 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-12-12 13:07
That's very sad. That was the 1st job I was offered, principal chair too, while still in school. That was in 1960 but they would only pay transportation one way from the west coast, I was in NY at the time and couldn't earn enough to get back so I turned it down, along with almost everyone else that was offered the job. It's a sad state of affairs in the US that smaller orchestras are disappearing and so many of the major ones are have problems. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2010-12-12 17:37
Yes, the "golden age" of sit-down, formal, live concerts may be nearing its unfortunate final curtain. The public is seeking it's own level of comfort in this technilogical era of ways to share and enjoy music. No more having to drive or taxi to a concert venue, find & pay for parking, stand in line for tickets and then hear live musicians make mistakes not heard "on the recording". Just download from I tunes onto the I pod (or whatever) and enjoy, effortlessly. Fine musicians may have to become musicians *with* a profession rather than professional musicians.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtaylor
Date: 2010-12-13 13:29
On the possible plus side, San Diego Symphony shutdown and then reorganized and is now fairly stable. The same for the Denver Symphony which is now the Colorado Symphony. So maybe this is not a bleak as it first looks. Time will tell.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-12-13 13:37
Most of the time when a symphony closes down and reopens it has a smaller budget and less concerts so the musicians have even less employment and employs less musicians under a full time contract, a smaller "core" orchestra. I guess that's better than none at all but in most cases it's not making a living. It becomes a part time job at best. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-12-13 15:14
Could we simply be coming full-circle? Could the last 50 years actually have been the aberration and not the problems that are surfacing in the world of professional music today? The first 52-week contracts in the U.S. were negotiated in the 1960s. If you go back very much farther - say up to the end of World War II, it's my impression (please correct me) that most "full-time" orchestras had seasons of fewer than 30 weeks and the musicians *all* had to supplement their orchestral incomes with other free-lance work and teaching. Many, from what I've read, even in orchestras like the Philadelphia Orchestra (which I know better than most other American orchestras) had non-musical off-season jobs. The orchestra's summer season at the Robin Hood Dell only became an established tradition post-war and was only a few weeks long. Smaller orchestras had shorter seasons and even lower pay scales than the ones in the large cities. The Philadelphia Orchestra or New York Philharmonic or Boston Symphony of the pre-war 20th century may have been full-time in terms of their weekly schedule when they were working, but they didn't provide a self-sufficient living wage until post-war prosperity combined with the burgeoning recording market, which only began to emerge in the 1940s and hit its stride in the 1950s and 1960s.
As we've already repeated here and in other threads, "classical" music has not ever in the U.S. had the mass popularity that could have made it self-supporting. Ticket and even record sales in the best of times have not generated enough income to support orchestras' costs and the gaps have always been underwritten by private and corporate donations. It seems that for the immediate present those contributors are no longer able or willing to keep up with the costs. It's sad to think that after 50 years of progress in the symphonic music business things seem to be regressing so quickly. The best hope at this point is probably that the cycle continues beyond the current return to former lows and that another upward swing will follow. It may not be much comfort for anyone who is trying to make a living as a symphony player today, but as the economy here (and elsewhere in the world) hopefully improves, a rosier long-term future doesn't seem unimaginable. We just may have to wait awhile.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Klarnetisto
Date: 2010-12-13 16:07
The Detroit Symphony is in dire straits:
http://www.detroitsymphonymusicians.org/
The Charleston (South Carolina) Symphony cut its season short due to lack of funds. Then their long-time director suddenly died (as did his wife within a month), which certainly didn't help matters at all:
http://www.pacso.org/
Klarnetisto
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-12-13 18:56
They'll be ready for the next wave. At least they're young enough to wait.
:)
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2010-12-13 19:22
In the meantime, there are going to be some bodacious community orchestras and bands!
S.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-12-13 19:56
Not sure about that, S, community groups are having a bit of a hard time staying afloat too, as many of them require income to pay for music and hall rentals, honoraria for guest soloists, program printing costs, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2010-12-13 21:25
Yes, everything does seem to have that financial component.
I am playing oboe for two very good bands (one calls itself a band, the other calls itself a "wind ensemble") right now. They each handle their finances somewhat differently.
The larger of these two organizations (the "band") is about 80-strong, takes all comers, and charges no dues. EVERYONE, including the very capable director, participates on a completely volunteer basis. Funding comes from the city and from arts orgs. and individual donations. Rehearsal space is donated, performance venues are donated or done under the aegis of other charitable organizations (e.g., Habitat for Humanity, CROP Walk). No admission charge, ever.
I think it is an absolute scandal the the director of this group, who is a professionally trained musician working as a realtor and playing on the side, is not paid, but he apparently has chosen to have it that way -- for about 15 years now.
My other group, the "wind ensemble," is a group of about 40 auditioned wind players that charges dues, pays its director, has donated rehearsal space, and charges admission to cover venue rental (but often does co-op concerts with other groups and shares the cost, or once in a while just rides on the other guys' nickel).
What bothers me is that neither of these groups ever has much of an audience, outside of loyal friends and relatives -- and they are both excellent groups. It is pretty demoralizing to play a wonderful concert, when there are more people in the band than there are in the audience. It makes me believe that we, too, need to rethink the premises of our endeavor.
S.
Susan
Post Edited (2010-12-13 21:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2010-12-14 00:31
Until symphonies create something new, they don't really stand much of a chance.
They offer the same ole stuff over and over and over again. Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Stravinsky -- to the serious musician or someone with training, it's wonderfully exciting. To the casual observer with more training, it's noise.
Name someone who has been able to transform the musical scene in recent memory. The last person was Bernstein (of course that's my opinion). Who's picked up the baton since then? John Williams? Arguably, but he's chastised in musical circles as a cheat, a charlatan. But he writes music that is enjoyable to listen to - one that doesn't need a critical ear to appreciate.
I'm sorry, I don't find Berg fun to listen to. Or, if you want to get more modern, John Adams, Tan Dun, Kalevi Aho, Joan Tower, Jennifer Higdon, Turnage, etc. Williams can hold my attention better than any of these composers even though I can appreciate their art.
Look at the Clarinet BBoard, for goodness' sake - it's a perfect microcosm of the musical world. We sit here discussing and arguing over the smallest nuances about how to shave the end of a reed, about an ornament in such-and-such measure in an obscure concerto, about what Brahms really meant in a figure on the First Sonata...99.8% of the population couldn't care less yet we get caught up with this stuff expecting that the casual listener will give a damn when they open up a CD (if they even have a real life CD!) and listen to that nice sounding piece by a German composer whom most listeners can't even remember the first name of.
Until the classical community can accept that they are sowing their own fates, the inevitability of the end of live classical music quickly approaches.
Post Edited (2010-12-14 00:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2010-12-14 01:33
Ohsuzan and Clarinetist04 both raise excellent points. I have a lot of experience playing in concert bands, although I'm not currently doing it. All my kids played in bands, so I've heard lots of school band concerts over the years.
Ohsuzan, you're right, but I really don't know what the answer is. Perhaps many people associate concert band music with the rather insipid material so many middle school and high school bands perform. After a while, a lot of it starts to sound the same. Parents attend the concerts and applaud, but deep down, they endure it more than they enjoy it. I really enjoy great band classics like the two Holst suites and Lincolnshire Posy. I also enjoy the band works of Gordon Jacob and Alfred Reed. There's a lot of original band music being composed today, but a lot of it leaves audiences scratching their heads. I think audiences still enjoy Sousa and Karl King marches, but there isn't a large quantity of original band music that has really captivated the public.
Clarinetist04, I agree with you, and I've made similar points in the past. You're right about John Williams, but if you've heard some of his most recent compositions (not written for films), it's not easy music to appreciate. You said:
"Name someone who has been able to transform the musical scene in recent memory. The last person was Bernstein (of course that's my opinion)." Again, you're absolutely right. That's the big problem in the classical world today. There is no Gershwin, Copland, or Bernstein, and the classical world really needs someone like that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2010-12-14 02:25
1) Music education in (many) schools has been cut and/or are more friendly to jazz and rock
2) As Glenn Gould (among others) has pointed out, classical venues are just uncomfortable, especially for long pieces. Blue jeans days are a start, but why must the symphony be like sitting in church?
3) Symphonies are still afraid to play new compositions - they are getting better, but most of their core repertoire is at least 150 years old.
4) Outside of (some) folks of Asian descent, symphonies don't do enough to make their concerts of interest to anyone who is not white
5) Let's face it - concert music is still the domain of the rich and stuffy - even if they don't understand it, it adds a little "class" to their dead lives.
6) The audience base is literally dying away, with not enough newer interested listeners to replace those who are gone. When your consumer gets old and dies (goes out the back door) without new consumers coming in the front door any industry dies.
7) Economic support has shrunk as corporations run leaner and have less excess cash to sponsor the arts.
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-14 06:47
Most band music is wretched. For that matter, most new symphonic music is wretched. The problem is that it, over the past century, through various means, has thoroughly disconnected itself from the rest of the world. Therefore, any new music written for orchestra or for wind band is almost by definition restricted to live within the realm it has created for itself. If you were to take a piece of music written for a large classical ensemble and a piece of music written for any other group or genre and play them back as generic midi, you'd instantly know which was "concert hall music."
It's stale.
I'm not saying that you don't get outliers. Film music pokes its head into the symphonic world, but when you're watching a concert of film music, the effect tends to be one of "yeah, that's when so-and-so did this!" Similarly, concert music pokes its head out of its embalmed cathedral on occasion and implements outside elements like rock or dance music, but that feels equally out of place.
Once in a long while something happens that does seem to bring a glimmer of hope to the classical world, but such things tend to be a) rare, b) drowned out by the sheer volume of status-quo offerings, and/or c) panned by the various entities that define the classical scene because it's too far askew
Essentially, it seems like concert halls are doomed to play concert music that sounds like concert music, and any music written for a large classical ensemble is doomed to sound and be structured like music written for a large classical ensemble. Self-propagating mediocrity.
What to do about it? I don't know. I've been writing less and less for classical-type ensembles because of the amount of baggage that comes with it, opting instead to write sophisticated, sometimes classically-informed, music for people, groups, and scenes not so ingrained in the classical mindset. Essentially, treating the classical institution as a training ground to provide useful skills rather than a base of operations to adhere to.
And I'm fine with that. I think that the path to good music lies much more often in "here's an idea for some awesome music! Now what kind of ensemble fits it?" than "let's write some music for orchestra! Now to find an idea..."
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-12-14 16:42
Glenn, I don't disagree with anything in your list if we're talking about chronic problems that might be corrected to the advantage of orchestras, opera companies and other art music performance organizations. But I'm not sure in my own mind of how many really account for the current problem.
> 1) Music education in (many) schools has been cut and/or are
> more friendly to jazz and rock
Music education in the U.S. has never been very effective in fostering understanding, much less love, of "classical" music. The general music classes when I was in school (late '50s through early '60s) were awful. In elementary school we spent most of the year learning to square dance. In junior high I think I spent two years hearing about the entire Wagner Ring cycle - but the only actual music we got to hear were the teacher's sometimes clumsy renditions at the piano of each of the leitmotivs - never even a recording of an actual part of any of the operas. If it hadn't been for my exposure to symphonic music through other sources, including outside lessons, community ensembles and the performance (band and chorus) programs in my schools, those music classes would have pushed me away, not drawn me toward "classical" musical styles.
Based on my nearly 40 years' experience in school music, I'd have to argue that despite a concerted effort at the college level to train music teachers to teach all kinds of music more knowledgeably and effectively, music teachers have never been able to overcome one ubiquitous hurdle - the limitation of instructional time. You just can't meaningfully or effectively teach a discipline like music with all its varied literature that's every bit as deep and as broad as literature in the spoken languages, in one fifth of the time given to the English department of any American school. Add the time available by way of foreign language study and the proportion is even worse. Until that changes (which will be about the same time it snows in Hell), the school systems will not be the conduit for effective promotion of art music of any sort - "classical," real jazz or any other.
But all of this was true throughout the orchestras' heyday and even earlier.
>
> 2) As Glenn Gould (among others) has pointed out, classical
> venues are just uncomfortable, especially for long pieces. Blue
> jeans days are a start, but why must the symphony be like
> sitting in church?
This is certainly true as well, but, again, it wasn't any different in the late 20th century when orchestras were growing and musicians' contracts were becoming more secure and lucrative. Gould said that when? In the '70s? Nonetheless, you might be able to lure at least a few listeners out of their living rooms and away from their expensive sound systems and home theaters if the concerts were more audience friendly.
>
> 3) Symphonies are still afraid to play new compositions - they
> are getting better, but most of their core repertoire is at
> least 150 years old.
>
But then you hear (and read even in this thread) that the reason orchestras are dying is because people don't want to listen to the newer music. Robert (Clarinetist04) doesn't "find Berg fun to listen to. Or, if you want to get more modern, John Adams, Tan Dun, Kalevi Aho, Joan Tower, Jennifer Higdon, Turnage, etc." Clarinetguy finds that the whole problem is that "there is no Gershwin, Copland, or Bernstein, and the classical world really needs someone like that." But back in the best years for orchestras in the U.S. Gershwin was already dead, Copeland's most popular pieces (the ballets and El Salon Mexico) were decades old and Bernstein was spending most of his time performing the same core repertoire everyone else did (while complaining that symphony orchestras were like museums - mostly concerned with displaying old works of dead masters). The solution can't be to have current composers create new pieces like Brahms, Tchaikovsky, or Copland - all we'd then have is old-sounding music by living composers and most of it wouldn't be as good as the original models. No matter what way they go in supporting truly new or proven old music, orchestras drive away part of their support. And that was as true over the last two or three centuries as it is today.
> 4) Outside of (some) folks of Asian descent, symphonies don't
> do enough to make their concerts of interest to anyone who is
> not white
>
Again, as true as this is today, it wasn't any different 40 years ago - maybe worse. It would be good to see this change for a number of reasons, but it isn't the reason why orchestras are now in the trouble they're in.
> 5) Let's face it - concert music is still the domain of the
> rich and stuffy - even if they don't understand it, it adds a
> little "class" to their dead lives.
>
This, too, has been true in the U.S. since the beginning of the first American orchestras. They were meant as an expression of the cultural sensitivity of American industrialists who, I suppose, didn't like Europe's view of them as unrefined ruffians. It hasn't changed over the past 5-10 years to cause the orchestras' current extreme financial problems.
> 6) The audience base is literally dying away, with not enough
> newer interested listeners to replace those who are gone. When
> your consumer gets old and dies (goes out the back door)
> without new consumers coming in the front door any industry
> dies.
>
This may be part of the problem, but lacking any statistical evidence from a credible source, I suspect that the demographic among concert audiences has always been older. That it seems to be graying now may or may not be any different. There are younger people in the audience at Philadelphia Orchestra concerts - whether there are fewer than there were in the '60s and '70s, I'm not so sure. Besides, the audience has never paid enough for their tickets to cover an orchestra's expenses - it has always been the rich and (sometimes) stuffy supporters in your 5th point above who covered the gap between ticket receipts and the orchestras' expenses.
> 7) Economic support has shrunk as corporations run leaner and
> have less excess cash to sponsor the arts.
>
Bingo! This is the one that is, in my opinion, indisputably and primarily involved. The recession of 2007 combined with other longer-standing changes (especially centralization) in the banking industry, which once funded a lot of local music and theater, ditto more centralized (i.e. less locally-based) corporate structures and a few other negative financial trends, have practically shut off the money supply for small orchestras and severely reduced it for many large ones. Which is where I base my hope that as the economy cycles and the corporate world begins to rebound, so will the orchestras. Changing any of the things you cover in your other 6 points could certainly help encourage and strengthen an orchestral rebound, but I don't see that any of them was responsible for the current epidemic of failures and cost-cutting among musical outlets of all sizes during the past few years.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mlz
Date: 2010-12-14 22:08
Even when or if times get markedly better, I think it will be tough to get the kind of corporate support back, they want some "goodwill " bang for the buck, and most people who aren't familiar with symphonic music, particularly live, will think more admirably of a company supporting charities instead of symphonies.
What we need are "flash mob orchestras" to bring it TO the people!. So many have no idea what it really sounds like based on my experience with friends,co-workers and friends of the kids. Even if they are in band, they and their families have never actually listened to it anywhere,including movies, they know theres music in the background but its not paying attention to it. But,when I use my "salesmanship" they give it a try and it sticks a little with some. Professionals out in the community help too, because people are more likely to go to an event if they feel a connection with someone or a group, as we all know from community band experiences!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bobby McClellan
Date: 2010-12-15 03:29
"Author: David Spiegelthal (---.aero.org - (The Aerospace Corporation) Chantilly, VA United States)
Date: 2010-12-13 19:56
Not sure about that, S, community groups are having a bit of a hard time staying afloat too, as many of them require income to pay for music and hall rentals, honoraria for guest soloists, program printing costs, etc."
I am a member of an all volunteer community band, as well as sit on it's board. We have been blessed to be very stable. yes donations are down (no corp donations at all), but with expense management we have stayed stable through this downturn and look to remain that way for the future. We are also blessed to have in attendance at our concerts anywhere from 550 to as many as 800. and we regularly seat 70+ players within the band.
I not being a "musician" by trade have no idea how the economy has affected other areas but by the articles that are posted here and I always send the links to our band's board to "remind" them of the reason we watch our purchases like we do.
I really makes me as a patron of the arts, sad that this is happening all over the country to orchestras. As many have written these issues are "economy" based but It begs to wonder for me that if they were managing expenses before the downturn they would have been able to weather better.
I hope in the areas that have lost orchestra or had to severly downsize regroup build new business plans and get back on thier feet. the audences maybe small but they are audences and it leave a void in the communities when live band and orchestra music is not thier.
Bobby M.
Flowood, MS
Bobby M. McClellan
Flowood, MS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2010-12-15 03:55
Quote:
As many have written these issues are "economy" based but It begs to wonder for me that if they were managing expenses before the downturn they would have been able to weather better.
Most mid-sized to larger performing arts organizations try to build endowments...which is essentially a savings account that sits in some type of market account, to weather economic downturns like our current situation. Depending on how this money was granted, endowment may or may not be used for general operating funds - usually it can only be used to cover a budgetary shortfall per board vote . Ideally, an organization would be healthy enough to keep the endowment account untouched with the exception of the interest it generates monthly. This is just a general overview.
Anyway, when the markets crashed, endowments lost value, like the 401K's of the average public. Of course, any organization claiming bankruptcy didn't have an endowment or had drained it over years to make up for repeated budgetary short falls.
Post Edited (2010-12-15 04:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-15 05:53
mlz wrote...
"What we need are "flash mob orchestras" to bring it TO the people!"
Bingo! I've been working on some projects like this. Would have gone live a while ago, but was sidetracked by the semester (we actually did a few trial performances to test things out, but they weren't in particularly high-traffic areas). Not necessarily orchestras, because they're large, but random positive interjections of music into everyday life.
There are so many missed opportunities to "bring music to the community." That phrase is thrown around a lot, but the interpretation is very narrow, limited to a few teach-inner-city-kids-to-play-violin programs (which I consider a good thing, mind you), half-price days, "casual" concerts, and free shows in the park. They're still very much "something that happens over there in concert-land." There's so much more that can be done with making live music a meaningful, vibrant part of life, that remains to be explored.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2010-12-15 12:38
Great.
I suppose the YouTube Symphony 2011 can replace any orchestra that files Chapter 7 during the New Year.
Meanwhile, let's run the US deficit up on things we really need...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bobby McClellan
Date: 2010-12-15 22:55
Thank you grifffinity for the information about the endowments. Never think about them since our band does not have that option.
Bobby M. McClellan
Flowood, MS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2010-12-16 01:02
Well, the"flash mob" phenomenon is very fun. I don't know how well it would translate into an instrumental form, but I suppose it could. Think of a band marching unbidden through the mall playing "The Stars and Stripes Forever".
As truly enjoyable as this may be, however, this does not sustain a program, or build a group. But perhaps it does speak to at least one of the issues we must grapple with as classical musicians, and that is the issue of being entertaining.
I loved what GBK wrote, upthread, about going to the symphony being like sitting in church. That is certainly my experience. And it is not only not "fun," it is sometimes a downright unpleasant experience.
Now, I don't think everything in life has to be "fun", but I do think that if we expect people to go to the trouble of coming to hear us play -- be "we" a wind ensemble or a quintet or a symphony or a soloist -- we actually need to be aware of giving them a program that they can relate to, enjoy, be enlightened by, be amused by, and care about.
Without this effort, we bore our audiences. And if we are going to have better audiences, we first of all need to be NOT boring. We actually have to do a show, a presentation, not just a recitation. There has to be a framework, there has to be a narrative. Something has to be communicated, beyond the simple fact of the excellence of the music and the players.
That's why the "flash mob" thing works. It's not boring. It's refreshing, enlightening, amusing, and enjoyable.
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-16 07:54
Yeah... I'm not aiming to organize flash mobs, but a lot of my stuff is in that general spirit. Music in public that's more than a plea for tips. Not that I have any problem with busking philosophically... it does very much change the context when you don't have a tip jar out, though.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mlz
Date: 2010-12-16 22:01
Quoting Susan:
"That's why the "flash mob" thing works. It's not boring. It's refreshing, enlightening, amusing, and enjoyable."
And a long attention span not needed...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-16 23:53
Music appreciation should not be an exercise in attention-span. Well-performed music will keep your attention without you having to try. Suggesting that it's the audience's fault for finding our music boring ignores the possibility that our music may, in fact, be boring.
Why are classical musicians so hesitant to so much as consider the possibility that they're making something boring? We look for every other possible explanation, but ignore the boring angle. When we DO try to make it less boring, we don't go to the substance of WHY it's boring, but rather add fireworks or video, or play some film scores, to distract the audience from the real issue at hand.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Reedirect
Date: 2010-12-17 08:41
Demand for music is still there. In fact, it is even inreasing (my daughters are both "addicts" to contemporary music). But only on the internet or at fancy modern style concert events (We managed to teach them piano and flute at least).
In Germany, classical orchestras are generally quite heavily subsidized. Otherwise, we would also note orchestras becoming defunct every other day.
As long as subsidies are accepted (it's tax payer's money!) we may proceed that way. However, I doubt that because while the number of the "internet listeners" grows acceptance will eventually decrease.
However, there is hope. and this hope is to produce "event music" such as "crossover style" music performed by the likes of David Garret, Nigel Kennedy, Vanessa Mae, Lang-Lang. Kids and adolescents don't complain at all to stand in line for hours! for a Garret concert (my daughters too).
Clearly, the purists among us may wince, but this music can serve both the purpose of internet attractiveness and perpetuation of classical music above the sad level of a mere motive theft.
It is not too late and the internet is not a threat, it's a chance.
Best
Jo
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mlz
Date: 2010-12-17 18:54
Sorry EEBAum, just kidding, but everywhere I am, I do notice people get bored paying attention to anything else except maybe sports ,and must carry on their conversations and texting, because sometimes, its gotta be all about them.. Avery Fisher Hall,woman behind us still going on and on way after the concert intermission had ended (not the NY Phil BTW) because it was all about her... a group of us actually got a good laugh out of it, but the concert was upbeat, well performed, performers got out to the audience,everything you noted, its just a lot of people can't seem to put their attention to anything requiring listening for very long. A friend of mine, who is asked to organize a lot of events, has pointed this out as well, attention spans are short, listening skills nil, no matter the venue. But boy can we talk. ( and post LOL)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-17 19:07
Continuing as devil's advocate, I can't help but wonder whether the attention spans are actually getting shorter, or whether the cultural etiquette has changed such that people feel less obligated to pretend to pay attention.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2010-12-17 20:35
To those of you who mentioned shorter attention spans, I think there's something to that. I've read quite a bit about how TV (and perhaps other things as well) has "trained" society to concentrate for only about a half hour at a time (and some people can't even make it that long). Sitting quietly through a long Mahler symphony (even with brief breaks between movements) is just too long for many people.
MLZ mentioned people texting and getting bored paying attention to anything "except maybe sports." Again, I think this is a valid point. Ask any high school teacher or college professor about students texting (or trying to text) in class, and you'll get an earful.
EEBaum mentioned changes in cultural etiquette, and again, I think he's making a good point. Thinking back to my days as a school band teacher, I did a lot of evening concerts. Audience behavior at these concerts varied. Sometimes, they'd be great, but not always. On one occasion, I witnessed two men louding going at it between performing groups, but I don't remember what it was about. Then, there was the time when I had a middle school band that was really a fine group. I won't go into all the details, but my scatterbrained principal set it up so that we had to play in a large gym while food was being served. Concerts in this format can work, but it didn't with that crowd. They were loud throughout our performance, and they just wouldn't stop for a moment (by the way, scatterbrained principal left the room and was doing something elsewhere at the time). I felt bad for the kids because they did a great job.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-12-17 20:55
I do think attention spans have gotten shorter, and that people are more impatient with their entertainment. However, if it is engaging people will stay with it. This isn't classical music, but my 12-year-old son has been absolutely glued to the TV when The Sing-off is on. These groups are amazingly good, and one group in particular nearly brought be to tears the last episode their harmonies were so gorgeous.
Someone mentioned personal relationships bringing people into the music. I think we all can do a great deal of good as music ambassadors. We have an Advent concert at our church each year, the main attraction being about 6 church choirs, three of them from our parish. Between the choirs we have inspirational readings and solos and small groups. My husband and I played a movement from Telemann's Six Canonic Sonatas, and I had numerous conversations about that piece for two or three days after the concert. It was fun to tell people about the piece, that it is a canon, there is just one part and the players start separately, and that it is fun! It was a great opportunity to talk to people about something they heard and liked.
Barb
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-12-17 21:09
EEBaum wrote:
"Continuing as devil's advocate, I can't help but wonder whether the attention spans are actually getting shorter, or whether the cultural etiquette has changed such that people feel less obligated to pretend to pay attention."
I think personal electronic devices in particular have done great damage to cultural etiquette. Banks and doctors have signs about turning off cell phones so the personnel can help you They tell you in movie theatres and churches to turn the darned things off. The way people use technology reflects a loss of communication courtesies that used to be common. My kids' kindergarten and first grade teachers worked with them a lot on how to treat a speaker and how to interact with peers and adults. Many people don't adhere to these ideas in their daily lives.
This doesn't mean that the way to recapture that for us as musicians is to keep performing our music in settings and ways that are proven to drive people away and expect people to respond to what we do.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2010-12-18 00:41
Before the industrial revolution in America, there was a scarcity of horsepower and an abundance of land. The industrial revolution brought about a wealth of horsepower and land became scarce. Today we have a boundless trove of information, including this Bboard, and our poverty is attention. This doesn't bode well for many things in life, including people's ability to sit through a Mahler symphony. That being said, what makes classical music great has nothing to do with its popularity.
Post Edited (2010-12-18 00:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2010-12-18 01:19
EEBaum wrote:
"Continuing as devil's advocate, I can't help but wonder whether the attention spans are actually getting shorter, or whether the cultural etiquette has changed such that people feel less obligated to pretend to pay attention."
How refreshing; finally someone trying to get to the root of the problem, rather than throwing around the same old bag of crap about television and other media actually shortening our attention spans.
When I see research that shows any of that is actually happening that didn't involve simple minded correlative studies, I'll be very surprised.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-18 02:47
I'd say we're all too tolerant of stuff like texting during performances. I'm the first to dump my bucket of popcorn on someone texting in the row in front of me at the movies, and if you buy the biggest size, you get free refills at many theaters.
On the other hand, I once commented to a friend after a concert that if the orchestra's going to phone it in, I can't fault the audience for doing the same.
Rather than chalking it up to short attention spans (which still may be some of the problem), I think a combination of factors comes into play, including:
- The wealth of entertainment and information options available to us has led to a hastening of decision-making. In order to focus on things we consider worth our time, we decide rather quickly whether something is worth our attention. Many times, that decision will come two minutes into a 90-minute Bruckner. The rest is pain. ESPECIALLY if your decision that the Bruckner isn't worth your time was legitimate.
- Unnecessary etiquette. A lot of the dog-and-pony-show of theater found in our concerts leads to an uncomfortable pins-and-needles situation that is not conducive to listening. I find that being forced to listen is the quickest way to make me not want to.
- Poor enforcement of etiquette. In our quest to be polite and civilized, we tolerate someone's rudeness rather than imposing a quick smackdown. I'm all about loosening rules and having more casual venues, and I think that can be highly beneficial to music, but even those venues have etiquette. A schmuck yammering on his phone in the front row of a metal show will get his ass handed to him, just as the guy checking sports scores in the middle of Beethoven 6 should. While people may have become ruder, we have become equally lenient in accepting it. We sneer from afar, then bemoan their behavior over a nice Chianti after the show. Either relax the rules or don't, but make it clear what the expectations are. An orchestra where the die-hard audience will not hesitate to give a texter a black eye is an orchestra worth seeing. I think the threat of being sued for knocking someone's lights out has harmed society greatly. Some people need to be smacked.
- Passable mediocre performances that take no risks, and so offer the audience no unknowns, no compelling reason to watch the group live rather than popping in a CD. This applies to all genres, but is especially rampant in classical.
Seriously, if an old lady were to clock a texter in the face with her purse, after the outrage and commotion died down so you could hear the music again, and as long as the orchestra persevered and didn't get all "let's start again" prissy about it, it would surely be an incredibly energized, compelling evening. The reputation would get around that the L.A. Philharmonic (or whoever) is tired of your sh*t and doesn't f*ck around. People might actually care.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-18 02:51
I think a good question for us all to ask ourselves, between "music is my passion" and "music is my life" and "I don't know what I'd do without music," is:
"Is this music worth punching someone in the face for?"
If not, I would hardly call it a passion. An interest, a fascination, a living, a way to pass the time, a thing you really like, maybe. A passion? I think not.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: weberfan
Date: 2010-12-18 13:40
Have we been addressing an issue that is peculiarly American, or are we talking, as well, about Europe, Asia and elsewhere? Is the disappearance of the symphony orchestra in the United States unique to this country? Clearly, everyone everywhere is strapped for funds at this moment. But is the attention span, the interest, also waning in Britain, Germany, France, Italy, France, Japan, Latin America, Australia?
I'm not suggesting it's all about the United States, I'm truly asking. Alex has written passionately in this thread---and in other, similar threads--about attention spans and courtesy and new music vs. old.
Is this a cultural problem largely limited to the United States, or are we merely on the front line in a losing battle?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2010-12-18 20:58
weberfan wrote:
> Have we been addressing an issue that is peculiarly American,
> or are we talking, as well, about Europe, Asia and elsewhere?
The little I know about the Asian part comes from my son, who conducts in the Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya area. It seems, even though the Japanese economy has been in recession, that the classical music art forms have not sufered nearly as much as in the US. Unfortunately I don't know how much support comes from the government, but I do know that one of the "amateur" orchestras he conducts on a regular basis is the NHK Friendship Orchestra, and that is funded strictly by NHK (a TV broadcaster in Japan, somewhat similar to PBS). The NHK Symphony orchestra is funded at least partially by NHK, too.
There are many ensembles and small orchestras playing all over Japan on a regular basis, along with many opera venues (though often they are playing with a reduced orchestra). The audiences are not just the old folks, but kids - in fact, occasionally my son gets asked for an autograph by children who have attended his concerts!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: weberfan
Date: 2010-12-19 01:23
Mark,
Thanks for your post. That is my impression, certainly of Japan. And, yes, the government does play a part, something that grows increasingly less likely here.
I read the BBC music magazine each month, as well as selected issues of Gramophone and, of course, the Clarinet, quarterly. I read daily coverage of musical events in New York. But London and New York and other major cities are not typical. Even where you are, not far from Ann Arbor, symphonic and chamber music probably suffer to some extent.
A colleague of mine has a son who has begun his master's at UMichigan under Dan Gilbert. The student is a very fine player out of N.Y.U., where he studied with Esther Lamneck and others, including Larry Guy. I know he'll have to make a living eventually, but he studies and plays at a great music school, where hundreds of kids are working toward perfection. I keep hoping that they will spread the word. Spread the feeling. But I am a realist, too.
Is American society leading the way to 15 second mp3 selections of the latest rock group. Is that it?
Last night, I was on my way to a holiday party in dowtown Manhattan. I had to walk quite a way underground in the subway to get to my train. As I approached the stairs to the subway line I needed, I stopped to listen to a jazz quintet: A washtub bass player, an accordianist, a cornetist, a clarinetist and a trombonist. The clarinet player was in his 20's. He was playing, he said, a 9-year-old R13, with an M13 Lyre mouthpiece and Rico Grand Concert thick blank reed, No. 3.5. The trombonist was playing a very good Conn trombone. She, too, was in her 20's. The cornetist was about 50 but looked older. They played Dixieland and 20"s jazz arrangements. I dropped $10 in their bucket and bought a CD.
Why am I telling you this? Just that people still want to make music and others want to listen. I am continually confounded by Americans' lack of interest in the classics. I have no answers. Wish I did.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-12-19 02:42
weberfan wrote:
.
>
> Why am I telling you this? Just that people still want to make
> music and others want to listen. I am continually confounded by
> Americans' lack of interest in the classics. I have no answers.
> Wish I did.
I totally agree with your first sentiment, weberfan. As for the second concept, I think the answer lies in part in the sources and fonts of American music. If you look at these, our "classics" are Deep River (much of the energy in American music has always come from the African-American community) and Cotton-Eyed Joe (ever hear the version with the Chieftains and Ricky Skaggs?)
Barb
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: weberfan
Date: 2010-12-19 03:18
Barb..Thank you.
I gather you're suggesting that we haven't really dug deep in our own backyard to propel music forward. You're suggesting, if I read you correctly, that even our American "classics" don't get the airing and following they deserve. (Havent heard the Chieftains and Ricky Skaggs version, but will go searching.)
Even before the Chieftains, there's Gottschalk and Copland and Gershwin and others who tried to pick up the American vernacular. Still worth listening to... and adding to. But that's happening only here and there. And, again, I wonder, without what music conservatories call ear training and/or music appreciation whether musicians and audiences can find one another. New York still has venues, including a relatively new one for all kinds of music, Le Poisson Rouge. Check out its Web site.
But it's undeniable that when one goes to a concert by, say, the New York Philharmonic, the number of gray heads too often outnumbers those of Gen X. Not always, but too often. Imagine, one of the best bands on the planet, in a megalopolis as large as New York, and hardly anyone but those who grew up with Toscanini and Bruno Walter are willing to come out for an evening.
Post Edited (2010-12-19 17:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-12-19 18:03
weberfan wrote:
> I gather you're suggesting that we haven't really dug deep in
> our own backyard to propel music forward.
>
Yes. This isn't music that really lights my fire, but I think one of the reasons for the success of New Age music in its heyday was that it did tap into the Scottish and Irish fiddle music and traditions of balladry that came over to America and made their way west. There are other influences, of course but this is a big one.
I would be interested in what some of our BB-ers in Spain might have to say about this. When I spent six months there many years ago it also seemed to me that their traditional music had not been tapped and transformed into the classical realm of winds and strings either. I wonder what the scene is like for symphonic music there and in other countries where the national musical traditions are strong and mostly non-symphonic.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-19 19:23
I find it interesting conceptually that there's some sort of expectation that a culture's music should find its way into an orchestral setting. Is there any particular reason this should happen? Would we likewise expect our orchestral lit to make its way into the traditional Spanish scene, or into American folk and bluegrass?
I think there's some very latent, subtle, unintentional elitism present, where somehow orchestral music is some sort of pinnacle of musical achievement that any sort of musical material should eventually make its way to. I find nothing inherently superior in it, though. It's just one of many ways of playing music.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2010-12-19 20:06
Hi, EEBaum, interesting question. I can see where you would think perhaps I am implying that a culture's music "should" make its way into a symphonic setting. I agree that there isn't a particular reason that would happen. The question really is, how do symphonic musicians maintain an audience in places where orchestral music isn't historically a focus of music making.
And yes, the kind of attitude you portray in your second paragraph is part of the problem when you go to a concert and you'd better sit still, and heaven help you if you clap at the wrong time. One reason the community symphony I am in has experienced some success is that the setting is family friendly. You can stand in back with the baby or take the youngster for a walk outside the hall without getting laser stares.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-19 21:24
"The question really is, how do symphonic musicians maintain an audience in places where orchestral music isn't historically a focus of music making."
Indeed!
I think the first step in that direction (and I preach this a lot) is to stop pretending that it IS historically a focus. We go on about how it's awesome and important and about how the audience should like it and it's tragic that they don't, but at least in America, the classical tradition is an import. So, unlike, say, Vienna or Paris, the locals don't have an intrinsic unifying "well, this IS our history" pull to the concert hall. There's a bit of the "I should like it because it's sophisticated" guilt trip, but it's not backed by nearly as much cultural oomph.
Until some significant cultural shift occurs, orchestras will continue to remain in the museumland fringe of American culture. While they're a pretty awesome thing, they're just not particularly relevant, and in all fairness, America *does* produce a HUGE quantity of music across various genres.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bobby McClellan
Date: 2010-12-19 21:30
I posted about my thoughts and insights a little earlier. I find these posts about groups that have trouble gaining attendance and funding troubling.
But on a high know I did want to let ya'll (southern for you all) know how our christmas concert went last night. The hall seats 820. every seat was taken, there were people sitting ln the stairs of each side of the balcony, they were sitting on seat on the landing outside of the balcony, and sitting in the lobby. There were even people in the hall leading to the back of the stage listening to the concert.
We were blessed to have such a great crowd for the Mississippi Community Symphonic Band's Christmas concert.
I hope that takes a little bit of the gloom from the discussion at least till christmas.
Bobby
Bobby M. McClellan
Flowood, MS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gsurosey
Date: 2010-12-20 00:40
At our last orchestra concert, we probably had as many people in the hall as we did in the room where we played. Our situation is a little different in that most of our concerts aren't in "public" venues (though the public is welcome). Most of them are in senior citizen facilities (nursing homes and/or assisted living facilities). We never charge admission but do accept donations. I know the town that sponsors us gives us $2,000 a year (I think our budget is around $7,000 - I'm not really sure). We get grants from NY state, but the grant amounts are declining. We have optional dues of $25/semester (currently we have around 50 members). I know our conductor is paid ($65 per service). If we need to bring in any paid players (from Eastman usually), our principal oboe player tends to cover that (she's a cardiologist, so we're thankful she foots that bill).
I know about orchestra death first-hand. I played in a community orchestra from 2000-2008 (founded earlier in 2000). It got to the point where our conductor was not paying her mortgage to pay string players we had to bring in since we didn't have any of our own (imagine only having strings for dress rehearsal and a concert). We always had more people in the orchestra than in the audience. We charged admission, but when almost no one comes, paying players took a toll since they git paid a lot more than tickets brought in. I missed the last concert the group put on due to being in the hospital. I heard there were 10-15 people that saw that concert (and 1/2 were friends of members).
Rachel
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-12-24 10:42
I am not sure if anyone mentioned it- have not read all the posts...
I think one of the things that has exacerbated the ill fate of classical music is the way it is presented.
It is the only genre I can think of in which the audience is not allowed to eat anything, drink anything, say anything or do anything during the performance.
Can you imagine how long rock would have lasted if the club owners said, "We have a band tonight so there is no food or drink and don't you dare start to dance!"
[edit] it seems that others have referred to this a bit. But I am not talk about the "high class attitude" of classical music as much as the sheer fact that it removes food/drink/conversation from the experience. One might find the same attitude in an expensive restaurant, but at least we can eat!
Post Edited (2010-12-24 12:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-12-24 12:30
Up to a point, I agree with you, skygardener, and I do support the trend toward bringing classical music into venues where the audience can go casual. But it's probably worth mentioning a fundamental difference between most rock clubs and most classical music venues: Most rock is loud enough to drown out nearly anything the audience does (including hear itself think) and the audience noise that does come through is generally rhythmic in nature - notice how often even the screams of "WOOOOO-HOO!" match up to the backbeat (on the short, emphatic "hoo" in that example). The audience noise, especially when people dance, becomes part of the music. Doesn't work so well in a performance of "Afternoon of a Faun."
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-12-24 14:38
Well, rock was just an example, but jazz/blues would be the same, and that is not all really that loud.
I don't see that having a glass of wine while listening to a string quartet would somehow "destroy the art".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-12-24 15:21
I don't know when audiences in Europe were quieted (if they were) into tomb-like reverence. Everything I've read suggests that they were much noisier and demonstrative before the beginning of the 20th century and that opera performances even more recently were more like sporting events in terms of audience participation. In the U.S. I think the hush was first enforced during the early 1900s by Stokowsky and his contemporaries - Stokie famously tried even to have the programs printed on cloth to minimize the sound of the audience's page turns.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2010-12-24 16:25
I blame Clara Schumann.
The sporting-event atmosphere would explain a lot about opera, e.g. why they sing just about every line 30 times. Makes it about unbearable in a quiet hall, though.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
