun, rather than telling them the basic facts of what they were to hear on the concert is an interesting form of marketing. I could see some classical music critics finding this method too directed to mass-appeal, and questioning why they couldn't simply market the concert for what is was: contemporary classical music. However, I think the American Modern Ensemble, the group behind this performance, were wise to present their concert as more of a party than a contemporary music concert.

I attended a student recital last spring where a friend of mine served the reception before and during the performance, instead of after the concert. While this broke some boundaries in terms of the standard concert template, with the reception as a reward for sitting through the concert, I thought it was an ingenious way to insure the audience enjoyed themselves, and hopefully would spark more new classical music fans. I know everyone left that recital feeling excited that they had been a part of such a great performance, and a welcoming atmosphere. The idea behind the American Modern Ensemble's Party/Concert encourages the same warm feelings. Too often people view classical music concerts as only open to the select few, and that someone who has not been exposed to this genre before would not understand or even know how to listen to a concert. As we've discussed in our class, this is a shame, but sadly it has been the standard for years. By turning concerts into something more approachable, hopefully more new audience members will be attracted to attending. Also, the venue the Ensemble used for this concert, as described in the article: "Galapagos, a brut-chic performing-arts space where communal tables rest on metal platforms that jut out amid reflecting pools," was an exciting venue for classical music to be heard. It also continued their theme of breaking down the boundaries between genres of music.

The repertoire presented on the concert by the American Modern Ensemble span the years 1968-2007, and offered a wide range of instrumentation. This also helped in keeping the audience's interest, for if nothing else, they could enjoy watching the varied techniques suited to each instrument. I wish I could have attended this concert to get a feeling for how this presentation of new classical music was received. They had the right ingredients to make this concert as enjoyable as possible, so I hope new audience members agreed with enthusiasm and that they will attend future performances by this ensemble and other classical music groups. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/arts/music/05ensemble.html?ref=music

"Music Makes Winners"

I very much enjoyed having Dean Chin come to speak in our class this week. I feel like he touched on a great deal of things we have been talking about all semester. He also made me think about my musical past. Dean Chin and I actually graduated from the same high school, Norwood High. He mentioned the phrase "Music Makes Winners" and his distaste for it. This was one mantra of our music program. While I am not sure it was enforced or used as colloquially during my time at the high school, I do remember hearing it on occasion, and seeing it on pins sold at marching band competitions. I actually tried to look for some old paraphernalia or articles with the saying included, but came up empty handed.

Despite not hearing the phrase consistently, this was definitely an underlying part of the mentality of the entire music program. We were constantly encouraged to strive for the gold. There was a trophy case spanning the entire length of the hallway outside of the auditorium proudly displaying the multitude of medals won by various music groups over the years. It was virtually unheard of to not come home with a first place win. I will never forget one instance of this. It was my junior year in high school, and I was a part of the Madrigal Choir. We were not off to the strongest start, and at one point Paul Alberta (the Director of Fine Arts at the time, whom we all referred to as "God") came to one of our rehearsals. He bet us all a nickel that we would not received a gold medal at our MICCA competition. This of course affected us all in a big way. We went on to improve as a choir, and to win the gold medal in spite of Mr. Alberta's prediction. Following the win, he came into our rehearsal and gave us all a nickel. I still have mine in a frame in my room.

Another recollection from that same year was our trip to compete in Washington DC. We sang the best we could, and did not even place in the top 10 choirs in the Festival of Gold. Every one of us was extremely disappointed, including the director. It tainted the entire trip, and I remember hearing "Let's just get the hell out of here" from many, again, including the director.

Another question Dean Chin brought up was "Why are we musicians?" Do we do it do win? Maybe some people do. For some it's the prizes, the competition titles, and the fame. Others, including myself, fall in the "range of successful outcomes" volume. I believe that the majority of people fall under this category. Are there really enough prizes and first place wins for all the musicians in this world to have one? I doubt that. So why then push the younger generations on winning? Honestly, I was never one who cared about a score or a placement. I cared more about feeling good leaving the stage and knowing that we did all we could to be great. I try to encourage that way of thinking with the kids I teach now, though I am not sure they really get it quite yet. I think Dean Chin is right to be bothered by the "Music Makes Winners" slogan. Not all musicians will win, but that doesn't mean that they aren't musicians. It doesn't mean they aren't successful. Having a reminder of this in class was reassuring. Thank you for that.

Conductorless, Self-conducted, Unconducted

In many respects, the concept of an unconducted chamber orchestra or unconducted large ensemble playing has been a given in my concept of music education. Doing unconducted projects in conservatory was something I just assumed was part of any solid musical training, especially for string players. I also had been to several chamber orchestra concerts that were performed unconducted - a performamce of the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields on tour in Baltimore was perhaps one of my most memorable and profound concert experiences. I was a little surprised therefore in our last class discussion that the concept of an unconducted chamber orchestra was understood to be unique to Orpheus in New York City. I decided to look into unconducted chamber orchestras and find out if Orpheus was indeed the first such orchestra.

Orpheus indeed was not the first. In 1922 the Pervyi Simfonicheskii Ansambl' - First Symphonic Ensemble) was formed in the USSR (http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/orchestra/a-conductorless-orchestra.html). The founding of this orchestra was more political than artistic in nature, and it did not survive past 10 years. In 1951 the Prague Chamber Orchestra was formed. (http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Bio/PKO.htm) The idea has flourished since, and now many self-governed orchestras can be found from Orpheus in New York City to the Australian Chamber Orchestra in Sydney. Some establish leadership in a democrtatic way, as Orpheus does, and others rely on the artistic direction of the concert master. But the unifying component is the idea of chamber music interaction in large ensemble form.

Zander's pursuit

Maestro Zander is known as a top-rate conductor, and he should be just as known for his public speaking. His presentation on Ted.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/benjamin_zander_on_music_and_passion.html) would be one of his latest examples.

He is invited to talk on Ted.com to share his love for classical music, but more so, his conviction that everyone has an untapped love for it. He sits at the piano and plays Chopin's most famous prelude (No.4), deconstructs it in layman's terms, and plays it again. He urges everyone in the audience to listen while imagining a dear friend or family member that has passed away. He asks this of the audience to ensure that everyone take part in a similar experience.

If he would have asked them to focus on the aesthetics or technique, only a few would be able to truly appreciate the piece. Instead he asked us to imagine something dear to us, enabling us to give the piece our own meaning.

Some would argue that restricting listening to accepted music listening styles hinders the audience by stifling their imagination. While this can be true to a certain extent, it also provides guidance to some, simplifying this seemingly complicated music into a simple memory trigger.

Zander reduced Chopin's prelude to a nostalgic piece that everyone can relate to. He was able to captivate the 1,600 people in the auditorium...so does it matter?

Only a big name can fill seats at the BSO...

In response to Megan's comment on my recent blog entry about the developments with the BSO and its conductor situation - I agree that bringing in the "big names" in conducting has been what helped to fill the seats at Symphony Hall. With another delay in Levine's return, they have had to try to keep people coming to concerts somehow. There is no doubt in my mind that bringing Lorin Maazel in was what finally sold out the Beethoven series.

What doesn't help fill seats, however, is when assistant conductors do not impress the already dismissive audience, as seen in this recent Boston Globe article critiquing Julian Kuerti's interpretation of Beethoven's 4th and 5th Symphonies.

NYTimes Article On Audience Participation

Hey everyone,

I came across this article in the NYTimes, and I thought that it would of interest to all of you. Basically why I brought it up is because I think it fits nicely into some of the ideas we have discussed in class, particularly around the idea of a passive or active audience.

Also, I would point out another item of interest within the article: the acceptance and enjoyment of unfamiliar sounds.

"Don't screw it up!"

I have a cartoon that a player constantly keep reminding himself “ Don’t screw it up!!”
It’s the same idea as “ Don’t think of an elephant!” because it means that it is already thinking of elephant. There is still the same object, “ elephant”. One of what I learned in school is that learning music includes even playing on stage. Even if the music is well practiced, but different from playing in practice, that could be nothing. In the first piano seminar in this semester, the guest lecturer said how to prepare for playing on stage.

Record it
Play for friends or teachers
Play as possible as you can for audiences if there is any chance for public or in school.

I remember when I’ve sat in front seat in Symphony Hall once, how nervous the cellist was, but once the orchestra began, he seemed naturally to get into the music, and get comfortable. It’s so impressed to me. I know that musician should be like that, and only when a player is doing so, one’s real music can be presented. I hope what to play in my head naturally without any concerning or worry about performance on the streets, in the train and in the practice room is played on stage anytime in the same way.