RIP live music? Orchestras=museum jobs?

[Mojo workin']

Partially inspired by Bloke's thread-

How many of you out there have had a music history or other type of professor at some point claim that symphony orchestras, opera companies, ballet companies, etc. are "museum" jobs, as such are artistically stagnant, and that live performance will eventually be almost non-existent? I would like to hear how you weigh in on this topic, as I was most discouraged to hear this back in college. I agree somewhat with the notion that these organizations are a bit artistically stagnant in that the bulk of the material programmed is not of living composers(there could be an economical reason for this i.e. audience preference). I do not agree that live performance will eventually be phased out (especially of popular artists), though every year arts organizations have to water down a little more the content of what they are offering in order to sell tickets.

Please feel free to flame or agree.

[sloan]

Is the word "museum" a pejorative?

[ginnboonmiller]

Seems like two kind of unrelated questions to me.

Orchestral performance is definitely museum work right now. Most orchestras only play about 40 different pieces in any kind of steady rotation at this point, with no interest in expanding the rep beyond novelty performances of curiosities and premieres. That's been the case for a long time now.

Live music is most certainly not dead, though. It's just not played by orchestras anymore.

[Mojo workin']

Is the word "museum" a pejorative?

No. It is neutral.

Seems like two kind of unrelated questions to me.

They had to relate?

Live music is most certainly not dead, though. It's just not played by orchestras anymore.

I do not understand. If a performance is taking place, it is certainly live. Do you mean music by living composers?

[sloan]

Seems like two kind of unrelated questions to me.

Orchestral performance is definitely museum work right now. Most orchestras only play about 40 different pieces in any kind of steady rotation at this point, with no interest in expanding the rep beyond novelty performances of curiosities and premieres. That's been the case for a long time now.

Live music is most certainly not dead, though. It's just not played by orchestras anymore.

So...if it's played as part of the regular rotation, it's a museum piece - and if it's not, it's a "novelty performance"?

I think it's possible to find orchestras that strike a nice balance.

A challenge - go and look at the complete list of piecesto be played this year (at all concerts - Masterworks, Pops, whatever) by the Alabama Symphony Orchestra - and please tell me which ones qualify as the "40 different pieces" and which ones are "novelty performances". http://www.alabamasymphony.org/seasonca ... eason=0809

[rocksanddirt]

interesting question.

I think an Orchestra that is dependent upon individual concert ticket sales is headed that way if not there now. Many US orchestra's now fund the bulk of their activity on a 'subscription' or season ticket type method, which allows for playing works by living composers, or works that are not part of the "orchestral top 40" and still having sold enough tickets.

Live music in general is harder and harder to get hold of in most areas, due to a number of things only one of which is the cost of the musicians.