Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-10-07 22:01
It's not a matter of whether they're realistic. It's a matter of whether people should get all fussy about a musical group going under when said musical group has grown weary of the music they play. Most popular music groups stay together only a handful of years. Why should orchestras be any different? If you really have awesome chemistry and a great vibe, carry on, but if you're just going through the motions, you're just dragging the music down and potentially making the classical scene LESS vibrant.
If a computer scientist grows weary of writing code, he may be a bit less efficient at it, but the job will still get done. If the performers have grown weary of the music they play, the music will still be played, but it will have no excitement, no soul, and at that point I do not fault the public in the slightest for the "declining interest" so often decried here and elsewhere.
"It's a labor of love" and "Oh, sh*t, not f*cking Fantastique again" are very difficult to reconcile.
Perhaps part of the problem is that, with the saturation of performers out there, most people don't land the good symphony positions until they've already burned out on all the rep. Damaged goods before they've even started.
When the music becomes a burden rather than a joy, it shows. I don't want to go to a concert to see people trudge through Bruckner like a 7-year-old through 10 pages of subtraction homework.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
