mahaberio

Ed,
Eighth Blackbird is indeed wonderful. They're at CCM for the contemporary music festival most summers and I'm really looking forward to seeing them again. I would really encourage anyone who isn't familiar with these ensembles to take the time and check them out. Also, if anyone is interested, here is a video of an interview with Nico Muhly, as well as clips of some performances of his music. He's a phenomenal, 25-year-old composer who is really writing some unique new music:

NewMusicBox

-Matthew

Hags888

Ed,

I don't mean to put you on the spot here, but could you expand on what you mean here? When you say "modern music", are you implying any kind of "style", or do you simply mean anything written "now"? Why is it more important now than it was before?

It does seem that orchestras like S.F. and L.A. are increasing their concert going attendance, but are these orchestras playing new music regularly? The side question I have to all of this is...how do we market modern music to an audience (especially in light of my earlier comment that drew upon Adorno's "meaningless" comments).

__________________
Do or do not. There is no try.
http://www.scotthagarty.com

ecarroll

Hags,

Take a look at this linl from the NY Times that I posted here in January 2006: http://select.nytimes.com/search/res...A80894DE404482

It seems to me that the best way to market new music is to program it regularly and play it really well.

Watching,
EC

mahaberio

I obviously can't answer for Ed, but I can say that both the Los Angeles Philharmonic and the San Francisco Symphony are programming new music on a regular basis. Perhaps Manny can chime in on this a little more but I'm told that the Minnesota Orchestra also programs a fair amount of new music; particularly that of Kalevi Aho.

As far as the marketing of new music goes, like any marketing, you have to know your audience. Most of the young audiences for new art music I know are the same people I see at the coffee shops and at the contemporary arts center. People are interested in seeing new and different programming, all you really have to do is deliver on it. The new music scene in New York is huge! Much of the advertisement for it is done on the internet through their websites, mailing lists, and even myspace.com. I originally despised the idea of myspace but am now on because I get almost daily bulletins about what my favorite new music ensembles and young composers are up to. It's a great way to keep up with what's going on. I know that Mark Gould is on there, as well as Alarm Will Sound, the Kronos Quartet, the Meridian Arts Ensemble, Brian McWhorter, Nico Muhly, Bang on a Can...the list goes on and on. New music has an audience, it's just not the white-haired crowd in Avery Fischer Hall.

In a lot of ways I feel like orchestras have brought their problems on themselves. Not to be mean as much of it is indeed out of their control, but people just aren't interested in another performance of the Tchaikovsky violin concerto. It's a great piece, but people are tired of it and have been since probably the 1980's. Audiences want something different from a performance and the orchestras haven't adapted as much as they could have. I'm not saying they should completely abandon the classics but incorporating some new and creative programming can do nothing but enhance the experience for most people; then maybe give them another Beethoven 5 after the intermission if you must.

rowuk

I agree with Matthew,
developing an audience is an ongoing thing. You may be able to bridge a short period with classic hits, but that will bite you in the @ss if you do it too often. Heck most classical music lovers probably have 2 or 3 CDs with the Tchaikovsky violin conerto!
If the audience is not used to "new" music, there better be some good moderation or program notes or you will lose them!

__________________
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

mahaberio

Robin brings up another great point. No matter what music you're doing communication with the audience is crucial. Joan Tower once said in an interview "If somebody is sitting in an audience and listening to a piece of mine and they 'don't get it,' I don't care who they are, I don't care how old they are or how much new music they've heard, where they're from, how much education they've had, if they're not musical, let's say they're just not musical, then that's a problem. But let's say they're basically musical people and they don't get my piece, then I haven't done my job. I really believe that." Music is a communicative art. Most performers and composers feel the need to have an audience to share the performance with and that means that you have to somehow draw the audience in.

Hags888

There's a lot of really great stuff here. First, let me just get this out of the way, I am definitely a supporter of new music (as a trumpet player you almost have to be...half of our literature was written after 1930!). I'm sort of playing devils advocate with all these questions, but I am also, just seriously interested in what folks like Ed and others think about this issue. I ponder new music and the state of classical music in American society all the time. I have many non-musician friends who "don't get" what it is that I do and that scares me. It seems that perhaps something we as musicians must take upon ourselves in addition to simply performing the music is also educating the audience...since school boards and the governments don't seem to want to keep funding sources for public schools high enough to maintain music programs across the country (totally different issue though).

That said, the Minnesota Orchestra is definitely not performing new music "regularly", unless you consider music that is more than 25 years old as "new". They do perform new works, and have a composers symposium, and they do have Aaron Jay Kernis as an artistic advisor...but, the majority of the music they perform is standard orchestral literature from 1750-1940. Which brings me to another point...all of the groups that have been mentioned as being into new music, seem to *only* play new music. I get the sense that if you're going to do new music and you want an audience for it, you almost have to specialize the ensemble to only do "new music". One of the things that Adorno is noted for was his idea of music being a "commodity"...and I think he's absolutely right.

If music is a commodity that is bought and sold like any other product in our capitalist society, then it seems the most viable way to get new music out into the world is through specifically "new music" ensembles. I think it's incredibly difficult to put new music alongside the classical/romantic favorites...and it almost seems like a bad business decision too. Would you put a Stanley Kubrick and Walt Disney side by side in a special "double feature" package? I suppose you could, but then who would stick around for both? It seems pretty similar to putting Elliot Carter alongside Mendelssohn...

P.S. Ed, I couldn't get to the NYTimes article...I'm not a subscriber. I did the free registration, but it would charge me to read it. I'm interested...just not THAT interested. ;)

__________________
Do or do not. There is no try.
http://www.scotthagarty.com

Khora

I have that NY Times article EC mentioned as a PDF file. It is too big to attach here (TM limit is really small!), but I'm happy to PM it to anyone who might like to read it... Just PM me and I'll send it along.

__________________
Sandy

rowuk

What does John Williams or any of the other film composers do? Mix old and new, a Disney type melody followed by very atonal stuff designed to scare you. They reach into your subconcious - manipulate it to stir up feelings and memories. Isolate the film soundtrack from the video and you have exactly that - in short pre-chewed bits ready for digestion. With film, you seem to be able to give atonality a different perspective. Maybe this is a venue worth investigating. Modern trumpet music with visual highlights?!

__________________
Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

Khora

Which kind of brings us back to the Trumpet Theater thread of a few weeks ago..... multimedia performance. It is happening all over the place, especially in new music circles. There are so many ways to incorporate the visual - either with a 'backdrop' or performer stage motion - any of which, when well done, can enhance the performance - and the audience ability to understand complex material.

I don't think it is cheating, or diminishing the music, to add visuals. (Opera has been doing that for nearly 400 years, and the Greeks were doing it 3000 years ago.)

I think the lines have always been blurred, but we are only recently becoming more receptive to letting that happen. Categories are artificial means for us to organize our thoughts and lives (and CD collections). We impose categories on objects, people, thoughts, but they all fall naturally into more than one category. WHen we stop looking for the lines, and focus on the possibilities....

What is the difference really among a play with music, an opera, a show, a song cycle with stage action, a trumpet solo with stage action, a trumpet solo with sets? It is all about drama (from the Greek - and possibly the Lithuanian as well - for "to do".)

There are lots of 'multimedia' performances going on in new music circles, and some of them in major concert venues - check out "The Tristan Project" that the LA Phil did in 2005, and which I think was done in Europe this year and will be done in NYC next season.

__________________
Sandy