If one were
to only consider the metrics of presenting and producing an event of contemporary
music in the current cultural climate, one would think that the number of warm
bodies in the audience is the most important measurement to review. Make no mistake, audience turnout is a factor,
the reception of the performers important, and revenue from ticket sales
ideally should be at least adequate enough to cover basic expenses. But there is much more to think about,
including our own personal integrity as artists.
I would like
to express a less held opinion about what makes a great new music event. Metrics does not tell the whole story, at
least in the arts. Some of the most
memorable (and culturally significant) concerts I’ve attended over the decades
were not necessarily crowd-pleasers or standing-room only events. Success in the arts is not always measured by
outcomes expressed numerically.
It seems to
me that a number of arts organizations today have given in too easily to the cult
of metrics as a measurement of performance, opting for quantitative rather than
qualitative analysis. While new music ensembles
are searching for new works that draw in the crowds, I have grown quite
disappointed in the quality of some of the music presented in recent years. And while this is admittedly a subjective
opinion coming from someone who happens to be an opinionated and biased composer,
I’d like to objectify my views here if possible.
Here are just two examples of bothersome trends that have emerged…
1) There is an annoying tendency to make
new classical music palatable and hip by bashing the tradition it evolved out
of. The trend has become so pervasive
that both talent and arts organizations have gone to the extreme of rejecting
their own product (and core values) as toxic.
A case in point is that some ensembles are now leaning toward
exclusively performing music drawn from the traditions of folk, rock, pop, jazz
and world-music. This method of approach is typical of an overall populist
movement aimed at diminishing the rich tradition and history of European classical
music in exchange for a quick and transitory nod of approval from the general
public. Not only is this a tactic that will not work in the long term, it’s
simply a mistake to think it will become a viable trend for music ensembles and
orchestras that have a core repertory and history. Vernacular and folk music can stand on its
own, and it always has.
2) Another silly fad that humors me is the notion that whatever comes from New
York City is representative of the pinnacle of arts and culture. Speaking as a former New Yorker, this is
simply a myth. In fact, I’ve discovered
there is much talent in the local community, and it is too often over-looked. Frankly, as someone who has attended concert
venues all over the world in major cities and local villages, I find that locally-grown
vegetables and talent is usually the most nourishing. The risk is that smaller communities have an
inclination to be self-conscious and provincial, and as a result over-compensate
by importing “big name” talent in the hopes of feeling world-class. I would hope that most communities harbor a
sophisticated audience and that they can be trusted to make a distinction
between what is simply new and interesting versus what arts-administrators and curators
tell them they should like. I don’t care
for the recommendations of self-appointed, self-proclaimed, professional cultural-filters. I prefer my arts raw and uncooked.
In general I
find myself becoming more dissatisfied with the quality of the product itself at
new music concerts – not the idea of a new music event per se - but dissatisfaction with pieces that seem to be simplistic
and shallow compositionally. Increasingly
I come away with an impression that most of the works are similar - utilizing
the same palette of pretty sounds and toe-tapping rhythms rather than an emphasis
on the more abstract attributes of structure, form, pitch-organization, and
fresh ideas.
An example of what I would call a success story is exemplified by a number of seasons
recently etched into the noble history of the Boston Symphony Orchestra. For the first years in which James Levine was
BSO Music Director (starting in 2005), he commissioned works that may have caused
heartburn for a few BSO’s artistic administrators. His commissions included challenging but
important works by “modernist” composers Elliott Carter, Charles Wuorinen, and Milton
Babbitt, just to name a few. Levine also
explored the rich repertory of 20th century works heard less often
today, such as a concert version of Schoenberg’s 12-tone opera Moses und Aron. His programming was adventurous and courageous,
while at the same time unabashedly challenging for audiences. Yet, his legacy with the BSO and the history
that was made during Levine’s tenure is unquestionable. The music he selected wasn’t always popular,
but audiences bought tickets, came to Symphony Hall, and they listened.
Another example of an artistic success story stems from the period 1971-77 when
Pierre Boulez was Music Director of the New York Philharmonic. It is hard to describe the excitement his presence
brought to the cultural life of NYC during those years. I witnessed it firsthand. Not only did he challenge his audiences, but he
angered and alienated the old-guard establishment – including the classical
music critics of the NY Times (e.g. Harold C. Schoenberg). Yet, Boulez forged ahead with an intensity and
conviction about his art that we seldom observe today. His impressive legacy
with the NY Philharmonic is something that will live on. Time has proved him right, and any misgivings
about his programming, empty seats in Philharmonic Hall, or bad concert reviews
that occurred during his tenure are now but a mere footnote in history.
There is
good news. Without a doubt, the level of
musicianship and performance in the musical field today has skyrocketed over
the past decades – both qualitatively and quantitatively. Performance standards have improved
significantly. But with more options for
the public there is also more competition for the ears, hearts, and minds of
intelligent listeners (not to mention their credit cards). Challenges will always exist, as will niche
markets. Contemporary classical concert music is not for everybody, and this fundamental
fact should be understood and acknowledged.
It comes with the territory.
In the
perfect world we should reach for, and aspire to, music that is much more than
a quick sensory fix and a frivolous night out on the town. New music is rich and broad. It reaches out to encompass the unique assortment
of standard instrumental ensembles that evolved from a long-standing tradition
of classical music. Symphony orchestras
and string quartets don’t need to be reinvented. They already exist.
I don’t think
that tradition deserves to be “trashed” in order to recreate something new and
original simply to entice the vaporous interest of a transitory and evolving
audience. Nurturing the long-established
musical communities and traditions that already exist is not only the best, but
only prescription for sustained, long-term growth. If you can’t beat the establishment, join
them.
If you program,
create, and perform great, challenging new music; people will come to hear it. You may not sell-out the house, or even
break-even, but your dedicated fans will follow your journey and hang in there with
you for the long-haul. If you desire
mega-audiences worthy of rock-stars or the fame that’s often associated with it,
it’s unlikely to occur in this remote outpost of the business. Follow the genre of music that you really
love the most and in time an audience will find you and truly appreciate what
you do and how you do it.
Integrity. It’s that simple.
In summary:
It may sound
counter-intuitive, but the prescription for artistic success and sustained,
long-term growth in the field of contemporary classical concert music is to embrace
the “core values” of the past, not “trash” them.
Long-standing traditions of classical music have worked for generations and
continue to provide context for consumers in search of meaningful experiences
in the digital age. What makes contemporary
music attractive is its complexity, the challenges it places on musicians and audiences,
and the fact that every listener is asked to invest themselves in the process of
understanding the work. New music should
be: rich, experimental, confrontational.
Success is this field should not simply be measured by the number of
filled seats, but by the impact that music has on the continuous evolution of
our culture.
