Fear and trasfiguration
A glance at next week’s schedule at the Minnesota Orchestra indicates a rather diverse week; three performances of Handel’s “Messiah”, a duo of Holiday Pops shows and two Family concerts. It’s typical fare for the holiday season, which is most musicians’ busiest time of year. What I find interesting about this particular week is the scope of our offerings: the Handel (despite being one of those ubiquitous “holiday” pieces) is a serious piece, musically satisfying for the orchestra to play; the Pops show is a typical big band/children’s chorus/orchestra holiday extravaganza, with a Santa, to boot; and the Family Concert is a wonderful collaborative show with Magic Circle Mime, a great pair of mimes who put on a top-notch production.
I really think that the artistic profile of this coming week is the optimal profile for any orchestra.
(I’ll let the purists gasp in horror for a moment.)
Don’t get me wrong. I love Beethoven as much as any musician or classical music fan, and I think that subscription concerts are an important core mission for an orchestra. But every performing arts organization has the responsibility to 1) serve its community, and 2) present programs that offer different ways to experience music. To deny the significance of this is tantamount to the proverbial burying of one’s head in the sand.
Last month, after our inaugural “Inside the Classics” concerts, Sam and I received the first piece of what I jokingly called “hate mail” that I’ve ever received. The author of the letter bemoaned the fact that we played such short excerpts of everything in the first half of the concert, and how Orchestra Hall was one of the few places that provided a place to listen to piece of music in its entirety (which made me wonder, did they stay for the whole performance?). The purpose of an orchestra, according to the writer, was to provide the kind of extended musical experience that was lacking everywhere else in life, and that trying to entertain the audience while imparting information was akin to pandering to the abbreviated attention span of the 21st century.
I happily live in the 21st century (and frankly, we really have no choice in that matter, unless we can time travel). And as a musician and conductor living in the times that we do, I feel a deep responsibility to make the experience of hearing symphonic music as vital, vibrant and relevant as it can be (and truly, it is – the emotions that the best orchestral pieces can evoke are as immediate, moving and transformative as they ever were.) If this means that we present concerts in different kinds of formats, or that we perform more collaborative/crossover/”pops”-type concerts (and I really hate the connotations of the word “pops” – more on that in a later entry) and that we enlarge the scope of our educational and family offerings, I’m happy to oblige.
Orchestras, like any large organizations, move with the grace and speed of a glacier. It does not help that we support an art form that is deemed by much of the population to be outdated and elitist (I totally disagree with this, but, again, I think the fault lies in the way that we present what we do.) But this being the case, the responsibility lies with us – orchestras, conductors, management - to actually find ways to present this music in a way that is current and relatable. And that will, by necessity, always be shifting. To consider this reality with fear and loathing is both self-defeating and dangerous. To assume that we can “educate” audiences to believe that a standard overture-concerto-intermission-symphony format is the only way to truly enjoy classical music is both disingenuous and narrow-minded.
I find the prospect of appraising the constantly changing way that people consume culture to be a fascinating challenge, and I look forward to the evolution of the art form that I love and am utterly committed to. And I am delighted that many of my colleagues here are willing to embrace this perspective.
And it makes me think of my favorite quote (from, of all people, a former U.S. Army Chief of Staff):
“If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less.”
I really think that the artistic profile of this coming week is the optimal profile for any orchestra.
(I’ll let the purists gasp in horror for a moment.)
Don’t get me wrong. I love Beethoven as much as any musician or classical music fan, and I think that subscription concerts are an important core mission for an orchestra. But every performing arts organization has the responsibility to 1) serve its community, and 2) present programs that offer different ways to experience music. To deny the significance of this is tantamount to the proverbial burying of one’s head in the sand.
Last month, after our inaugural “Inside the Classics” concerts, Sam and I received the first piece of what I jokingly called “hate mail” that I’ve ever received. The author of the letter bemoaned the fact that we played such short excerpts of everything in the first half of the concert, and how Orchestra Hall was one of the few places that provided a place to listen to piece of music in its entirety (which made me wonder, did they stay for the whole performance?). The purpose of an orchestra, according to the writer, was to provide the kind of extended musical experience that was lacking everywhere else in life, and that trying to entertain the audience while imparting information was akin to pandering to the abbreviated attention span of the 21st century.
I happily live in the 21st century (and frankly, we really have no choice in that matter, unless we can time travel). And as a musician and conductor living in the times that we do, I feel a deep responsibility to make the experience of hearing symphonic music as vital, vibrant and relevant as it can be (and truly, it is – the emotions that the best orchestral pieces can evoke are as immediate, moving and transformative as they ever were.) If this means that we present concerts in different kinds of formats, or that we perform more collaborative/crossover/”pops”-type concerts (and I really hate the connotations of the word “pops” – more on that in a later entry) and that we enlarge the scope of our educational and family offerings, I’m happy to oblige.
Orchestras, like any large organizations, move with the grace and speed of a glacier. It does not help that we support an art form that is deemed by much of the population to be outdated and elitist (I totally disagree with this, but, again, I think the fault lies in the way that we present what we do.) But this being the case, the responsibility lies with us – orchestras, conductors, management - to actually find ways to present this music in a way that is current and relatable. And that will, by necessity, always be shifting. To consider this reality with fear and loathing is both self-defeating and dangerous. To assume that we can “educate” audiences to believe that a standard overture-concerto-intermission-symphony format is the only way to truly enjoy classical music is both disingenuous and narrow-minded.
I find the prospect of appraising the constantly changing way that people consume culture to be a fascinating challenge, and I look forward to the evolution of the art form that I love and am utterly committed to. And I am delighted that many of my colleagues here are willing to embrace this perspective.
And it makes me think of my favorite quote (from, of all people, a former U.S. Army Chief of Staff):
“If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less.”
Labels: contemporary culture, stirring the pot, the business of music
posted by Sarah at
11:03 PM
4 Comments:
...sorry, I was busy gasping in horror over here. You were saying something about glaciers?
Seriously, though, one of these days, after you've just conducted one of those hideously annoying and artistically indefensible pops shows that always seem to come along once every year or so, I'm going to fetch you a beer, sit you down, and read this particular post back to you. And you're going to either laugh or slug me.
I'm not saying specifically which shows I find to be indefensible (because I like being employed,) nor am I implying that anything we're doing this week falls into that category (it doesn't,) but there's no question that the concerts we label "pops" tend to run the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous, and cross nearly every genre line that exists, regardless of whether an orchestra is the right ensemble for the genre du jour. So maybe, in addition to our industry needing to suck it up and acknowledge the need for change in the diversity of our offerings, we also need to start being as careful in choosing and programming our "alternative" shows as we are in planning our subscription concerts...
And, bingo, you've hit the nail on the head! If as much thoughtful consideration were put into those "alternative" shows as is into the "classical" season, things might be different; if "pops" were to be integrated into the season so that it related to a larger programming or thematic scheme, we'd be on the right track.
As long as alternative concerts are viewed as the bastard child of orchestras, they will always be thrown-together and occasionally "artistically indefensible" (although pops does not hold the monopoly in that area - I've heard concerts from other series over the years that would fit that description as well.)
Orchestras are just really beginning to examine how they fit into the larger musical landscape and where their participation in collaborative projects is artistically viable. What I'm hoping for is an institutional understanding and acceptance that these projects are important, and that it takes a bit of trial and error to come to a winning formula, and that this may take quite some of time. It also means from an administrative level, there needs to be larger artistic oversight over the totality of the output of an ensemble and how it all relates.
Filled with snippets of the concert season, I found the 2007-2008 Preview Concert inspirational. I thought it was great. I reviewed it (and that night's dinner) at Hopes and Dreams.
I'm sorry you received the hate mail for Inside the Classics, but I would assume that the author just wanted more than what was given at that particular performance.
You each have excellent points, Sam and Sarah. Music is music, and I think marketing has a hand in how it gets compartmentalized (it's the same in publishing for me, a writer, unfortunately). I was quite interested to see movie music programmed in January for subscription concerts because this music is usually dropped in the pops box. But I usually tell people who think classical music isn't something they'd like that if they like movie music, then they like classical music. It usually surprises the heck out of them. As for indefensible programs, that may be a problem artistically, but do they sell? If they sell well....? I would hope that they didn't sell so that such programs would not be repeated, but.... Cinda Yager
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home