 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2013-12-01 16:44
Article on Truthdig site, 11/30/13. (about one page long) Runaway Capitalism Murders Another Artist.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2013-12-01 20:27
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2013-12-01 21:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-12-01 21:31
I haven't seen 'stats' on the percentage of those donating either, however, if you listen to "Met Broadcasts" regularly, they tend to mention the dwindling audiences (or dying off of their fans), with no younger crowd coming in to take their place. This can be blamed on our penchant to pull the arts out of education whenever there are fewer dollars to go around. But I do think that the author of that article may have a point there somewhere.
You can't expect the poor to shell out $60 a seat for an all Lutolsowski concert. And perhaps there is (or was) a little bit of "glamor" or "refinement" by association with donating to the arts or being seen at a concert or opera. Nowadays having money is its own celebrity, we don't need anyone to see us appreciating Mozart or Monet to think us as pinnacles of society.
I don't feel it's productive to dump on one sector of society or the other but as the disparity between the "haves" and "have-nots" gets closer to what it was in the 1930s, we can't very well lay the blame on the "have-nots."
...................Paul Aviles
P.S. Are you sure the Koch brothers give as much to the New York Philharmonic as they do to destroying the "liberal agenda?"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2013-12-01 22:46
Article was pure class warfare.......utter nonsense attempting to Balkanize society. His comparison of popular music in the 1930's is laughable. In the 1930's orchestral music and jazz was the popular music, jazz musicians are skilled musicians, far from popular music today which consists of some 18 year old starlet screeching into a microphone in front of flashing lights.
Cultural changes are what's killing symphonies, but the author couldn't miss a chance to attach the rich (which he failed to define).
Another issue which he failed to address.....the wealthies attitude towards charitable giving has changed. Many young, self made (not all multi millionaires inherited their wealth or stole it through corrupt means which is the charicature you get from the article) millionaires are not fans of classical music, so....while they may make charitable donations....symphonies are not at the top of their list. This is representative of cultural changes, not the absurdity the author wrote. You would think that if your going to demonize a class of people it would be mandatory to provide some stats supporting your condemnation.
Ted Ridenour
*this post is the opinion of Ted Ridenour exclusively and does not represent Tom Ridenour, Ridenour Clarinet Products, or Southern Star Clarinet Enterprises Inc.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2013-12-01 23:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2013-12-01 22:56
I'm sure whatever the Koch brothers give, which from what ive heard is very significant when it comes to classical music, symphonies, music programs, etc.....is their perogative and its not my place to tell them to whom they should or should not give. Ive spoken with several musicians who are bothered by the fact that they give money to the arts at all......that's rather disturbing in my opinion. If George Soros gave to the arts, I don't know that he doesn't but I've never heard that he does, i would hope that conservative or libertarian minded people would simply be thankful.
Ted Ridenour
*this post is the opinion of Ted Ridenour and bears no reflection on Tom Ridenour, Ridenour Clarinet Products, or Southern Star Clarinet Enterprises inc.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2013-12-01 23:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2013-12-01 23:16
When I say it's a cultural issue......that cuts both ways. Our society today is simply less enthusiastic about classical music and even jazz than it was 30, 40, or 50+ years ago. Less wealthy people are inclined (though I've yet to see statistics verifying it I would be shocked if high dollar donations aren't on the decline) to give money towards symphonies etc.....less middle class and poorer people are inclined to buy a ticket to a symphony concert or purchase one of their recordings for that matter.
Instead of pointing out the unfortunate, at least people posting on this board would call it unfortunate, cultural shift and maybe providing some sort of suggestion to reverse it.....he choose to attack one group.
Ted Ridenour
*This post is the opinion of Ted Ridenour and bears no reflection on Tom Ridenour, Ridenour Clarinet Products, or Southern Star Clarinet Enterprises Inc.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2013-12-02 00:40
Paul, I really enjoyed your comment:
"You can't expect the poor to shell out $60 a seat for an all Lutolsowski concert."
So true!
In the 1930s, Aaron Copland and George Gershwin were household names. Rhapsody in Blue, Porgy and Bess, Billy the Kid, Rodeo, Fanfare for the Common Man etc. were well-known by the public. By the 60s Copland's style had changed, but as a well-respected and well-known composer, and he was asked by Life Magazine to compose a piano piece for younger students. The result was Down a Country Lane, a piece that has had renewed success in it's version for wind ensemble.
What living classical composers today are household names? The only one I can think of is Philip Glass (and there might be some disagreement here), and it will be interesting to see if his music is still performed a hundred years from now.
What is needed--badly needed!--is a composer who can capture the imagination of the general public--perhaps someone like Leonard Bernstein. Very few university composers are household names, and most are writing music that the average person has no interest in hearing. Until the day comes when there are living and breathing composers who relate to the masses, classical music will continue to decline.
I'll end with a little story. In the late 60s, I attended a summer music camp for three weeks. In addition to band practice and private lessons (wonderful lessons with Larry Maxey), there were theory and music lit. classes. In lit, it was decided that we should be exposed to the latest trends in 20th century music. The various segments dealt with aleatoric, electronic, and twelve-tone music.
I don't remember much about the first two segments (most of the music wasn't very memorable), but I do remember the twelve-tone music. We learned how to write twelve-tone rows, and listened to several Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern recordings. Most of us were underwhelmed.
Our instructor, a university graduate assistant, was patient with us. He told us that our ears had been trained in a traditional way, and that after a lot of exposure to twelve-tone music, we would begin to appreciate it. Here's the best part: he told us he had very young children of his own, and that he was exposing them to twelve-tone music by playing it for them every day. I can just imagine some of the conversations in his household, "If you promise to listen quietly to Schoenberg's Variations for Orchestra, I'll let you listen for a few minutes to "The Wheels on the Bus" and "If You're Happy and You Know It." These children are now in their 40s, and it would be interesting to know if they really grew up to enjoy it.
Post Edited (2013-12-02 00:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2013-12-02 00:45
This is exactly what should be written on the subject.....regarding how to improve the financial situations of symphonies and classical musicians! Ideas for how to improve things. Music that people find interesting wont just result in the public being willing to pay to fill seats, but it will also make it more likely that people with fat bank accounts will make big donations.
You want donations....you want full concert halls. You gotta give people a reason.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-12-02 03:49
Real modern day composers of symphony orchestra music are making a living writing film scores.
And people of all ages are buying the CDs ect
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-12-02 03:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2013-12-02 04:52
My issue with the article was the lack of any solutions, ideas, etc......basically the message was rich people should donate more money to symphonies. Well.....that would be great but depending on the help of others is not a replacement for helping yourself. That's what symphonies and classical musicians as a whole need to find....better ways to promote what they do and make it more appealing to a wider audience.
Ted Ridenour
*View represent only those of Ted Ridenout and not Tom Ridenour, Ridenour Clarinet Products, or Southern Star Clarinet Enterprises Inc.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2013-12-02 04:59
Quote:
Until the day comes when there are living and breathing composers who relate to the masses, classical music will continue to decline.
Hear, hear! Down with degenerate art!
Pelleas et Melisande? Crap. Ulysses? Who is even talking? Inner monologue is so boring. Rothko? I can paint blocks of color. Come on! Waiting for Godot? Would rather be waiting on a enema.
Wish these hacks would make some stuff that I like!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-12-02 08:17
My favourite book dealing with the subject of 'classical' music and it's apparent decline is Henry Pleasants "The Agony of Modern Music" (1955)
It's a rather polemical attack on modern composers who insist in continuing to write 'Classical ' music , as in 'Serious' music, whilst not realising that they don't really have an audience of enthusiastic listeners who'd support them. But they keep right on composing this "Serious' music all the while putting out their hand for grants to support their careers in musical composition because they cannot support themselves with their music.
Some however have realised that they don't have a genuine audience , and direct their efforts at earning a real living as a real composer by composing film scores, some of which are really quite brilliant.
At the end of his book , Henry Pleasants states that "Jazz is modern music and nothing else is".
Well, I think he was drawing a very 'long bow' there , or perhaps it was just a bit of a stir. Whatever he meant by that statement, I still consider his book an excellent read and close to the uncomfortable truth on this subject.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-12-02 08:33
Henry Pleasants book The Agony of Modern Music , was obviously dealing with the modern composer.
But in this very controversial book he also writes about the old "Classical' music of 'Yestercenturies' He describes this older music as like a rich ore vein in a mine that had been worked for 300 years or so, producing , as he puts it, "a seemingly inexhaustible yield of beautiful music that has run out"
He describes 'modern' (classical) composers as "deluded speculators picking through the slag pile".
Well , he certainly had a colourful way of describing things and one can certainly disagree with much in this book. But it's a rather unique work in the way it covers this very interesting subject.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2013-12-02 13:16
The various sides of this issue might plaster every side of a dodechedron with a few issues to spare -- appropriately, since one of those issues is the dodecaphonic music that made a lot of former classical music fans run screaming in the mid-20th century.
I agree that film music today fills a similar role to concert hall music in earlier centuries, but there are some important differences. In a concert or in an opera, the music is the main point. We hear each overture, aria, entr'acte and finale as a complete piece of music. Even in a ballet, the dancing simply can't exist without the music and its silences. It's possible to think in terms of the action illustrating the music, not the other way round.
But, in a film, unless it's a film of an opera or a musical, we rarely hear a complete piece with its compositional structure intact. We hear fragments as background music, not front and center. Often that's even true with the end credits music, which may be an olio of popular songs or even a complete piece resembling an overture -- but these days it's more often a montage. Film is essentially a visual medium. It's a stage play with a soundtrack. What we see is way more important than what we hear.
In fact, as a film critic, even though I care about music, I often don't notice the score all that much unless it's notably outstanding (the first "Star Wars") or utterly atrocious ("The Meat-Eater," aka "Blood Theater," aka "Phantom of the Bijou," made in 1979, direct to VHS in 1986, never released on DVD -- and no, I promise, you do not want to rush out and hunt it down just because it's rare).
How often do we see concert programs devoted to film music? The concert hall is still the place to go for a "music first" experience. Often those film scores don't even exist as complete compositions. They're fragments written or even improvised (by a composer sitting at a synthesizer while watching the screen) as emotional background for individual scenes. The short pop songs get released, yes, but only the most famed of those composers (Williams, for instance) release longer-format music scores that a concert band or orchestra could rent and play -- and almost always those composers or their orchestrators prepare those scores months or years after the releases of the movies. Essentially those are new compositions *based on* the film scores.
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: rtmyth
Date: 2013-12-02 14:34
Ted Ridenour sums it up. For example, our town has some very wealthy residents. I wish they gave more to the symphony, but that is no reason they should. Robert Tobin was also a very wealthy resident. He gave much to classical music and even now the Tobin Foundation gives support to classical music. Why? Tobin was interested in it. Period.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-12-02 17:21
Hi Lelia. Yes, I totally agree with your summary of the nature of film score music. Usually however , if a film becomes a 'classic' over time , it's not only because it's a great film in itself , but that the musical score also takes on a life of it's own. A good example of this is the film Lawrence of Arabia. The original score was composed by Maurice Jarr and performed by the London Philharmonic Orchestra on a soundstage, not a recording studio.
As is often the case, both the film and the musical score supplement each other.
One other obvious thing to note, is that no one would enjoy just watching a great film without the score, but great musical scores such as that of Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago ect can be enjoyed without the film.
Another composer who has written excellent film scores (well, most of the time) is John Barry. Perhaps his most memorable compositions are for the films The Lion in Winter (the original one) and Mary , Queen of Scots (suite)
These are the modern day composers who actually earn a living composing. They write music that people actually enjoy listening to. They are not subsidised by handouts of government grants to the arts. Most other composers have to be subsidised. They cannot earn a living composing because they don't really have an enthusiastic audience.
I could go on about the film scores that I love to listen to but here is a short list of others that have a 'life of their own'.
The Black Robe (Score by Georges Delerue)
The Mission (Score by Ennio Morricone)
Robin Hood Prince of Thieves (Score by Michael Kamen) This one is an excellent example of music totally performed in a sound studio. Also, it's a good example of a film score that has become a 'classic' in it's own right whereas the film itself is rather forgettable.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-12-02 17:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2013-12-02 18:08
Quote:
My favourite book dealing with the subject of 'classical' music and it's apparent decline is Henry Pleasants "The Agony of Modern Music" (1955)
It's a rather polemical attack on modern composers who insist in continuing to write 'Classical ' music , as in 'Serious' music, whilst not realising that they don't really have an audience of enthusiastic listeners who'd support them. But they keep right on composing this "Serious' music all the while putting out their hand for grants to support their careers in musical composition because they cannot support themselves with their music.
Some however have realised that they don't have a genuine audience , and direct their efforts at earning a real living as a real composer by composing film scores, some of which are really quite brilliant.
At the end of his book , Henry Pleasants states that "Jazz is modern music and nothing else is".
Well, I think he was drawing a very 'long bow' there , or perhaps it was just a bit of a stir. Whatever he meant by that statement, I still consider his book an excellent read and close to the uncomfortable truth on this subject.
I haven't read the Pleasants book and probably will not read it, but I'd like to respond to some of these points.
Firstly, the book was written in the mid 50's, before any sort of reaction to high modernism and total serialism (i.e. minimalism, third-stream, neoromanticism, etc) had occurred and before jazz had totally removed itself from the realm of popular music. In many respects, the history of jazz music parallels that of Western art music but compacted into the course of a century: what Pleasants writes about serious music could just as well be applied to jazz.
Secondly, when was the period of history in which Western art music attracted the attention of the masses (as someone previously put it)? Except for late 18th century England and 19th century Germany, I can't think of such a time. Moreover, I would argue that Handel-mania in England, the Bach revival in Leipzig, etc had more to do with social and political currents than with anything inherent in the music itself.
Until the emergence of an independent middle class in the wake of the industrial revolution, Western art music was in the hands of the religious, business, and political elites. Were Josquin, Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, etc "putting out their hands for grants" because they "could not support themselves with their music?"
Thirdly, a number of modernist composers have become mainstays of the concert and opera hall. The operas of Debussy, Strauss, Berg, Shostakovitch, Corigliano, Benjamin, and Ades, for example, usually do quite well in terms of drawing an audience. How would Pleasants (or you) explain people showing up to see large scale works by such "deluded speculators picking through the slag pile?"
I don't think it can be explained using Pleasants's arguments (or what you've presented of them). His reasoning shows a misunderstanding of composing and grant writing as well as the history of Western art music as a whole, which is further confirmed by his spectacular misreading of jazz history.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-12-02 21:22
Hi Brycon. What you are saying is basically correct.
Even so, I recommend that you read Pleasants book , even , as you say correctly , that it's out of date somewhat. But his general conclusions are spot on even today as noted in the dwindling audience numbers. It's most likely to be found in your local library. So you may not even have to buy it.
Yes, it's a very controversial book and really gets up some peoples 'noses'
Quote :- "Were Josquin, Monteverdi, Bach, Haydn, etc "putting out their hands for grants" because they "could not support themselves with their music?"
Actually I thought they were employed by their Patrons. Or were they sponsored , or both ? And if they produced music that was not appreciated by said Patrons , they would have been told to go do something else. Or am I being to too simplistic here.
Quote :- "Thirdly, a number of modernist composers have become mainstays of the concert and opera hall. The operas of Debussy, Strauss, Berg, Shostakovitch, Corigliano, Benjamin, and Ades, for example, usually do quite well in terms of drawing an audience".
That is also correct. However , when it comes to the Symphonies , Concertos , Essays ect of composers such as Berg, Corigliano and Ades ect , what the programmers of these concerts do , as I have noted, is to put a composer such a Beethoven at the beginning of the concert, and say Brahms at the end of it. That's to make sure that the concert 'draws' an audience as you say, and then stays till the end. Tne modern piece or pieces are positioned in the middle. The programmers wouldn't dare organise a complete concert just featuring such modern day 'Serious' composers because there'd be no audience. Or once again, am I being too simplistic.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-12-02 22:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-12-02 21:55
I've just looked through some of my modern music as in my CD collection and it's surprising what I have. Here's a list of just the American (as in USA America) composers that I have.
First of all there's Aaron Copland & Samuel Barber. Two modern day composers that you could actually program a whole concert with and you'd get a good audience for sure.
Then there's Ferde Grofe of the Grand Canyon Suite fame.
Roy Harris & Walter Piston with their excellent symphonies.
Virgil Thomson and his wonderful but short score for the film documentary "The Plow that Broke the Plains" and his Symphony of Hymn Tunes.
Then there's a few composers on the other side of the Atlantic.
I have all the Symphonies of Dmitri Shostakovich. His 5th is my favourite.
I've also acquired an ear for the 7 Symphonies of Arnold Bax. Also his 'tone poem' Tintagel is wonderful.
I've always enjoyed listening to the Symphonies and Overtures of Carl Nielsen. I have his Clarinet Concerto with it's awful banal tune that opens this work. I never enjoyed this Concerto which one Music Critic described as a "Concerto AGAINST the Clarinet" But I do love his Flute Concerto.
So as you can see, despite what I"ve written previously, I do enjoy listening to modern 'Serious' Orchestral music. The one thing that is common to all the above works (except Nielsen's Clarinet Concerto is that they all have excellent harmonies and tunes. No 'unfriendly to the ears' dodecaphony discords ect here.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-12-02 22:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2013-12-02 23:49
Quote:
Actually I thought they were employed by their Patrons. Or were they sponsored , or both ? And if they produced music that was not appreciated by said Patrons , they would have been told to go do something else. Or am I being to too simplistic here.
They were employed by religious and/or political entities (though the two were often intertwined).
The point is, their music was not written for nor did it really appeal to common people (i.e. the musically uneducated). So I wonder, why is Josquin being paid by the Court of Burgundy to write a mass that only a handful of people can understand good, while Charles Wourinen receiving an NEA grant to write an orchestral piece that only a few people can understand bad?
Your argument that private funding is for real composers and public funding is for fake composers- or to put it another way, pieces that appeal to everyone are good and pieces that appeal only to the musically educated are bad- does not hold water. Unless, of course, you want to admit that the canon of Western music (and pretty much all art) is crap. In short, I don't think we should tie quality to profit.
Quote:
That is also correct. However , when it comes to the Symphonies , Concertos , Essays ect of composers such as Berg, Corigliano and Ades ect , what the programmers of these concerts do , as I have noted, is to put a composer such a Beethoven at the beginning of the concert, and say Brahms at the end of it. That's to make sure that the concert 'draws' an audience as you say, and then stays till the end. Tne modern piece or pieces are positioned in the middle. The programmers wouldn't dare organise a complete concert just featuring such modern day 'Serious' composers because there'd be no audience. Or once again, am I being too simplistic.
Modernist composers are also popular in the symphonic medium: I have seen Stravinsky, Bartok, Messiaen, Lutoslawski, Corigliano, Adams, and Lindberg all programmed as the "big piece" on a concert. Nevertheless, I think that the practice of including works from different periods on an orchestral concert might be to offer the audience variety, as opposed to luring them in only to subject them to modern music.
Here in New York, I have attended a number of sold-out modern music concerts, some of which featured the thorny music of Schoenberg, Webern, Carter, Babbit, Boulez, et al. Interestingly, the audiences for these concerts was generally younger than what I'm used to seeing. I think we might be selling our audiences short by dismissing these composers and their music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2013-12-03 00:09
Quality and profit...classical musicians are just trying to survive or maintain what small shred of the publics entertainment dollar they still have.
Profitability does not make something good; however, the lack of profitability will turn a profession into a hobby, or full time to part time, very quickly. You can't realistically expect people to subsidize things they don't enjoy. So, I'm not a classical musician....I'm a market observer you might say, classical musicians need to find a balance that allows them to maintain their musical integrity while at the same time playing music that has enough commercial appeal so they can keep making a living doing it.
Hoping the wealthy, or society in general, will subsidize a profession that doesn't provide them something they enjoy is just plain foolish.
*Ted Ridenour....post represents Ted Ridenours view only and not those of Tom Ridenour, Ridenour Clarinet Products, or Southern Star Clarinet Enterprises Inc.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-12-03 00:25
Hello again Brycon. Thanks for continuing the conversation. I appreciate that.
Just a 'by the way ' question. How do you do the quotes in a smaller and a different font ? Looks neat.
Hi Tom. I agree with you there. I guess that's why so many capable composers of orchestra music get involved in writing film scores ect.
Nice job if you can get it.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2013-12-03 00:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2013-12-03 00:32
Not Tom.....this is Ted (Tom's son). I operate the business side of Toms company.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2013-12-03 03:46
Hi Ted. Once again , thanks for sending me the Lyrique C Clarinet. It's excellent. Use it now and again, instead of my Oboe.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
