Tim Rutherford-Johnson points to another one of those classical-music-is-dead-or-dying articles, this time a "manifesto for the future of classical music." It begins with the phrase:
The classical music industry is in decline,
and goes downhill from there. Just listen to the way that word "industry" clunks up against the word "music": does such a phrase give you any confidence that the writer actually likes the subject for which he claims to be advocating? I mean, if you dislike music so much that you can — without any apparent sense of irony, sarcasm, or grotesque — describe the live production of music in terms of industry, then you certainly cannot expect readers to take your proposals seriously.
Classical music is not dying, it's changing, and it's changing as it always has changed. It's changing in terms of the repertoire included by the term, the way in which it is played and presented, and how it is received. Moreover the change is not monocultural, defined by the movement of a single mainstream of prestige and highly concentrated economic power but increasingly diversified. If anything, this movement is away from any semblance of an industry and towards a resurgence of value in artisanship and craftsmanship. The most highly commodified form of music, the big label commercial recording, has been completely eclipsed, both by technological possibilities, economic realities, and the aesthetic advantages of having more alternatives available in recorded form and a coterminal restoration of the centrality and prestige of the live public performance. The format and venue of that live performance may well change, but it has always been changing. Some people and some institutions will lose out in this process, but that's okay as long as the real bottom line of making sure more music gets played and heard live is met.
3 comments:
Rutherford-Johnson's own reply does have a point. The increasing distance between the established repertoire and the sound and styles of contemporary ("classical") music is a problem for audiences. Even for myself, I want one or the other, and mixing Bach back to back with Berg or Boulez just doesn't work for me, even if there's a Bruckner, Berlioz, and Beethoven in between them. I have enough trouble tolerating classical music stations that flip from Brahams to Teleman (ran out of B's ;] )with nothing in between to cleanse the palate. They're just too different to me.
That 200 years in between can't be ignored, just as the 50 years between Buddy Holly and Katy Perry can't be so easily collapsed, in spite of knowing year by year the developments in music that got us from one to the other.
So we're dealing with two different problems, to a degree, though both are related to the necessary expenses of the orchestra. One is that the audience for the established rep is fading out of age, disinterest (saturation, perhaps?), and financial issues. The other is that the audience for new music is painfully small, and rarely includes concert promoters and hall managers who have to sell the thing.
oh, and never includes radio station program managers...
I'm under the impression that you aren't much for recorded music. I on the other hand immerse myself in it and have for a long time. But I can't particularly remember the last "big label commercial recording" I've purchased.
Though, I do listen to Yo-Yo Ma and John Williams from time to time on streaming radio, not that I would ever admit that...
Post a Comment