How much New Music should an orchestra program?

[sloan]

Here's a letter my son sent to the local symphony after a recent concert:

I would like to thank the Orchestra for its notable efforts in 20th century programming, and ask that you keep it up! As a student of composition myself, I am troubled at how little music written since the death of Gustav Mahler in 1911 is performed, not to mention music written since 1945, or since, say, 2000!

Now I of course love the Romantics, and the wealth of historical music that constitutes the standard repertoire should continue to be played. But it is important to remember that it is exactly that - history, and classical music in America today must decide if it is in the history business or the living culture business. I also understand that most of the core audience has little tolerance for anything with which they are not familiar. So a different outreach perspective is needed - greater education, aggressive advertising for contemporary works. And if it turns some away, I am confident that it will bring in others. Young people have a very hard time turning out for Beethoven and Mozart, because to them, that music is a cultural relic, an identifier of an older generation, and this is hard to get past. But I know there is a scene that would love to hear new vibrant art music that comments on today in today's language. But they have to be found and targeted. It's all marketing.

So I think this "Radioheadings" event coming up is a good place to start, surely. And I do hope it goes well for you. But please don't stop there. Again, this event is not likely to make the kids come out for Schumann, but it might make them want to hear some Messiaen, or Berg, or Schoenberg, Davidovsky, Adams, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok, Crumb, etc... to name a few composers with who's orchestral works I am familiar. And then, all the great composers writing large-scale symphonic works today with whom we aren't familiar, because we haven't had an opportunity to hear their stuff. And of course there is so much chamber music and smaller ensemble music, as well, by Webern, Cage, Babbitt, Wuorinen, Davidovsky, Berio, Boulez... More than enough to fill a a New Music series!

So I do think the ASO makes a good effort towards contemporary programming. But there is so much more great music that is being avoided because it is perhaps too "modernist," "inaccessible," or "severe."

My end-game would be a piece written since 1911 (or even by a living composer) on every concert, with two others from the historical repertoire that inform it somehow. I feel strongly that this is a worthwhile and attainable goal, the achievement of which will be good for the Orchestra, good for the audience, good for Birmingham, and good for art music.

Comments?

[SplatterTone]

In every musical era, there has been a heaping helping of certified crap that got played because it was "modern". When that style was no longer modern, the music gets another look, and the crap weeded out.

avoided because it is perhaps too "modernist," "inaccessible," or "severe."

... or "crap."

The attitude expressed in the post is THE reason why a large chunk of the music written in the mid 20th century that was un-"modern" in style, but high quality never got played, and likely will never be played.

Would you like some "modern" music? Here you go. Written by me within the last 10 years. Wild, crazy stuff it is ... you know, with all that avoiding parallel octaves and fifths, working to use good part writing, exercising what discipline I can muster to confine myself to a theme.
http://t-recs.net/mpegs/my_stuff/quintet1.mp3

A little more free-form here since it's a hymn tune, would probably work as a brass trio.
http://t-recs.net/mpegs/my_stuff/lobe_den.mp3

It would be helpful to know if the letter writer's concept of "modern" pertains to time or pertains to style. I'm thinking it's style.

[Stefan Kac]

The way most orchestras seem to address this problem is to make each concert a potpourri of things from the last 400 years. All this does, however, is guarantee that everyone in attendance will have to endure something they are not interested in. A performing ensemble simply cannot be all things to all people all the time. It seems to me that it would make infintely more sense to have an all-Mozart program and an all-Schoenberg program rather than pairing a Mozart piece and Schoenberg piece on the same program. But that's just me, and I don't have an orchestra at my disposal.

[Rick Denney]

Every single original movie score in existence was composed since 1911.

Rachmaninoff was later than 1911. Most of Vaughan Williams postdated Mahler. Prokofiev, Shostakovich--all that was later than 1911. Ravel did is arrangement of Pictures after then. Holst wrote The Planets in the 1920's. And on and on. Lots of these works are hackneyed war horses at this point, and none in this list could be classed as "modern", not even RVW's 4th ("severe"--I'll go with that one). Okay, maybe some of Shostakovich, but an orchestra can play lot of Shosty, even some from later in his career, that isn't "modern".

There is a wide gap between "20th Century" and "Lutoslawski".

I suspect that, on average, nearly every orchestra performs at least one work per concert from later than 1911.

So, what's the point? Is "20th-Century" code for "modern"? I'm thinking it would have to be to make the letter worth writing.

Rick "thinking lots of composers write for other composers in the same way that tuba soloists perform for other tuba players" Denney

[Lew]

Here's a letter my son sent to the local symphony after a recent concert:

... Again, this event is not likely to make the kids come out for Schumann, but it might make them want to hear some Messiaen, or Berg, or Schoenberg, Davidovsky, Adams, Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok, Crumb, etc... to name a few composers with who's orchestral works I am familiar. ... Cage, Babbitt, Wuorinen, Davidovsky, Berio, Boulez... More than enough to fill a a New Music series!

Comments?

I don't think there is any lack of Ravel, Stravinsky, Bartok, or Boulez music being played. On the other hand one rarely hears Cage, Babbitt, or Davidovsky programed. I agree with the earlier post that the reason for this is not because they are newer, but because the music is too esoteric. Mario Davidovsky (at Columbia University) is my brother's mentor. I have heard way too much of his work and think that programming more of this type of music would kill an orchestra. For every young person who enjoys this music I would wager that many more find this music inaccessable. John Cage, for all of his creative genius, is not the sort of thing I could stand listening to for more than a few minutes at a time.

I have 2 children in their early 20's. They have been exposed to this type of music since they were little because we would go to concerts of my brother's music, which usually included music from some of these other composers too. They have expressed the same kind of thoughts about it as I have. That is, they find it almost impossible to sit through. Here's a link to an example of my brother's music as an example:

http://www.bmop.org/cd_detail.aspx?cid=15

(click on the "listen" icon)

or here:

http://www.amazon.com/Eric-Chasalow-Lef ... B00008BNTU

While the BSO did have a program at Tanglewood that included my brother's music and Bach on the same bill, I don't think that my brother's work was the draw. Does anyone really think that performing more of this type of work will really help any orchestra?

[tubafatness]

I think that's a good letter, and it brings up a point which has stuck with me the last couple of years. It does seem sometimes that the "classical music establishment", (if such a thing does really exist,) is more in the business of propping up dead, old music as opposed to music which is still "living", if you will. Now, that being said, I don't think that there should be a switch to an entirely new music society; there are examples of great music from every time period, whether that be the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, or beyond. But, it seems like orchestras, (in a very wide, general sense,) have gone into a mode of curating the older musics at the expense of newer music. Sure, some of it might not be easy to listen to at first; but, as Boulez said before, "please want to be disturbed [by the music]"*. I can understand if someone listens to a piece of music once and discards it as being bad or distasteful; but, given time, I think that it is possible for audiences to grow in their listening habits, and to listen to more and more music, (and who doesn't want that?)

One of the best approaches I've seen in integrating new music into the orchestral repertoire is to combine works from different time periods in a sensible and intelligent way. I read once about a series, (possibly by Leonard Slatkin,) in which the works of Beethoven and Schoenberg were combined on the same bill, with the goal of showing the audience the common patterns between the two. Such a program could be very beneficial in exposing the audiences to newer music, while demonstrating the continuity of music from period to period. This can be done with all kinds of new music: John Cage with Erik Satie, Hindemith with Bach, Stravinsky with Mozart, Gyorgy Ligeti with Schubert, Pierre Boulez with Debussy, etc....

My point is, if we are to grow as musicians, we must not turn our backs on newer music. Yes, like all styles of music, there are pieces which aren't all that good; however, there are pieces which are truly great, and they should be played often. Remember, Mozart, Beethoven and all the darlings of the average orchestra crowd were once considered to be part of the "avant-garde."

Also, to Lew: I liked the sample of your brother's music! I have a weakness for electronically-based music, though I would have liked the piece even if it had no electronic portion. The sample there is something that i think would fit well in a concert series, even if some of the audience are unused to "weird sounds"; in the grand scheme of things, that isn't a particularly grating or harsh example of newer music, yet it still embodies a good handful of the values that have been set up in the last 50 years or so. And those new values and aesthetics in music are things which ought to spread out and be passed on to the music listening public, if for no other reason than to show there is an alternative to the standard repertoire.

*The interview in which this quote appears is found at this site, and I highly recommend it to all musicians-Boulez addresses much of the same issues as this topic.
http://www.wksu.org/news/story/21810

[Mitch]

I've alluded to this issue in previous posts, especially with regard to the "financial health" of an orchestra. IMHO, the administration of an orchestra can sometimes take it upon themselves to determine what the audience "needs" to hear, and on what elements the audience "needs to be educated."

Where I've seen orchestras encounter difficulty is in making choices that are irrelevant to their respective communities, whether in style of marketing or in programming. Many communities have their own distinct collective culture and personality. When any organization, orchestra or otherwise, fails to take into account whether they are fitting that local style, they are more likely to incur some level of difficulty.

If I head to San Antonio, for example, and open a lutefisk stand, I'm not likely to do well. Heading into a small town in the middle-of-nowhere (name a state), with a blue-collar population with an average annual income of >$25,000, I'm not likely to do well with a French bistro where the coffee is $12 and any entree is more than $50, even though I may feel that the local population needs to learn what good food really is.

"Outreach" needs, in some cases, to be reworked as "Inreach." How many people do you know who enjoy being told what they need to learn so they can "really" understand and enjoy something. People often forget that when you say someone needs to be "educated" about something, you imply that they are uneducated (or worse) about it. And I've always thought music carries a great deal in common with comedy: people know it's funny even if they don't like the language, or even if they're the brunt of the joke; timing is everything; and if you have to explain it, it wasn't very good.

Mendelssohn said a long time ago (I'm paraphrasing) that music relies on a common language between composer and listener for the communication to be successful. In the 20th century, the spirit of experimentation in music (as in most things in the 20th century), as with any experimentation, led to some things that really didn't seem to work; IMHO they got so far removed from that "common language" that audiences just don't care for it. As with visual art, some audiences want to be challenged and enjoy the concept of "breaking boundaries," but others simply wish to enjoy what they hear (or see). They want to experience joy, they want to be somehow touched by the music. And they don't like those "bad touches."

So which audience is yours? Yes, you can make the argument, as many do, that, "The audience needs to be shown other music. They need to know ... and they should learn about ..."
And some really want to know more. And they should be able to get it from us. But, again, which audience do you have? It's only recently (in the big picture) that some orchestras actually poll their audiences and solicit input for programming. Audiences in those cases often feel more involved and valued.

Programming is a tricky thing, but no mystery. It's in the design. Most people would recognize whether the furniture in their living room "goes together." Audiences may not pick up on it directly, but many pieces go together better than others. I've seen lots and LOTS of programs where they're tried to mix things up and, IMHO, the pieces just didn't go together. There was no harmonic tie-in, no tie-in of lineage from one composer to another, nor of political theme or key or rhythmic structure or subject matter or... and the audience didn't respond too favorably. In fact, in one particular concert, a lot of them left at intermission (but that also may have been because it sounded like the orchestra first saw the pages about a half-hour before the concert).

Some orchestras have had success with grouping their newer-music performances in some way. With the CSO, for example, if Boulez is conducting, you can assume the programming is something more esoteric without having to look at the program.

Some orchestras may feel they don't have the audience to support a new music series, so they try to satisfy those folks in the Bach-Beethoven-Brahms concerts. And then the Bach-Beethoven-Brahms folks are grumpy, because "they didn't pay good money to hear some bunk from that Corogleeana [sic] guy."

A responsible orchestra works to ensure that the "product" they are providing to their community is actually comprised, to a significant enough extent, of what their community wants and in a manner beneficial to the orchestra. Maybe the suggestion can be made to the orchestra to provide new music offerings in a chamber setting. I saw a couple concerts of VERY varied programming from the National Symphony Orchestra in a chamber setting at the Kennedy Center. It was all small ensembles in a smaller hall, so the cost of presenting the concert was, I'm sure, vastly reduced versus full orchestra in the Concert Hall, and the hall it was in was PACKED. It was a LONG concert, and the hall was just as full at the end as at the beginning. To my eyes, and ears, it was a HUGELY successful venture. The people who want it, get it, and it's financially lucrative for the organization.

Sloan, I hope you keep us posted on what, if any, response your son receives to his letter and the respective outcome.

[NDSPTuba]

You also need to consider the number of composers there are in every generation back through Bach's time and beyond. Now, how many do you ever hear being programed regularly. Maybe 5 composers per generation ever become "known" and there music performed regularly. Todays "known" composers write film scores. And are generally heard only while watching movies or during pops concerts. I can think of 3 ( maybe ) modern day composers that I enjoy that aren't film scorers. And I only know them as wind ensemble composers ( they may write for orchestra, I really have no idea ). And one of them I have to admit, I prefer playing rather than listening too. Kind of hard to sit through as a listener.

Barnes
Daugherty
Muslanka
Tichelli

[Mitch]

Names with which a familiarity may be beneficial, in light of "modern" and "accessible," though I don't know that any are a salve to either:

Michael Daugherty
William Bolcom
Evan Chambers
Bright Sheng
(and all happen to be at Michigan - Go Blue! - Sheng won a McArthur Genius Grant a while back; Bolcom is considered among the best living American composers; Daugherty is widely performed and a good bit recorded and "accessible" via his influences of modern/pop culture, i.e., Superman, Elvis, etc.; Chambers is a very talented composer who's easily on his way to wider recognition, influenced considerably by American folk song)
Susan Botti
Kevin Beavers
Daniel Roumain

(just a short list)
Side note - I don't know that any of them have written a thing for solo tuba. Too bad. Our loss. But it's not too late...they are living, after all.

[SplatterTone]

Here's something to try. Dig up some of the choral music of Arnold Bax or Gerald Finzi and see what your son thinks of that modern music.
http://tinyurl.com/2kqdp9

Anyone for Frederick Delius?

And you have sort of a hybrid (I guess) genre of Renaissance music for the modern Goth crowd.
http://tinyurl.com/2wbzck