Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-02-16 07:40
Brycon wrote:
<< Also, there needs to be some more initiative by artists who are quick to complain but slow to do anything about the problem.>>
Bingo! We're all the first to line up to audition when a job opening is announced, but most of us are the last to take matters into our own hands to start ensembles of our own. Compared to just about any other type of music, we really suck at marketing and at innovating and drawing in new audiences.
The audiences are out there. The response I get in casual conversation with non-musicians and non-classical-aficionados is very positive. They tend to be at least peripherally interested in going to classical-type concerts, and remember any they've been to as good experiences. It's in the presentation that we lose them. Concerts are an ordeal to plan for and go to... heck, I even decided against going to see the NY Phil when they were in town once because I had so much trouble trying to buy a ticket, and I'm a seasoned classical-attender. We've so resigned ourselves to being our own woe-is-our-dwindling-art ivory-tower museum-pieces that, while we put out the word of our concerts, we secretly expect that people who aren't already really into it won't be interested.
If we're resigned to keeping our music primarily in concert halls, played by enormous, financially infeasible ensembles that on some level are assumed to play high culture for the educated elite, then yes, we'll have troubled times. If, though, we form quartets to play in coffee houses, like ALMOST EVERY OTHER GENRE OF MUSIC OUT THERE, and perhaps market orchestras as "like the quartet in the coffee house but TWENTY TIMES MORE AWESOME!!!" we might get a different reception.
Even with smaller ensembles, we seem to like putting ourselves in smaller halls and libraries and churches, which is fine, but which is also limiting our appeal and perceived relevance. You won't find a tribute band to KISS or the Beatles playing in a library.
There's also the problem of repertoire and consistency of expectations... if you go to see Willie Nelson or Neil Young or 50 Cent, you know what type of thing you're going to hear. If you go to see the L.A. Phil, you may hear some Bartok Concerto for Orchestra awesomeness, or you may be put to sleep by Bruckner 6. There's research to do, not even to become educated about the piece, but to just figure out if it's something you'd like to hear! For us that have been around a while, we can feel it out pretty well. For the classical n00b, it may not be worth the risk.
I think that if we present ourselves in a way that suggests we are culturally relevant for today, the rest of culture may give us a more serious look. We can be relevant to common life in addition to the high art society we currently excel at, but until we as a whole are willing to relate to society at large, we'll have a hard time getting society at large to consider us relevant for purposes of "because it's important" rather than "because we're told it's important by people who seem to be smart."
It's fairly clear to me that action reinvigorating support for the arts is not terribly likely to originate from an edict from on high, but if we get off our waiting-for-the-next-audition-while-hoping-the-orchestra-doesn't-go-under butts and explore possibilities on our own initiative, I think it can happen.
-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}
