 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: curiousclarinetist
Date: 2011-04-17 18:57
Do you guys think the situation in Philly is a wake up call to all orchestras? Before the symphonies that seemed to be hurting the most were smaller and regional orchestras. Now that a top 5 orchestra is having these troubles do you think other major symphonies will start to follow their restructuring plan?
I personally think it is long past time that symphonies started working harder to appeal to a wider audience. I am glad that Philly is starting to do this. I hope that the talented musicians there won't think it below them to perform a more varied kind of repertoire.
Curious Clarinetist
http://curiousclarinetist.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Curious-Clarinetist/155848744465821
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fernie51296
Date: 2011-04-17 20:22
Yeah. You know just letting people be aware of the situation is probaly gonna help them. just by people realizing whats going on will make them want to help.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-17 22:23
I think Rip Van Winkle will continue undisturbed.
Variability of repertoire is a nice try, but only a small piece of the solution, where a full solution, for various reasons, I believe is precluded from existing.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2011-04-18 01:01
...and then there's this, from an actual subscriber to the Philadelphia Orchestra, who said....
"At one level the orchestra declaring bankruptcy is just about bad management trying to screw the workers for their own mistakes, but they do have a legitimate attendance problem. I can't remember where I read this, but some columnist described the way concertgoers were treated as something like "problems to be managed." Some of the ushers are, frankly, complete assholes. And shutting down all intermission concession services above the ground floor (no I don't know why) makes it impossible for anybody not in the orchestra level seats to get a drink or a nibble.
Also, too, ticket prices are too high."
Musicians have nothing to do with ANY of this. There is a level of stupid in the way this concert hall and this orchestra are run that doesn't comport with half-million dollar salaries for management. No way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-04-18 02:13
Many orchestra's are in trouble. We were threatened with the same thing last year and gave in to a BIG give back contract, again, in the Baltimore Symphony, the Detroit symphony just settled on a big give back contract after being out for 27 weeks. The St. Louis symphony cut the length of their season several years ago as did the Buffalo Philharmonic. There are several orchestra in trouble and it's not going to get better any too soon I'm afraid. Here in Baltimore, a 52 week season orchestra, we play pops concerts, youth concerts and all kinds of concerts. We just finished a week of playing the music to a Chariie Chaplan movie with the movie showing on a screen above us, point is, we try almost anything to bring the public in and we're still in big trouble. Would you believe a 25 - 30% cut in pay and benefits over the last few years by next year and a cut in the size of the orchestra. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2011-04-18 03:27
I can't get the link to open. Is the restructuring plan on line elsewhere?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2011-04-18 15:05
Live concert--need to travel too, ticket prices, poor vision from seated areas, stuffy formaility MUST BE OBSERVED (shhhhh), live concert often with accoustical problem and musician errors, listening of a few musical selections envolves a whole afternoon or evening.
Download from ITunes--immediate, cheap, listen at your leasure anywhere you chose, performance is error free (usually), can listen to your favorite music as often as you wish.
Symphony orchestras are competing with economics and creature comfort as well as changing artistic values. Paul McCartney vs the Philly--to the average musical consumer of today, Paul wins every time. That is why I think the symphony orchestra is a modern day dinosaur on its last breath.
Fact--in economically challenged school districts, music and the arts are the first courses to be cut back or cancelled. As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grenadilla428
Date: 2011-04-18 16:20
Really?
In that case, why do people shell out money for tickets to football or basketball games? It would be more convenient and cheaper to watch from the television at home. One could even record it to DVR so they can watch it later if it conflicts with something else. Yet, there they are - people sitting in the stands. What's the draw?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2011-04-18 16:49
Have audiences every really fully funded top level orchestras such as in Philadelphia?
If such orchestras traditionally have received a good chunk of their money from charitable donations by corporations, and those donations are down because of the economy and loss of jobs, then it would seem unlikely that the relatively small segment of the population which listens to classical music can offset the loss.
Remember, most of the younger population thinks music is either dirty poetry set to an electronic beat or a highly amplified utterance from a person who may or may not be able to carry a tune, but does have a show with lots of lights, skin, and excitement.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2011-04-18 17:34
The Philly Orchestra board has historically been a bunch of troglodytes -- labor history there has been abysmal for such an elite ensemble. In the past there have been strong CEOs (eg: Joe Kluger) willing to stand up for the musicians. Apparently no longer the case. Sadly, both Allison Vulgamore and Ann Parsons (Detroit SO) were both trained by Henry Fogel when he was CEO of the National Symphony. I'm mystified how far the nut has fallen from the tree!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-18 19:22
>>Remember, most of the younger population thinks music is either dirty poetry set to an electronic beat or a highly amplified utterance from a person who may or may not be able to carry a tune, but does have a show with lots of lights, skin, and excitement.<<
And most of the older population thinks that hip-hop is just dirty poetry set to an electronic beat.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-04-18 22:32
Philly and Detroit are very troubling signs for the orchestra industry in the US. Others will follow.
By itself, Chapter 11 just allows the organization to operate as an ongoing concern while working issues out with creditors under court supervision. The ongoing issues seem to be the pension obligation to musicians and the rental agreement for Kimmel/Verizon Hall.
There shortfall regarding the pension has to be addressed at some point as the management seems to have overpromised what could be delivered through investment returns. Same thing is happening with governments across the US both at the state and local levels.
But there are structural issues that may never be fixable such as a declining audience base and the reluctance of donors to fund the gap between ticket sales and operating expenses. That seems to have been the case in both Philly and Detroit.
Given that Syracuse, Louisville, Honolulu and others have filed Chapter 7 (which is an actual liquidation of assets), this is not as serious as what those smaller orchestras are facing.
It is a sad state of affairs, in my opinion, that perhaps the greatest orchestra in US history and certainly the one which created the American school of woodwind playing, does not have the relevancy in American culture to remain as the priority it once stood for in the Philadelphia community.
I shudder to think what this means for the orchestra industry and American culture as a whole.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: greenslater
Date: 2011-04-18 22:51
Interestingly (perhaps...) this situation even made the TV news in Melbourne today and was mentioned on classic fm radio. Hopefully some more exposure could help us not take our orchestras for granted.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: timw
Date: 2011-04-18 22:54
I've been a subscription holder for 5 years. As for the prices- have your checked out what they charge for Major League Baseball or NFL tickets? I sit up in the top tier seats - but right over the orchestra and my tickets are cheaper than Phillies tickets. I wouldn't trade them for orchestra level, which cost a lot more. I can watch the conductor's face and even read along with the music with my cheap binoculars . There is a wide range of prices available, but i'm afraid that doesnt speak to the problem. I've been seeing a lot of empty seats for some time now- the audience has been dwindling.
I've watched the orchestra for over 25 years now- some of the same players are still there and it's sad to see it come to this. I know that the players took a substantial cut, but obviously to no avail. I would like to add that I ve always been impressed by the ushers there, and have always been treated well by them. My main gripe is that there isn't enough modern music or even music by American composers. There needs to be a change in programming as well as an increased audience outreach. It is truly pitiful how few people that I know or work with have ever attended or feel comfortable attending orchestra concerts. I don't want to blame anyone in particular here-there's plenty to go around - for one thing people need to get off their behinds and check out something other than a sporting event or pop concert. This is something that needs to be addressed otherwise all the funding in the world is just so much money for the fewer and fewer in attendance.
And it wasn't so long ago that this world class orchestra had no place to record- until someone in my town allowed them to use our old movie theater for recording purposes. know this because the members used to park on my street. I can only hope that the current crisis helps everyone realize that this orchestra deserves better.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CocoboloKid
Date: 2011-04-19 00:07
"And most of the older population thinks that hip-hop is just dirty poetry set to an electronic beat."
You mean it isn't? (I'm not even 30, btw, and that is exactly how I feel about it, so it certainly isn't an older population thing.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2011-04-19 04:31
As a classically trained clarinetist, like the vast majority of you, I'd rather go to a good hockey or football game than an orchestra concert. For one, a great point was made that there isn't enough contemporary or *identifiable* music in the concert hall these days. We are in an informal society. You can't just "go" to an orchestra concert. You need to dress up. You need to primp. You need to appreciate it because it's mostly going to be the classics....I can wake up one day and say, "I want to go to a baseball game" drive down in the afternoon in a ball cap, buy a ticket for $10 and enjoy the sun and game with my friends and others. It's an uptight experience to go to a concert in today's atmosphere.
I'm tired of hearing people say that this is so traumatic an experience for orchestras and how it's the end of culture and this whole apocalyptic musical demise. There's a reason for it. The attitude of the orchestra doesn't segue with today's society. The crux is this: I can listen to the Philadelphia Orchestra play Mahler 1 on a CD. When I go to hear Mahler 1 live, for those who don't have performance experiences (which is where marketing needs to be focused, right?), it all sounds the same. Even though to the nuanced, trained ear, it's fabulously exciting, to 99.5% of the population it's just pretty noise. On the other hand, I go to a football game and I don't know what's going to happen. I get an adrenaline thrill, a rush of emotion that's spontaneous - something I can't get from an orchestra concert.
It behooves me to think that an orchestra doesn't think it needs to evolve with societal demands in the same way that any other business does. Sports institute new rules changes, companies use new manufacturing and scheduling techniques, service providers use new ways to solve problems remotely...but orchestras continue to follow a tradition that's outdated and leaves them outside of the level of interest of the community.
So where does my money go? With about 80% of the music that even the 5 "Big Ones" perform I can go find it recorded and listen to it anytime I want to. Why don't they perform some new music? Something to get the blood pumping? How about something other than Beethoven and Mozart? Even Rite of Spring can get old after the 8th performance in 6 years.
Basically I'm unimpressed with the music that these orchestras are playing. It's the standard lit that, while I understand is pleasing to most ears, isn't pleasing to enough ears to be sustainable. Not to mention that there's no perceived youthfulness to an orchestra, although that's another conversation. Combine that with rising costs, disinterested audiences and lack of foundation support and I really only can think of one thing to say - I'll see you at a Flyers game.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JAS
Date: 2011-04-19 05:02
Clarinetist04,
I'm 19 years old...all of my classically trained friends would agree with me in saying that I would not change the standard "orchestral scene" at all. (Not at all saying that the way an orchestra is structured shouldn't be checked out). When Mahler 1 is on the program, I go to hear it and love it the same way i can hear it and love it in a recording, except i can hear it new...not the same as the guys in my recordings, not the same as ANY other time I may have seen it live.
The Chicago symphony is doing Brahms 4 in a couple of weeks. I LOVE the Brahms symphonies, and I want to hear what Bernard Haitink with the Chicago Symphony in May of 2011 thinks of it as opposed to the Klemperer or Karajan recordings I'm far too used to.
Aside from that, it really isn't the same if it's not live. Seeing the Chicago Symphony from the gallery vs. hearing them in my headphones doesn't do it. The ethos just don't catch ya the same.
If anything, people need to be taught how to love the music for what it is again. For me this didn't happened until I performed the music. So why not support the advancement of classical training in school programs? Youth Orchestras?
Yes...schools are cutting programs.
But we don't ever think to do something about it. Or we do and then forget about it. Obviously people don't realize that music programs are worth keeping. And if they aren't worth keeping, then we need to change some things in the education program.
People don't love music anymore. In some cases even the performers themselves.
Don't get me wrong...HUGE Cubs/Bears fan but as long as I have the Chicago Symphony up the road I will never buy a ticket to a game.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-19 06:05
>You mean it isn't? (I'm not even 30, btw, and that is exactly how I feel about it, so it certainly isn't an older population thing.)<
I've only very recently (past couple months) started giving hip hop the time of day, and it's deeper than one might think on first glance. It may not have the micromanaged intricacy of a Mahler symphony, but that's not an important aspect of it. Beats are central to hip hop, but it's not simply a case of "make a beat and rap to it." Sampling (i.e. what source audio you use to piece the beat together), and all the ramifications within, is central to it, and there's a level of context and sophistication in using samples rarely seen in the classical world, save for the occasional piece like the Berio Sinfonia.
I don't claim to be an expert on hip hop, and would do it injustice by trying to explain it with any coherence (just as I wouldn't expect Snoop to give a treatise on Bruckner 8), but I have come to realize that there's more to it than might initially appear. When there are fewer elements to a piece of music, the selection and placement of each element becomes incredibly important.
Also, hip hop is more immediately and intensely contextually aware than classical. In both genres, knowing what else was going on musically and culturally while a particular piece was written lends significance and meaning, but the effect is magnified greatly in the world of hip hop. A piece of classical music can much more easily exist in a vacuum.
This makes hip hop a lot harder for an outsider like me to approach... without knowing why something's significant, it can all sound pretty similar and nonsensical. But hip hop has no interest in providing program notes. In that sense, classical may actually be easier for someone to approach from scratch.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-19 06:36
>On the other hand, I go to a football game and I don't know what's going to happen. I get an adrenaline thrill, a rush of emotion that's spontaneous - something I can't get from an orchestra concert.<
BAM! NAIL ON THE HEAD!
This is my biggest complaint with orchestras today. Every unknown has been micromanaged out of the performance. The musical rep doesn't need to be changed. Play old music, play new music, whatever. But the performances, by and large (always exceptions, but rare), are a matter of going in and being completely unsurprised. Which is a shame. Music should be surprising. Every performance should be different and exciting in some way... that's why you go live as opposed to listening to a recording, unless you're just an acoustics-junkie.
If you play a piece of music today the same way you played it yesterday, you're no better than the midi orchestras that you bemoan are taking your jobs. I'm not saying to start doing wildly different stuff that's not in the music (though if that's your deal, go for it). However, there is a huge realm of expression, of connection, of spontaneity that is possible within a certain performance. But I go to an orchestral concert and I very, VERY rarely see that. Everyone is incredibly set in their ways. Once in a while I'll see some outlier, some performer play something spectacularly differently or with just a particular shine or an extra lean on the tempo, some spark of brilliance that spontaneously and uncontrollably makes me smile, and by and large I hear the ensemble not run with it and explore its possibilities, but pretend it never happened. Perhaps a token "that was very nice" nod from section mates, who often apparently never let it cross their mind that they could build on it.
Orchestral concerts feel like tightly-controlled examination settings, where the performers are so tightly held prisoner by the necessity to hit all the notes in the written order at the written dynamic that it stifles possibilities, or so dulled by the tedium of repeated concerts that it becomes routine and opportunities are lost.
Look at a rock band after a show. They'll likely be pumped, stoked, bummed, whatever, but they will have been thoroughly engaged in the experience. Now look at an orchestra. They will probably be either beating themselves up about how they shat all over something, or congratulating themselves on how well it went. The music-making experience itself seems secondary... something to be endured, rather than cherished, with most of the notes acting as filler between solos. Have you EVER seen a classical performer wanting to cheer after a performance because the music was so awesome? Have YOU ever felt the urge to jump and scream about how well the music went? No, because apparently enjoying the music is the audience's job.
Getting a rock performer excited and engaged in the music he's playing is hard NOT to do. Getting a classical performer excited is pulling teeth, with a huge amount of resistance that even a spectacular conductor can have a very difficult time with. Giving back the intensity and enthusiasm of a good conductor should be a given... heck, giving back MORE than the conductor offers you should be the core of every musician's being. But it's not what happens, and I see lots of conductors emote their hearts out on the podium, while met with little to nothing in return, save for perhaps a half-assed dynamic swell.
It's more interesting still to see ensembles where half the group is malleable enough to be pulled out of their shell by a good conductor, while the other half digs in to their drab comfort zone tooth and nail. The L.A. Phil under Dudamel is a great group to watch right now for that effect. During a performance of Bolero at the bowl last year, you could pick out, from the nosebleeds, who was following his every move, and who was phoning it in.
My experience, though, is that it's intensely difficult to find musicians who will give enthusiasm and conviction to a performance without being coaxed. It feels like some passive-aggressive "well, if the conductor isn't going to make me, I'm not gonna" attitude that performers have without even realizing it. I've done it countless times myself. About a year ago, I realized I was doing it (only showing enthusiasm when it was forced upon me) and have made a concerted effort to break myself out of, which has been difficult but also incredibly rewarding.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2011-04-19 14:24
"people need to get off their behinds and check out something other than a sporting event or pop concert."
ummmm.............why??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-04-19 14:44
Take a look at HTTP://WWW.videogameslive.com
Barring the video game music only reportoire, they're going along the right route. Music combined with visual effects, audience participation, etc. There's a reason those big top 40 artists have visuals, fireworks, and acknowledge the cried during concerts. Even THEY know that just playing the music would get boring. You have to make the audience feel involved and get them hyped up. Find the orchestral equivalent to playing CHARGE at a ball game or shouting DEFENSE over and over again and things will look up.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
Post Edited (2011-04-19 14:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CocoboloKid
Date: 2011-04-19 15:01
Funny, THESE audience members certainly don't seem bored...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeAlX2S1UwM...then again, none of them are crammed silently into tiny legroom-free seats with the thighs of the obese person next to them spilling onto theirs and the back of the seat in front of them cutting into their knees. (Which was my experience at Carnegie Hall this past weekend, seeing the Chicago Symphony. My legs actually went completely numb. I'm 6'1", and folding myself up into that balcony seat was NOT cute.)
I think removing some of the formality from classical music in the US might be a very big step indeed toward making it a more accessible and enjoyable experience for audiences. The repertoire doesn't necessarily have to change (I really, REALLY don't ever want to have to sit through the New York Philharmonic playing Symphonic Variations On Lady Gaga's Greatest Hits), but if we remove some of the 19th-century stuffiness from the experience, people might actually GO.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2011-04-19 15:53
(a) Yes, 'younger' should have been --older- in my previous post.
(b) Maybe Lady Gaga is the solution, not the problem. My only exposure (so to speak) to her was on 60 Minutes fairly recently. She does have some classical music training, and she has great business sense. Perhaps she should be advising orchestras as to how to make their product more appealing to younger audiences. (Hopefully, it would not result in orchestra musicians dressing as she does.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fernie51296
Date: 2011-04-19 15:54
Im a freshman in highschool. i love classical music. i use to say i hated it. But that was because i didnt really know wht it was. Not until i heard a live performance for myself did i get into classical music. Most kids my age and even some of my friends say exactly what i used to say. i hate classical. only they probaly wont get as lucky as i am. with younger people its hard for them to like something they dont understand or that falls out of their comfort zone. and because of this they probaly wont ever know classical music like we do. they just wont. and its a sad thing.
Fernando
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2011-04-19 16:29
I do agree that most concerts tend to be boring for a number of reasons that others have mentioned or alluded to.
As far as comparing with sports, this is unfair.
The outcome of most sports matches are unknown...therefore the ending is always (or always should be) a surprise rather than a given.
We all know how Beethoven 5 will end.
But we enjoy hearing it again because of its depth and ability to connect with something deeper than ourselves.
Part of the psychic connection is experiencing it with others in a spiritual environment such as a beautiful concert hall.
And that is why people go to concerts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-19 16:37
That is one reason people go to concerts, Dileep, but not the only reason. I think part of the problem also is that classical people seem to want very much to tell people how to enjoy the music, and what they should get out of it. Make the music, make it darn well, treat the audience as someone you want to share something cool with, and let them take from it what they will.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-19 16:45
>There's a reason those big top 40 artists have visuals, fireworks, and acknowledge the cried during concerts. Even THEY know that just playing the music would get boring. You have to make the audience feel involved and get them hyped up<
Is that why they have fireworks and visuals at the Hollywood Bowl during classical summer concerts?
Fireworks and visuals are not necessarily a matter of making the music less boring, though they can be used that way. It's just another tool in the box of making a compelling show and experience. In some genres, it's part of the experience and culture, just as the tuxedos and the "piece is over, you can clap now" nod is common to classical music.
With some groups, it's a matter of "why would you NOT use visuals?"
As far as acknowledging the crowd goes, why would you NOT acknowledge the crowd? I hear talk about "there are three parties involved in a musical performance - the composer, the performers, and the audience" all the time, but if you're going to pretend the audience isn't there, you're missing a third of the performance.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2011-04-19 17:31
>>On the other hand, I go to a football game and I don't know what's going to happen. I get an adrenaline thrill, a rush of emotion that's spontaneous - something I can't get from an orchestra concert.
>>
I enjoy classical music concerts, but I also enjoy sports with all their uncertainty. It'd be interesting to see an orchestra try an experiment: Program a "come as you are" concert and don't announce the program content except to say that at some point, the librarian would hand out a new piece of music for the orchestra to sight-read in front of the audience. Probably some people would go in the spirit of attending car crashes, oops, I mean car races, but even those who attended in happily macabre anticipation of wreckage might come away with some exciting new music to remember. I'd be curious to know if such concerts could convert audiences from avoiding anything described on the program as new music to anticipating it.
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: William
Date: 2011-04-19 18:38
Lelia--we actually used to put on sight-reading concerts with our University of Wisconsin Concert Band back in the 1960's under Conductor Ray Dvorak. And it was a blast for the "car crash" audience listening for the inevitable mistakes and for us student musicians, the challenge of not making them. Mr Dvorak always considered sight reading to be a valuable skill and this was his way of teaching it. I'll never forget sitting principal chair during one of those concerts and turning the page of an old overature to discover a half page of clarinet solo. Not much more "fun" than that.......LOL.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JAS
Date: 2011-04-19 20:45
I don't really care if the outcome is the same or not.
A great piece of music is a great piece of music, and I'll hear it a million times.
Young people I know who have explored the music for themselves, (many of them not intending to continue after high school or college), would not agree with the majority of what everyone here is saying.
I've had experiences with the Elgin Youth Symphony Orchestra here in the Chicago suburbs. It's not the Chicago Youth Symphony, but it provides an infinitely more valuable style of education. While the Chicago Symphony may provide a great performance opportunity for talented musicians with future careers in music, the Elgin Youth Symphony teaches students how to explore music and what makes classical music so incredible. It creates CITIZENS in OTHER FIELDS OF STUDY who love and support the classical repertoire.
Of course, the classically trained community is oftentimes more interested in organizations like the CHicago Youth Symphony which, though providing incredible performances, create another divide between the realm of performance and the "average American".
Check out what the Elgin youth Symphony does...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2011-04-19 22:45
I think EEBaum has a point about musical fireworks and rock musicians. The audience does respond when musicians are pumped about what they are doing, rock or classical. The community orch I am in is playing the Schumann Overture, Scherzo, and Finale. The piece was unfamiliar to us when we started, but it is starting to sparkle. We have a supportive audience, and I think they will respond to that when it is time for the performance.
CocoboloKid wrote: >crammed silently into tiny legroom-free seats with the thighs of the obese person next to them spilling onto theirs and the back of the seat in front of them cutting into their knees.<
I feel your pain in a different way. I am 4'10" and the seats in the hall where our Philharmonic plays are way too long for me and cut off my circulation. But, I didn't mind the sore legs after a truly heartfelt Carmina Burana over the weekend.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2011-04-19 23:12
Oh, and my 81-year-old mother got up with a cheer faster than I have seen her move in years at the close of O Fortuna.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2011-04-20 03:06
I think the discussion about making orchestral repertoire more audience friendly is all well and good, but it misses a key point: directors of development at nonprofit organizations across the board say that charitable giving by major donors is down.
I would have thought that major donors (and I believe statistics on income support this) are doing far better than most of us. I would have thought they'd be in a position to contribute MORE, rather than less, if you look at the income increases, year over year, among the top 10% of Americans.
I'm beginning to think it's not just orchestras that are going out of fashion, but the notion of philanthropy, of "giving back to the community," itself--the same impulse that prompted Andrew Carnegie to build neighborhood library buildings all over New York City, for example.
I'm beginning to wonder if those who so amply and abundantly have the means simply no longer care to support the cultural institutions of our cities and our country. No amount of tinkering with symphonic rep is going to change that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-20 05:55
>Oh, and my 81-year-old mother got up with a cheer faster than I have seen her move in years at the close of O Fortuna.<
It's not the audience I'm concerned with, excitement-wise. It's the performers. You'll get through a performance of Carmina, and while some of the audience will be on their feet going apeshit, the performers are by and large stoic, perhaps with polite grins of satisfaction, but nary a "hell yeah!!!"
An excited performer can make the difference between attracting the die-hard "I LOEV CLASSICAL MUSICS!!!" crowd, which is easy, and connecting with much more difficult groups: the uninitiated and the jaded.
I'm not saying to put on some fake air of excitement, but having played a bunch of classical music and a variety of more popular genres in the past couple years, the rock, metal, and folk people are far more likely to have some sort of reaction afterward, like something real and visceral just happened, and the classical people are more likely to be in survey-the-aftermath, tally-the-score, or ok-what's-on-the-next-concert mode.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-04-20 12:28
EEBaum wrote:
>
> An excited performer can make the difference between attracting
> the die-hard "I LOEV CLASSICAL MUSICS!!!" crowd, which is easy,
> and connecting with much more difficult groups: the uninitiated
> and the jaded.
>
> I'm not saying to put on some fake air of excitement, but
> having played a bunch of classical music and a variety of more
> popular genres in the past couple years, the rock, metal, and
> folk people are far more likely to have some sort of reaction
> afterward, like something real and visceral just happened, and
> the classical people are more likely to be in
> survey-the-aftermath, tally-the-score, or
> ok-what's-on-the-next-concert mode.
>
I agree. For many audiences, HEARING the concert is only a PART. SEEING it is a big part as well (fireworks certainly could be overboard for most classical concerts, but I know I've played the 1812 overture on 4th of July enough times to show that fireworks and that piece can certainly complement each other!).
Even something as small as incorporating cameras in a concert and zooming in on whoever is playing the solo or important part during various sections can make a bigger impact.
But really, our society now has moved away from radio being the main form of entertainment. Society and it's culture has changed its tastes and mediums of entertainment. Our concert halls and programs have remained relatively unchanged since they were built.
It's time to try new techniques. Certainly there can be a few "niche" orchestras (I believe there's an orchestra in Europe that ONLY plays Haydn or Mozart or something), but many orchestras have taken a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. Problem is, it has slowly been breaking but they haven't noticed or refuse to notice it. Entertainment, probably second only to technology, changes at a VERY fast pace. Shows that were on ten to twenty years ago are now on the "TV Land" or "American Movie Classics" channel. And we're playing the music of over a hundred years ago, the WAY they played it a hundred years ago. What'd you expect?
Alexi
PS - Has anyone tried to figure out or knows the average age of those still faithfully attending concerts? I'm willing to bet a WHOLE lot of money that that average age has been climbing. They need to figure out how to get the NEW generations in there, or we're doomed. We can only depend on baby boomers to pay and be our audience a little longer.
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarin-ed
Date: 2011-04-20 13:03
@sfalexi: I recently used data collected from this study in a research project. It analyzes the average listening age of NPR listeners over the past 10 or so years. Results are most likely different for actual attendance of concerts, but either way the results found in this study are rather alarming:
http://www.walrusresearch.com/images/Aging_Public_Radio_Audience_-_Walrus_Research.pdf
I honestly admit that I don't really listen to NPR very much; I buy music or listen via services such as Naxos.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2011-04-20 15:05
Modern orchestras need to become less stuffy, more accessable, put a little "pizzazz" into their concerts and give the average patron a reason to get out of his easy chair and return to the concert hall. Check out this orchestra's presentation (and the enthusiastic, large audience).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRKraCRi6fo
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-20 17:02
I agree, Alexi, though that wasn't the point I was going for. In my experience, the music itself is very different if the performers are engaged in such a manner. Even in a recording studio or behind a screen, where the audience can't see them. It's a matter of ACTUALLY being involved in the music, not just putting on that you are, and that's a place that can't be faked, can't be boiled down to some more parameters to memorize like so many do to mimic musicality (i.e. make that crescendo a bit more shaped like this).
I'm all, 100% for experimenting with the protocol. Getting rid of the stuffiness, trying visuals, axing the more stifling elements of the experience and replacing them with things that are more friendly. However, I have a particular reason for being in favor, and also a caveat with that.
My reason: It might help the PERFORMERS break out of their shells and encourage them to become more involved.
The caveat: No matter how much you change the visuals, the experience, whatever, if the music is still phoned in, performed without intense involvement, conviction, and risk, the success will either be short-lived, or will become awkward kitsch.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JAS
Date: 2011-04-20 17:05
I still don't understand how changing the orchestra "scene" will change anything if an actual interest and curiosity in the music itself isn't present. People that love the music aren't interested in the "scene". A lot of people talk about how they wish people would behave more like they were at a rock concert when they were at a symphony concert. No...i'd rather not be distracted from my experience.
And to say that we can't change the fact that people aren't interested sort of doesn't give them enough credit.
Are Milton and Chaucer dying out with Brahms and Tchaikovsky?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2011-04-20 17:10
Audiences have many options for their entertainment which compete with classical music and you all know what they are. Also, there are many more persons now in the USA that come from cultures which have relatively little classical music. In addition, the politicians that have been elected to our government seem to generally have little real interest in classical music. The schools apparently have less music programs than before and the musicians union seems to be retreating. It's not easy for those who want to make a living at music!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JAS
Date: 2011-04-20 18:30
Very true Wes, so is there anything that the performance community can do about that in records to music education?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2011-04-20 22:22
I have a question for those who are more familiar with development in an arts setting. I have heard that individual donations have been hit by the reduction in the value of the donors' portfolios. Do foundations also adjust their donations when the value of the assets they hold is down?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-04-21 01:09
Quote:
Audiences have many options for their entertainment which compete with classical music and you all know what they are. Also, there are many more persons now in the USA that come from cultures which have relatively little classical music. I think this is a big portion of it. Most concerts happen at the hall, and you have to pay to go there.
Instead of waiting for the audience to come to them, they need to go out and GET an audience. I have no idea how they can do it though! lol. I know as an army bandsman, it'd be too easy for me to find news of some sort of fair, call them, and say, "We would like to send a group to perform there." But we don't get paid per the gig and are more flexible in music, groups, etc. The hope is by putting ourselves out there two years in a row, we'll be "associated" with that fair, and from that point on fairgoer's will expect us and be looking forward to us there. We have now CREATED an audience.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tedj101
Date: 2011-04-21 08:39
>>I would have thought that major donors (and I believe statistics on income support this) are doing far better than most of us. I would have thought they'd be in a position to contribute MORE, rather than less, if you look at the income increases, year over year, among the top 10% of Americans.<<
You say this (as most people who haven't thought about it much do) as if there is a group that is "the top 10%" that makes huge amounts of money year after year so they must be just floating in money. People who make their living studying this sort of thing (Thomas Sowells, for example) point out that both the top group and the bottom group are very fluid with members from the bottom group jumping to the top group on a regular basis and people dropping out of the top group all the time. (Note, the "fat cat CEO" you read about who had a 6.7MM income last year didn't get that in salary. The vast majority came from cashing in on stock options because the company he or she was leading did very well in the market last year - and he had stock options available to cash in. That isn't a repeatable event.)
Because of this fluidity there is no "top 10%" who are in a position to give "more" to your favorite charity.
I also wonder if you really know how much households in that top 10% make? Earnings in this country are much flatter than most people realize. The earned household income at the 1% level is (was actually, current data is never available) about 375K. At 2% its about 250K. At 20% its about 95K. The vast majority of these households have more than one income earner - just like the rest of us.
If you want to get a real taste for this subject, get a job as a fund raiser for a symphony or a museum or some other art form. It will be an eye opener for you.
<TED>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-04-21 15:35
I've just gotten back from a vacation trip and haven't had time yet either to catch up on the newspaper coverage of this situation since last Friday or to read all of the posts here in their entirety. So I apologize if my jumping in here is non sequitur.
The preceding posts in this discussion I have read seem to focus on the future of this orchestra and symphony orchestras in general from the point of view of artistic and/or popular relevance. I suggest strongly that this particular situation is not fundamentally centered on any of that. The orchestra has over the past decade or so taken on financial obligations - primarily through its move to Verizon Hall (a very popular but apparently expensive move) and it's association with the Pops - that have turned out to be more than it thought it had bargained for. The Pops association was primarily a business decision unrelated to the Philadelphia Orchestra's artistic position or ability to draw its own audience. The decision to move to Verizon was the result of a great swell of sentiment begun essentially by Ricardo Muti in the 1980s that the old Academy of Music (which the orchestra still owns) was acoustically unworthy of the orchestra's sonic potential. In addition, there is apparently a major problem over the pension fund, which I don't fully understand - it has more to do apparently with the way (or by whom) the fund is administered than with whether or not to honor pension commitments to the retired players.
There is, of course, another issue to consider that there is an ongoing collective bargaining process going on for a new contract as the current one expires at the end of this season. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy, if granted, can't help but pressure the player's negotiating team to proceed differently.
In short, these issues, which are the bulk of what the orchestra management is requesting that the court resolve, are not fundamentally artistic or audience-related matters. The orchestra itself has never been funded by ticket sales, and increased audience size would have only a marginal effect on its near-term financial position. The concerts are, I believe, somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters subscribed, and single tickets for the programs featuring the most standard large works (Beethoven 9, any Mahler symphony, major concerti with well-known soloists, etc.) are still sold out weeks ahead of time. It may be that ticket sales are down from 20 years ago (when they played in the Academy), but I seriously doubt that they are down enough to represent more than a tiny blip in the orchestra's overall income.
While some here fume about musical/artistic irrelevance, conservative programming, inadequate outreach, etc., the major charitable institutions whose withholding of support has contributed to the current problem aren't basing their attitudes on those issues, but on the financial ones outlined in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-04-21 15:42
Here, BTW, is a link to the latest of Peter Dobrin's columns outlining the issues in the bankruptcy proceeding. I only wish in addition to Dobrin's apparently comprehensive reporting (Peter Dobrin is one of two Inquirer critics who regularly cover classical music) that the Inquirer would have someone from its Business/Financial section follow up with some interpretation of the financial and legal issues.
http://tinyurl.com/3kblu8d
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2011-04-21 19:23
Without knowing specific details of the orchestra's pension problems, I can only speculate but here is an educated guess. There are, in essence, two types of pension plan: defined contribution plans and defined benefit plans.
The simpler type is the defined contribution plan. In this type of plan, the pension formula specifies the amount an employer must contribute to its employees' pension fund each year. A common example is most university plans involving TIAA-CREF. The formula specifies that the university will contribute a percentage of the employee's salary each year to a fund held by an independent trustee. Once the employer has made the required contribution, it has no further obligations. Normally, each employee has an account and a variety of options (that have mushroomed in recent years) as to how the funds in the account are to be invested. When the employee retires, whatever has accumulated in the fund from contributions and investment returns is available for the employee's pension. The employee bears all the risk (and accrues all the benefits) of fund performance. If the investments do well, the employee has a good income during retirement. If the investments tank, the employee eats dog food.
In a defined benefit plan, the pension formula does not specify how much the employer should contribute each year. Rather it specifies how much the employee should receive during retirement. An example would be that the employee should receive:
b% x n x average of highest 5 years' earnings
where b is an arbitrary percentage and n is the number of years the employee worked for the employer. For example if b% is 2%, an employee who worked 20 years for the employer and earned an average of $100,000 during his/her 5 best years would be entitled to an annual pension of $40,000.
In this case, the employer is responsible not for what goes into the fund but rather what comes out of it. As a result, the employer bears the risk of investment performance. This is the type of plan the Philadelphia Orchestra has.
Prior to 1974, employers generally found defined benefit plans to be less expensive to operate in their early years than defined contribution plans. This fact and some accounting considerations (accountants hadn't yet figured out how to account for this animal) made the plans attractive to employers. The reduced risk involved made them attractive to employees (who didn't particularly like dog food). A win-win, right? Not exactly.
Over time, there were a number of employer abuses which make interesting reading but would take too long to describe here. To protect employees from these and one big risk -- that the employer would tank before it put any money aside for their pensions (google "Studebaker pension" without the quotes), Congress passed ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) in 1974, imposing considerable regulation on such funds. For the first time, employers could not wait until an employee actually retired to figure out how much to set aside for the employee's pension. Instead, the employer had to make contributions to an independent pension fund while the employee worked so that there would be money available when the employee retired.
But note that, in planning for any single employee, there is a lot of uncertainty involved in this type of plan. The amount that needs to be available when the employee retires depends (among other things) on the employee's life expectancy, the number of years the employee stays with the employer, the employee's earnings pattern and the rate of return on investments in the pension fund. Expanding the calculation to cover an entire workforce both simplifies and complicates the calculation.
Enter the actuary. Now companies hire independent actuaries to tell them how much they need to set aside each year. Based on a variety of models that incorporate the above factors plus some others, the actuaries specify how much the company needs to contribute. As long as the actuarial assumptions hold true and the company sets aside the required amounts, there shouldn't be any problems. What could go wrong?
As long as the stock market cooperates, nothing really. But current pension law requires that employers keep their actuarially determined pension obligations fully funded. The most recent stock market downturn was 2008. When it happened employers were hit with at least a triple whammy (the same thing happened in 2002 but the market had had been recovering since then). First of all, the value of their fund assets decreased dramatically so that, even if they had sufficient assets in their pension fund at the beginning of the year, the market value of those assets was suddenly far below the required amount. Second, the actuaries lowered their expectations regarding the rate of return fund assets could earn. This caused the required target balance of the funds to increase significantly. Third (though a lesser issue by comparison), to the extent the pension funds continued making benefit payments when the market was at a low point, there were fewer assets available to recover when the stock market again began to turn around. As a result, employers suddenly found themselves with large pension liabilities where none had previously existed. In recognition of the unusual circumstances, Congress passed legislation to allow employers additional time to make up the shortfall but the shortfall didn't go away.
Since ERISA and changes in pension reporting rules, employers have found defined benefit plans more and more distasteful and, where they could, in many cases have terminated the existing plans and replaced them with defined contribution plans. But, even when it is possible, terminating a defined benefit plan is costly -- generally the cost will be greater than the reported pension liability.
According to its Form 990s, the Philadelphia Orchestra's accrued pension obligation (excess of obligation over fund assets), at each of the following dates was:
08/31/2007 8,273,000
08/31/2008 9,727,000
08/31/2009 18,800,000
The increase in the balance over fiscal 2009 is likely a result of the stock market decline that year. Making things even worse, during fiscal 2009, contributions and grants dropped by 10 million dollars from the previous year, ticket sales and related revenue dropped by a million dollars and investment revenue dropped by about 13.5 million dollars (probably including the loss on sale of some securities -- it's hard to reconstruct all of the orchestra association's activity from the 990s, especially since some of the information from the most recent year is missing).
Over the last 3 fiscal years, the orchestra's permanent endowment funds appear to have dropped from 134 million to 93 million though there is some inconsistency in the numbers from year to year. Still this is likely another indication of how hard the orchestra has been hit by investment declines, probably due to overall stock market behavior.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-21 20:52
Ticket prices are indeed a drop in the bucket compared to overall orchestral income. However, an orchestra that regularly phones it in and fails to engage the audience is less likely to find sympathy from donors than one that is an indispensable local force.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-04-21 21:27
Karl Krelove wrote:
>> In short, these issues, which are the bulk of what the orchestra management is requesting that the court resolve, are not fundamentally artistic or audience-related matters.>>
I have to say that I am tired of reading here how classical music needs to be presented 'newly', and how Beethoven, Mozart and other great composers are 'out of touch' with modern audiences.
I do not deny that performances even of such wonderful celebrations of human creativity are often inadequate. But they are inadequate for reasons well beyond the understanding of many commentators here.
The orchestra I normally play in occasionally does performances in an informal atmosphere, late at night, presenting selected works from the earlier evening concert. (The audience can bring drinks into the auditorium, for example, and ask questions between pieces. We call it, "The Night Shift'.)
I have nothing against this. But one of the things that I would like to change is the inane accompanying presentation, in 'television' style, by someone who obviously knows very little about the music. The music, and our orchestra, are always 'amazing', 'incredible', 'fantastic' and so on -- according to him. Apparently, he thinks that sort of description is what his audience wants.
Anyway, in his interview preamble, this presenter recently asked the conductor Vladimir Jurowski, who I consider to be a significant artist and musician, "How do you go about presenting this old music of Beethoven in a new, fresh way for a modern audience?"
Jurowski replied that, well, he didn't try to do that. "I just try to make the music live in the way that it wants to live, to the best of my, and our, ability. I don't try to make it DIFFERENT."
My further take on that is that I'd say that we try to make it, if anything, THE SAME. It might TURN OUT different, but that's by the by.
Playing great music well is a deep and subtle endeavour. Nobody really knows how to 'do' it. But the ablity to do it is undermined by the sort of stupidities that I read here -- plus the culture that engenders them and which they in turn support. These stupidities are presumptuous, made by third-rate musicians who in my opinion know nothing of what true music making consists of. They think that what's necessary is not what the best players are always in search of -- the magic that you cannot command, but which may visit the performance if you can be open to it.
The judgement of these third rate musicians, and their ability to aspire to musicianship, are equally suspect.
They want just, trivially, to be 'different'.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-21 23:37
Indeed!
Though I would neither approach music looking to make it the same, nor different. I think the greatest service to music can often come when approached as a clean slate (a contextually informed clean slate, perhaps), as an attempt to see how thoroughly it can be explored, neither trying to do it the same as you've heard it in recordings and concerts past, nor trying to differentiate the performance from past performances. Each approach should be fresh and new, not through an attempt to be fresh and new, but through an intensity and excitement of the possibilities that can be discovered in the music. If a group already knows how they'll play a piece before they start rehearsing it, whether in the pursuit of sameness or difference, they're just going through the motions.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2011-04-22 11:49
The crucial distinction in an orchestra is that between the detailed rehearsal work that goes into creating a shared conception of the work, and the individual understandings of players and conductor that then allow it to be alive in performance. That aliveness is precisely the sense we get that 'it could have been some other way' -- even when it ISN'T.
The disheartening thing for the good players in an orchestra is when they cannot create a shared conception; and that is very often because the conductor isn't able to contribute an essential aspect of that -- to do with 'the whole thing', and to do with inspiring the less good players to enter into a proper relationship with the performance.
So even good players are largely impotent, because it is usually impossible meaningfully to contribute to something that is incoherent. 'Doing extra-special magic bits' just pulls everything further apart.
Contrast what the puppeteers in 'War Horse' do -- and what they DON'T do. It's why I posted about that a couple of weeks ago.
Many bad players and conductors fall prey to the confusion between 'enthusiasm' and 'excitement' -- and I'd say you contribute to that confusion here. too. So much music ISN'T hyped-up, by its very nature.
"Enthusiasm' means, roughly, 'god-filled', and is upstream of form. (It can show itself in quiet wonder, for example.) Yes, yes, I know that isn't the common use of the word nowadays; but that very fact is an indictment of our culture. There SHOULD be a word that means that.
So, we should speak carefully. The razzmatazz model produces the 'superstar' conductor, and the 'superstar' player.
It makes me sick.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ubu
Date: 2011-04-22 17:42
Not to mention any names (Tony Pay), but there certainly are some elitists on this board. I'm certainly not as learned as them, but I do have an opinion. (All of you snobs can now just scroll down to the next entry. This is probably beneath you).
I am not a musician, but I dare say I spend as much time listening to music as anyone here. I do not play an instrument or know music theory, but I buy considerable amounts of recorded music and concert tickets and monetarily support the arts.
I kind of thought I was the type of music lover that orchestras would want to appeal to. According to some of you, I am not. Could that perhaps be why some orchestra are struggling?
I look at a concert listing and see a 40-minute Violin Concerto by Brahms and I would rather stay home and paint the powder room and then watch it dry. Sorry.
The skill and dedication it requires to perform pieces like that is not lost on me. I respect and admire it. But after the "wow factor" wears off, all too often the music to me is just an exercise in self indulgence.
I'd prefer to listen to punk or jazz or folk or any of hundreds of musical genres, because they speak to me. If great art is about insight into the human heart, I look for music that offers that to me. You can demean my taste, but I assure you the emotion connection I make with the music is very real.
At the last Philadelphia Orchestra performance I attended (on a Saturday night), I looked around the 3/4 filled concert hall to see people sleeping, straining to read the program and even playing games on their iPhones. Mind you, these are people who paid to attend. Do you think they're going to go into work encouraging others to buy tickets? I don't think so.
I have choices. I don't have to listen to music that doesn't appeal to me.
I'm not asking for lasers coming out of the conductor's baton, but I want to be entertained. I want at least the chance of an emotional experience that I will take with me long after I leave the hall and I'd like to see more than empty-eyed stares from most of the musicians. Most of them look like they'd rather be rowing a pirate ship.
I unapologetically don't care about virtuosity, I care about music.
Art is not just about virtuosity. In fact, it can get in the way to great art if it's allowed to.
You can blame the audience, or television or today's society or the internet or MTV, and you can close your eyes to the problem. If orchestras keep doing things exactly the way they've been doing them, the line at the bankruptcy court will be longer than at the ticket office.
By the way, if I demeaned the taste of my clients the way some of you demean your potential audience, I would have no clients.
With the advent of recorded music, the fundamental availability of music changed. No longer did you have to attend an event to hear music and you could decide for yourself what you wanted to listen to and when. Orchestras are still acting like they're living in the 1800s and people need them. We don't.
Does that make me stupid? I guess in some people's (Tony Pay's) eyes, it does. Oh well. I guess my emotional experiences are not as valuable. To quote a snob, "It makes me sick."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-04-22 18:53
ubu wrote:
> I kind of thought I was the type of music lover that orchestras
> would want to appeal to. According to some of you, I am not.
> Could that perhaps be why some orchestra are struggling?
>
Orchestras need to appeal to a larger market - which they no doubt hope includes but cannot be limited to your "type of music lover."
> I look at a concert listing and see a 40-minute Violin Concerto
> by Brahms and I would rather stay home and paint the powder
> room and then watch it dry. Sorry.
>
Those are the concerts, especially when they feature a well-known soloist, that tend to sell the most tickets. Apparently, there are many other types of music lovers who find watching paint dry less appealing than you do.
> The skill and dedication it requires to perform pieces like
> that is not lost on me. I respect and admire it. But after the
> "wow factor" wears off, all too often the music to me is just
> an exercise in self indulgence.
>
Or not. It depends on the performance, doesn't it? And whether or not the listener's attitude going into the concert precludes reacting to it in a positive way.
> I'd prefer to listen to punk or jazz or folk or any of hundreds
> of musical genres, because they speak to me. If great art is
> about insight into the human heart, I look for music that
> offers that to me. You can demean my taste, but I assure you
> the emotion connection I make with the music is very real.
>
I'd rather watch paint dry, but that's a personal difference between us and doesn't characterize either of our reactions as anything but individual taste.
> At the last Philadelphia Orchestra performance I attended (on a
> Saturday night), I looked around the 3/4 filled concert hall to
> see people sleeping, straining to read the program and even
> playing games on their iPhones. Mind you, these are people who
> paid to attend. Do you think they're going to go into work
> encouraging others to buy tickets? I don't think so.
>
You can generally find anything you're looking for at a live concert. I've been attending their concerts for 50 years. I've looked around at recent performances and seen a nearly full house, no cell phones out and few people trying to read the program (unless there is musical text involved that people are trying to follow, as there was for a recent performance we attended and for which the house lights were deliberately left on at a low level).
> I have choices. I don't have to listen to music that doesn't
> appeal to me.
>
Of course. And so do those of us who attend these concerts and react more positively - of which I submit there are many.
> and I'd like to see more than empty-eyed stares
> from most of the musicians. Most of them look like they'd
> rather be rowing a pirate ship.
>
Your reading of the musicians' stares or their general appearance is completely subjective and has no relevance to this discussion. If you really don't know what they're doing from a first-hand perspective (even at a lower level of quality), you really can't make a meaningful judgement about the musicians' attitudes.
> I unapologetically don't care about virtuosity, I care about
> music.
>
I unapologetically care about both - they aren't mutually exclusive.
> You can blame the audience, or television or today's society or
> the internet or MTV, and you can close your eyes to the
> problem. If orchestras keep doing things exactly the way
> they've been doing them, the line at the bankruptcy court will
> be longer than at the ticket office.
As the coverage of this situation strongly suggests, the issues being submitted to the bankruptcy judge have little or nothing to do with audience size or satisfaction level or the musicians' attitudes toward their work. The problems are business-related and selling even another million dollars' worth of tickets wouldn't put a dent in the problems at hand.
>
> With the advent of recorded music, the fundamental availability
> of music changed. No longer did you have to attend an event to
> hear music and you could decide for yourself what you wanted to
> listen to and when. Orchestras are still acting like they're
> living in the 1800s and people need them. We don't.
>
That's also a personal point of view, not an obvious fact. You may not need them, but for many of us, the sound (not to mention the atmosphere) of a live performance will never be equaled by the sound of any electronic medium that's available to date.
> Does that make me stupid?
No, but...
>I guess in some people's (Tony Pay's)
> eyes, it does. Oh well. I guess my emotional experiences are
> not as valuable. To quote a snob, "It makes me sick."
...your diatribe here isn't just aimed at Tony Pay ("there certainly are some elitists on this board"), who is certainly capable of his own rebuttal with no support from me if he chooses to make one. I, however, feel personally attacked by your post and resent the implication that, because I am often pleased and deeply affected by what I hear at a Philadelphia Orchestra concert and wouldn't pay money to attend a punk rock concert, my feelings might well "make you sick."
Karl
Post Edited (2011-04-23 14:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-22 19:37
I appreciate you making that distinction between enthusiasm and excitement, Tony. Very well said, and I totally agree. The frequent lack of enthusiasm is what gets me tuning out.
Also totally agree with ubu, and I don't see why you're at Tony's throat on this one. From my perspective, both of your takes on this are entirely compatible. I imagine both of you might disagree with me on this, though.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ubu
Date: 2011-04-22 20:16
I guess I object to sentences like "These stupidities are presumptuous, made by third-rate musicians who in my opinion know nothing of what true music making consists of."
It seems a tad elitist to me.
Substitute "artists" and "art" for "musicians" and "music" and one could imagine it coming from a "traditional" painter in response to seeing the first Impressionist paintings. How many of those "traditional" painters can you name now?
I must admit, his orchestra's practice of informal after concerts sound great. I'd love to attend something of that nature.
I think most of us will agree that classical music is as integral a part of the culture as it once was or should be. I was just bemoaning what I perceive to be as a lack of vision in it's presentation. If a music lover who actively supports the art form cannot fully embrace the concert experience, how do you expect more casual fans to give it a chance?
If orchestras stick to business as usual, it's going to continue to decline.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ubu
Date: 2011-04-22 21:05
One final thing (before I crawl back under my rock). I respectfully disagree with the notion that it's never valid to TRY to present something in a different way.
Any device or constraint that prompts an artist to examine something from a new viewpoint will often inspire artistic breakthroughs. In this case, the restraint being that it HAS to be interpreted differently.
I know trying to predict the wishes of composers after they've decomposed is like trying to argue what the Founding Fathers intended. But, I would guess at least some of them would be interested in how someone from another era would reinterpret their work.
I'm not saying this is always successful. In fact, it fails miserably more often than not. But, I'd personally rather see someone take a chance and fail then never to risk anything. After all, great art comes from a measure of risk.
It's true. You can look it up on wikipedia.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-04-23 00:36
Quote:
The concerts are, I believe, somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters subscribed, and single tickets for the programs featuring the most standard large works (Beethoven 9, any Mahler symphony, major concerti with well-known soloists, etc.) are still sold out weeks ahead of time. It may be that ticket sales are down from 20 years ago (when they played in the Academy), but I seriously doubt that they are down enough to represent more than a tiny blip in the orchestra's overall income. I wasn't aware of this (ignorance on my part...but now I know!)
Well, depending on random donations certainly makes it tougher to forecast paychecks and budgetary concerns. Kinda like someone who works on commissions. Well, if ticket sales truly ARE a 'drop in the bucket' when the budget and income is considered, then really they can play whatever they want, HOWEVER they want.
Maybe they just need to figure out what the charitable organizations want. Although that kinda makes me feel sad if they end up playing for themselves and NOT to entertain the audience. But to each their own. I'll keep doing my thing and trying to do the best at being necessary at my job for my employers, and they'll have to figure out what they need for THEIR employers (which I guess is NOT the audience? Weird!)
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-23 03:57
"I think most of us will agree that classical music is as integral a part of the culture as it once was or should be."
I will wholeheartedly disagree with that. Classical music is not even close to an integral part of culture today, and was much more so in the past.
-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}
