Friday, February 03, 2006
It is time...
Interesting article at the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1700397,00.html
I do not subscribe to the notion that “modern” music scares away audience members. I will not believe this until I see hard, statistical material as support. I believe it is a “rumor” that is perpetuated by some journalists, seeking a juicy story, and orchestra management, who find little fault in their own actions so in turn blame something else. If I am an average orchestra attendee, and I begin to see articles and hear talk that “modern music is dreadful, and I should be turned off by it,” I think I will start to believe it.
It is time to tell the truth about contemporary music.
It is time to give audience members an opportunity to judge for themselves.
It is time for an orchestra with guts and cajones to step up to the plate and prove or disprove this self-perpetuating rumor once and for all.
If the “weeds” are choking an orchestra’s growth (i.e. audience/board members who wield enormous financial power, but little artistic knowledge), it is time to shed them. Perhaps the total collapse of an ensemble is appropriate to start afresh with new ideas and people.
If I am sermonizing, apologies. I do not apologize for my stance.
posted by Daniel Gilliam
10:54 AM
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Love the Music, Hate the Hall
From today's New York Times: "It's not true that young people don't like classical music. Young people don't like recital halls." Richard S. Weinert, president of Concert Artists Guild.
posted by Jerry Bowles
12:02 PM
Monday, January 30, 2006
Further Evidence of the Decline of Western Civilzation
The other day I critiqued a profile for a female friend of mine who’s giving online dating (another) try. The site, Match.com, looked pretty good to me, and, my love-life being molto doloroso e lamentoso these days, I decided I’d sign up for the service.
One of the cool things you can do on Match.com is a kind of “keyword” search of other peoples’ profiles. So, for instance, you can search “Mozart” or “literature” and see who’s mentioned Mozart or literature in their profile.
So I got an idea.
I typed in: “Ligeti.”
No matches.
“Adams:” also nothing. “Carter:” nada. “Ades:” zilch. “Reich:” (surely there had to be SOMEone out there – within a 25 mile radius of Brooklyn – who liked Steve Reich) but no. I tried “Arvo” and “Part” – but to no avail. “Glass” got one match, but it had nothing to do with music. “Kurtag,” obviously, got me nowhere, and even “Beethoven” only brought up a measly ten women – all of whom were looking for guys older than I am. The results for “symphony” proved similarly discouraging.
So I then capitulated to the horrible truth.
I typed in: “Coldplay.”
Fifty matches.
posted by David Salvage
11:13 PM
But If So, To What Extent?
Justin Davidson, subbing for Alex Ross, writes: According to current orthodoxy, since the composer took the trouble to write all those damned little squiggles into the score (and implied a whole lot more), the best performance is the one that makes audible as much of the filigree as possible. This is, in different guises, the principle that guides performers as ostensibly distinct as authentic performance practice gurus, minimalist burblers, and Boulez and his Boulezzini. But, really, what's so terrible about about letting the edges of a chord bleed a bit, or letting some of those waves of fast fiddle notes gurgle indistinctly? Sometimes some judiciously applied atmospheric murk–what a pianist would call pedal–gets closer to the essential truth.
posted by Jerry Bowles
10:26 AM
|
