The Future of Art Music

[c***@suscom.net]

As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.

Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.

Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.

Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."

Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.

Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania

[Ivan Vegvary]

<***@suscom.net> wrote in message news:***@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Each offers its own rewards, but art

Post by c***@suscom.net
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.

Totally disagree. At least at the high school level, most performers
(symphonies, strings etc.) are taught nothing and have no understanding of
the music. They are performing.
Alternatively, most high school jazz classes (vernacular music) go into
great depth on the understading of harmony, form, scales, counterpoint, etc.
etc.

Ivan Vegvary

Post by c***@suscom.net
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.
Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."
Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.
Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania

[kitekrazy]

Post by Ivan Vegvary
Alternatively, most high school jazz classes (vernacular music) go into
great depth on the understading of harmony, form, scales, counterpoint, etc.
etc.
Ivan Vegvary

Wow! What high schools are that? Usually someone has to go to band
camp to learn that.

[j***@skythunder.net]

Music is interesting in that it is mainly defined by the audience --
the many listening -- while the few perform. Certainly, contemporary
classical performances are stiff, stagey, artificial, formalized and
generally pompous affairs, with no acknowledgement of audience
interest, or engagement. I will say I've enjoyed notable exceptions
-- listening to works by John Tavener, and a Ennio Morricone conduct
to name a couple. I prefer jazz but if that's just 'vernacular' then
I'm a vernacular kind of person (if living today, it is pretty obvious
that Chopin would be a jazz musician!). As far as I'm concerned the
classical symphonies can all to h**l in a handbasket if the best they
can do is perform the works of DWMs. I don't have a problem with
contemporary composers, most of whom are jazz (sorry, vernacular)
idiom like John Surman, with works premiered in London.

I wonder whether part of the problem lies in the priority in music
education toward 'elite' performers, at the expense of ensuring wider
musical ability, even if not to elite levels, generally. This a
preference for performative capabilities over understanding and
insight. We educate human metronomes, not musicians.

I think we need to keep in mind that it is difficult for people to
appreciate art music if they are unable to speak the language, any
more than people going to an art gallery can appreciate a pickled
shark if they can't 'read' it. I believe you must always start with
the young. Get it wrong there, and you foster a lifetime of misery:
Johnnie isn't musically talented, Sally has a tin ear, whatever. At
young ages, we are creating a real sense of failure, which can last a
lifetime. Music is actually powerless to express anything IF no one
understands what is being expressed. The 'baby boomer' generation is
now probably the largest consistent purchaser of music, and has the
most disposible money to spend on music entertainment.

Thank you for opening up this debate.

Post by c***@suscom.net
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.
Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.
Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."
Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.
Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania

[Tom Shaw]

I think that contemporary classical performances cant hold a candle in
staginess to the idols of the baby boomer generation.
TS

Post by j***@skythunder.net
Music is interesting in that it is mainly defined by the audience --
the many listening -- while the few perform. Certainly, contemporary
classical performances are stiff, stagey, artificial, formalized and
generally pompous affairs, with no acknowledgement of audience
interest, or engagement. I will say I've enjoyed notable exceptions
-- listening to works by John Tavener, and a Ennio Morricone conduct
to name a couple. I prefer jazz but if that's just 'vernacular' then
I'm a vernacular kind of person (if living today, it is pretty obvious
that Chopin would be a jazz musician!). As far as I'm concerned the
classical symphonies can all to h**l in a handbasket if the best they
can do is perform the works of DWMs. I don't have a problem with
contemporary composers, most of whom are jazz (sorry, vernacular)
idiom like John Surman, with works premiered in London.
I wonder whether part of the problem lies in the priority in music
education toward 'elite' performers, at the expense of ensuring wider
musical ability, even if not to elite levels, generally. This a
preference for performative capabilities over understanding and
insight. We educate human metronomes, not musicians.
I think we need to keep in mind that it is difficult for people to
appreciate art music if they are unable to speak the language, any
more than people going to an art gallery can appreciate a pickled
shark if they can't 'read' it. I believe you must always start with
Johnnie isn't musically talented, Sally has a tin ear, whatever. At
young ages, we are creating a real sense of failure, which can last a
lifetime. Music is actually powerless to express anything IF no one
understands what is being expressed. The 'baby boomer' generation is
now probably the largest consistent purchaser of music, and has the
most disposible money to spend on music entertainment.
Thank you for opening up this debate.

Post by c***@suscom.net
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.
Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.
Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."
Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.
Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania

[La Donna Mobile]

Nobody on rmo cares what you think. Please do not x-post shallow asinine
opinions to rmo. We have plenty enough of our own, thank you very much.

For what it's worth I suggest that perhaps you haven't been to
sufficient (any?) classical performances if you can make such a sweeping
generalisation. Having seen a mixture of both, I would say there are
merits on both sides of the argument. Although I don't see why it has to
be an argument. A rounded person should surely be able to enjoy a
diversity of entertainment without arguing whose dad bigger is than
whose mother's boyfriend...

Post by Tom Shaw
I think that contemporary classical performances cant hold a candle in
staginess to the idols of the baby boomer generation.
TS

Post by j***@skythunder.net
Music is interesting in that it is mainly defined by the audience --
the many listening -- while the few perform. Certainly, contemporary
classical performances are stiff, stagey, artificial, formalized and
generally pompous affairs, with no acknowledgement of audience
interest, or engagement. I will say I've enjoyed notable exceptions
-- listening to works by John Tavener, and a Ennio Morricone conduct
to name a couple. I prefer jazz but if that's just 'vernacular' then
I'm a vernacular kind of person (if living today, it is pretty obvious
that Chopin would be a jazz musician!). As far as I'm concerned the
classical symphonies can all to h**l in a handbasket if the best they
can do is perform the works of DWMs. I don't have a problem with
contemporary composers, most of whom are jazz (sorry, vernacular)
idiom like John Surman, with works premiered in London.
I wonder whether part of the problem lies in the priority in music
education toward 'elite' performers, at the expense of ensuring wider
musical ability, even if not to elite levels, generally. This a
preference for performative capabilities over understanding and
insight. We educate human metronomes, not musicians.
I think we need to keep in mind that it is difficult for people to
appreciate art music if they are unable to speak the language, any
more than people going to an art gallery can appreciate a pickled
shark if they can't 'read' it. I believe you must always start with
Johnnie isn't musically talented, Sally has a tin ear, whatever. At
young ages, we are creating a real sense of failure, which can last a
lifetime. Music is actually powerless to express anything IF no one
understands what is being expressed. The 'baby boomer' generation is
now probably the largest consistent purchaser of music, and has the
most disposible money to spend on music entertainment.
Thank you for opening up this debate.

Post by c***@suscom.net
As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.
Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music
to be equated with art music.
Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.
Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."
Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.
Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania

[BILL CARTY]

Children, cant we all just get along. We all have opinions, and some, like certain body parts, STINK!! But, all are entitled to their opinion. After all, this is an open forum.

I personally dont judge a piece of music by the birthdate of the composer. I judge a piece of music, whether its classical, jazz, pop, rock, or any other genre, on its merits as MUSIC and how it makes me feel.. That should be the only factor involved in such a decision.

My opinion only, and I welcome yours :)
"La Donna Mobile" <***@REMOVEbrixton.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message news:dedaof$7ta$***@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Nobody on rmo cares what you think. Please do not x-post shallow asinine opinions to rmo. We have plenty enough of our own, thank you very much.

For what it's worth I suggest that perhaps you haven't been to sufficient (any?) classical performances if you can make such a sweeping generalisation. Having seen a mixture of both, I would say there are merits on both sides of the argument. Although I don't see why it has to be an argument. A rounded person should surely be able to enjoy a diversity of entertainment without arguing whose dad bigger is than whose mother's boyfriend...

Tom Shaw wrote:
I think that contemporary classical performances cant hold a candle in
staginess to the idols of the baby boomer generation.
TS
<***@skythunder.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
Music is interesting in that it is mainly defined by the audience --
the many listening -- while the few perform. Certainly, contemporary
classical performances are stiff, stagey, artificial, formalized and
generally pompous affairs, with no acknowledgement of audience
interest, or engagement. I will say I've enjoyed notable exceptions
-- listening to works by John Tavener, and a Ennio Morricone conduct
to name a couple. I prefer jazz but if that's just 'vernacular' then
I'm a vernacular kind of person (if living today, it is pretty obvious
that Chopin would be a jazz musician!). As far as I'm concerned the
classical symphonies can all to h**l in a handbasket if the best they
can do is perform the works of DWMs. I don't have a problem with
contemporary composers, most of whom are jazz (sorry, vernacular)
idiom like John Surman, with works premiered in London.

I wonder whether part of the problem lies in the priority in music
education toward 'elite' performers, at the expense of ensuring wider
musical ability, even if not to elite levels, generally. This a
preference for performative capabilities over understanding and
insight. We educate human metronomes, not musicians.

I think we need to keep in mind that it is difficult for people to
appreciate art music if they are unable to speak the language, any
more than people going to an art gallery can appreciate a pickled
shark if they can't 'read' it. I believe you must always start with
the young. Get it wrong there, and you foster a lifetime of misery:
Johnnie isn't musically talented, Sally has a tin ear, whatever. At
young ages, we are creating a real sense of failure, which can last a
lifetime. Music is actually powerless to express anything IF no one
understands what is being expressed. The 'baby boomer' generation is
now probably the largest consistent purchaser of music, and has the
most disposible money to spend on music entertainment.

Thank you for opening up this debate.



On 5 Aug 2005 14:03:38 -0700, ***@suscom.net wrote:

As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.

Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure

Post by c***@suscom.net
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music

to be equated with art music.

Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.

Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."

Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.

Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania

[Tom Shaw]

I apologize for the cross posting. I didn't look at the original address.
TS
"La Donna Mobile" <***@REMOVEbrixton.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message news:dedaof$7ta$***@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Nobody on rmo cares what you think. Please do not x-post shallow asinine opinions to rmo. We have plenty enough of our own, thank you very much.

For what it's worth I suggest that perhaps you haven't been to sufficient (any?) classical performances if you can make such a sweeping generalisation. Having seen a mixture of both, I would say there are merits on both sides of the argument. Although I don't see why it has to be an argument. A rounded person should surely be able to enjoy a diversity of entertainment without arguing whose dad bigger is than whose mother's boyfriend...

Tom Shaw wrote:
I think that contemporary classical performances cant hold a candle in
staginess to the idols of the baby boomer generation.
TS
<***@skythunder.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
Music is interesting in that it is mainly defined by the audience --
the many listening -- while the few perform. Certainly, contemporary
classical performances are stiff, stagey, artificial, formalized and
generally pompous affairs, with no acknowledgement of audience
interest, or engagement. I will say I've enjoyed notable exceptions
-- listening to works by John Tavener, and a Ennio Morricone conduct
to name a couple. I prefer jazz but if that's just 'vernacular' then
I'm a vernacular kind of person (if living today, it is pretty obvious
that Chopin would be a jazz musician!). As far as I'm concerned the
classical symphonies can all to h**l in a handbasket if the best they
can do is perform the works of DWMs. I don't have a problem with
contemporary composers, most of whom are jazz (sorry, vernacular)
idiom like John Surman, with works premiered in London.

I wonder whether part of the problem lies in the priority in music
education toward 'elite' performers, at the expense of ensuring wider
musical ability, even if not to elite levels, generally. This a
preference for performative capabilities over understanding and
insight. We educate human metronomes, not musicians.

I think we need to keep in mind that it is difficult for people to
appreciate art music if they are unable to speak the language, any
more than people going to an art gallery can appreciate a pickled
shark if they can't 'read' it. I believe you must always start with
the young. Get it wrong there, and you foster a lifetime of misery:
Johnnie isn't musically talented, Sally has a tin ear, whatever. At
young ages, we are creating a real sense of failure, which can last a
lifetime. Music is actually powerless to express anything IF no one
understands what is being expressed. The 'baby boomer' generation is
now probably the largest consistent purchaser of music, and has the
most disposible money to spend on music entertainment.

Thank you for opening up this debate.



On 5 Aug 2005 14:03:38 -0700, ***@suscom.net wrote:

As a composer, performer, and educator, I am constantly concerned with
the future of art music. A recent newspaper article about the
Pittsburgh Symphony budget deficit is the impetus for this posting. The
article mentioned a deficit of $500,000 or more for the 2004-05 season
and attributed the deficit to lower than expected ticket sales for the
classical subscription series. Ticket sales for the classical
subscription series have grown only 2% over the past 22 years while
ticket sales for the pops concerts have grown 8%. In my opinion, this
is reflective of three national trends that I feel need to be
addressed.

Because of outside influences, music education in our schools has been
watered down. In an effort to be more inclusive, classroom music, music
ensembles, and college music courses for the general student have
indirectly equated vernacular music and art music. There is nothing
wrong with being inclusive, but I feel it is the music teacher's
responsibility to point out the similarities and differences between
vernacular music and art music. Each offers its own rewards, but art
music involves more understanding of musical elements and their
relationships, and therefore functions on a higher intellectual plane.
I feel it is the educator's responsibility to help the student grow
in the intellectual understanding of music and not succumb to pressure

Post by c***@suscom.net
from administration, parents and students by allowing vernacular music

to be equated with art music.

Most performers display a lack of interest in music being written by
living composers. Unfortunately, the trends of composition in the
middle and late 20th century contributed greatly to this problem.
However, performers should realize that there are many composers
writing art music that is accessible to both performers and listeners
as it is based on the traditions established prior to the mid- 20th
century. John Winsor, in his book "Breaking the Sound Barrier: An
Argument for Mainstream Literary Music", makes a wonderful case
explaining why music went astray in the mid-20th century. I feel his
book is a "must read" for any educator, performer or composer. A way
for performers to show their audiences that music composition is an art
that is still alive and vital is to include a recent composition
composed in a "mainstream literary music" style on every program.

Many of today's composers emphasize intellectualism and innovation
over perceivable craft. There is nothing wrong with innovation except
that it has become an end within itself. Intellectualism and innovation
are rewarded through composition contest prizes and grants that are
judged by other composers, therefore perpetuating a style of music that
is no longer accessible to both performers and audiences. I would like
to quote from the final chapter of my book "A Composer's Guide to
Understanding Music with Activities for Listeners, Interpreters, and
Composers" regarding composing trends. "Throughout musical history, the
balance between the classic (of the mind) and romantic (of the heart)
modes of thinking has alternated. The center of the pendulum can be
thought of as equal treatment intellectualism and emotionalism. The
pendulum swings that occurred prior to the twentieth century have not
eliminated the other mode of thought. They have just changed the
emphasis. During the early to mid-twentieth century, the swing towards
classicism went to extremes by over emphasizing the intellectualism and
rejected anything associated with emotionalism. The composer, Igor
Stravinsky, stated that "music is powerless to express anything at
all". He later retracted that statement, but it clearly illustrates the
rejection of emotionalism in music. The intellectualism that dominated
much of twentieth century music, and still exists today, has been a
contributing factor to alienating audiences and performers from new
music. The majority of the relationships between unity and variety are
mostly perceivable through in-depth score study, rather than by active
or passive listening."

Educators, performers and composers must work together to ensure the
future of art music. I welcome your feedback regarding my comments and
invite you to visit my web site at http://cooppress.hostrack.net to
learn about the programs that Co-op Press has established to encourage
partnerships between composer, performer and audience.

Dr. Sy Brandon
Professor Emeritus
Millersville University of Pennsylvania

[Mark from Ark]

Post by j***@skythunder.net
Music is interesting in that it is mainly defined by the audience --
the many listening -- while the few perform. Certainly, contemporary
classical performances are stiff, stagey, artificial, formalized and
generally pompous affairs, with no acknowledgement of audience
interest, or engagement.

This statement brings up a good point if you are implying that the audience
itself does not acknowledge the performance. But then again, the question
comes to mind, is music really defined by the audience? Is not the
performer also a member of the audience ? Is the performer really playing
for an audience or is the performer simply expressing thru music ? If one
plays music for enjoyment in his living room is that a performer or an
audience? As far as the "art" of music, any reason at all it may be lacking
is because the performer usually is not the writer and the writer usually is
formalaic -- and that also includes jazz. Then we are left with performing
or listening as an emotional experience. Is that art ? Doesnt art also
encompass a creation that would make one think.

Mark

[William Graham]

Post by Mark from Ark

Post by j***@skythunder.net
Music is interesting in that it is mainly defined by the audience --
the many listening -- while the few perform. Certainly, contemporary
classical performances are stiff, stagey, artificial, formalized and
generally pompous affairs, with no acknowledgement of audience
interest, or engagement.

This statement brings up a good point if you are implying that the audience
itself does not acknowledge the performance. But then again, the question
comes to mind, is music really defined by the audience? Is not the
performer also a member of the audience ? Is the performer really playing
for an audience or is the performer simply expressing thru music ? If one
plays music for enjoyment in his living room is that a performer or an
audience? As far as the "art" of music, any reason at all it may be lacking
is because the performer usually is not the writer and the writer usually is
formalaic -- and that also includes jazz. Then we are left with performing
or listening as an emotional experience. Is that art ? Doesnt art also
encompass a creation that would make one think.
Mark

In my experience, the audience does not define the music. Many of the
persons in the audience are strictly word oriented, and don't even hear the
music. At least, when I hear a catchy tune on the radio, and the announcer
doesn't tell me what it is, and I drive into a Warehouse, or Hollywood video
to buy it, and I go in and whistle the tune to the clerks, (and I can
whistle a tune very accurately) I am met with blank stares every time. They
say, "Well, do you know who does it?" "Do you know any of the words?" The
tune seems to mean nothing to them. So I am left with the impression that
these people are virtually tone deaf. And this leads me to wonder exactly
what it is that they get out of music. Is it just the poetry of the words
that turns them on? Or, is it the pressure to be popular with their peers,
so they rush to build up a "record" collection that contains what they,
"think" that everyone else likes? - I sometimes find it very hard to
understand........

[Jonathan ;o}]

Post by William Graham
At least, when I hear a catchy tune on the radio, and the announcer
doesn't tell me what it is, and I drive into a Warehouse, or Hollywood video
to buy it, and I go in and whistle the tune to the clerks, (and I can
whistle a tune very accurately) I am met with blank stares every time. They
say, "Well, do you know who does it?" "Do you know any of the words?" The
tune seems to mean nothing to them. So I am left with the impression that
these people are virtually tone deaf.

That's a bit harsh. You're assuming the clerks have heard the piece of music
you're trying to reproduce. All it proves is that they don't know it -- they
can't possibly know every piece of music ever. How many people do you
suppose come into their shop every day and hum a tune at them? Try whistling
something they know.

Jonathan ;o}

[Greg Evans]

Post by Jonathan ;o}

Post by William Graham
At least, when I hear a catchy tune on the radio, and the announcer
doesn't tell me what it is, and I drive into a Warehouse, or
Hollywood video to buy it, and I go in and whistle the tune to the
clerks, (and I can whistle a tune very accurately) I am met with
blank stares every time. They say, "Well, do you know who does it?"
"Do you know any of the words?" The tune seems to mean nothing to
them. So I am left with the impression that these people are
virtually tone deaf.

That's a bit harsh. You're assuming the clerks have heard the piece
of music you're trying to reproduce. All it proves is that they don't
know it -- they can't possibly know every piece of music ever. How
many people do you suppose come into their shop every day and hum a
tune at them? Try whistling something they know.

Then on the other hand there was the guy I used to work with. He would
periodically come up to me and ask something like "What are the words to
that song, the one that goes 'da da da dum dee dee dum'?" and hum this
utterly tuneless, rhythmless drone that resembled no song on Earth. All I
could do was shrug my shoulders and say, "Sorry, that doesn't ring a
bell...." If he actually enjoyed music the way he honestly seemed to, why
could he neither recall the words nor recreate the melody?

[William Graham]

Post by Greg Evans

Post by Jonathan ;o}

Post by William Graham
At least, when I hear a catchy tune on the radio, and the announcer
doesn't tell me what it is, and I drive into a Warehouse, or
Hollywood video to buy it, and I go in and whistle the tune to the
clerks, (and I can whistle a tune very accurately) I am met with
blank stares every time. They say, "Well, do you know who does it?"
"Do you know any of the words?" The tune seems to mean nothing to
them. So I am left with the impression that these people are
virtually tone deaf.

That's a bit harsh. You're assuming the clerks have heard the piece
of music you're trying to reproduce. All it proves is that they don't
know it -- they can't possibly know every piece of music ever. How
many people do you suppose come into their shop every day and hum a
tune at them? Try whistling something they know.

Then on the other hand there was the guy I used to work with. He would
periodically come up to me and ask something like "What are the words to
that song, the one that goes 'da da da dum dee dee dum'?" and hum this
utterly tuneless, rhythmless drone that resembled no song on Earth. All I
could do was shrug my shoulders and say, "Sorry, that doesn't ring a
bell...." If he actually enjoyed music the way he honestly seemed to, why
could he neither recall the words nor recreate the melody?

Because the words are unintelligible, and the radio announcers today don't
tell you either the name of the songs they play, nor the names of the groups
and/or singers that do them. All I can usually get is the tune, and I
remember tunes very well. When I bother to go into one of these places, it's
because the tune is really good and catchy, and I can whistle it really
well. There are no, "da da da dum's" coming from me. As I say, in my day, I
would have been able to recognize any tune on the top 100 at any time since
I was about 10 years old.........

[William Graham]

Post by Jonathan ;o}

Post by William Graham
At least, when I hear a catchy tune on the radio, and the announcer
doesn't tell me what it is, and I drive into a Warehouse, or Hollywood

video

Post by William Graham
to buy it, and I go in and whistle the tune to the clerks, (and I can
whistle a tune very accurately) I am met with blank stares every time.

They

Post by William Graham
say, "Well, do you know who does it?" "Do you know any of the words?" The
tune seems to mean nothing to them. So I am left with the impression that
these people are virtually tone deaf.

That's a bit harsh. You're assuming the clerks have heard the piece of music
you're trying to reproduce. All it proves is that they don't know it -- they
can't possibly know every piece of music ever. How many people do you
suppose come into their shop every day and hum a tune at them? Try whistling
something they know.
Jonathan ;o}

I'm not asking them to, "Know every piece of music ever". I'm asking them to
know a contemporary top 40 tune. One that gets played every 30 minutes or so
all day long, by one of the most popular groups/bands/singers of the day.
When I was a 15 year old, I could whistle, and knew the names of, every song
on the charts, and if someone were to come up to me and say, "Do you know
this?" and whistle one of Nat Cole's, or Teresa Brewer's tunes, they
wouldn't have to whistle more than three notes before I would say, "Sure!
That's 'Too Young', by Nat King Cole".....(or whatever)

[Jonathan ;o}]

Post by William Graham

Post by Jonathan ;o}

Post by William Graham
At least, when I hear a catchy tune on the radio, and the announcer
doesn't tell me what it is, and I drive into a Warehouse, or Hollywood

video

Post by William Graham
to buy it, and I go in and whistle the tune to the clerks, (and I can
whistle a tune very accurately) I am met with blank stares every time.

They

Post by William Graham
say, "Well, do you know who does it?" "Do you know any of the words?" The
tune seems to mean nothing to them. So I am left with the impression that
these people are virtually tone deaf.

That's a bit harsh. You're assuming the clerks have heard the piece of music
you're trying to reproduce. All it proves is that they don't know it -- they
can't possibly know every piece of music ever. How many people do you
suppose come into their shop every day and hum a tune at them? Try whistling
something they know.
Jonathan ;o}

I'm not asking them to, "Know every piece of music ever". I'm asking them to
know a contemporary top 40 tune. One that gets played every 30 minutes or so
all day long, by one of the most popular groups/bands/singers of the day.

Well that's a feature of memory (or lack of it) rather than the music, or
the flaws of sales guys. I could do the same as you when I was fifteen but
it's been a long time since then. However, if you hummed those same hits
from thirty something years ago I could probably identify them.

Of course, songs that you hear every 30 minutes are the ones currently being
plugged by record companies and are often heard weeks before they are
actually on sale (God knows why - by the time you can buy it, it's
popularity has passed). Maybe they don't even produce the discs until they
know the reaction. And staff in record stores are at work so they don't get
a chance to hear the radio programmes you hear.

I think that you've forgotten how many skills you've acquired on the road to
becoming musical. You've learned intervals and what they sound like, and
you've learned timing, and you can put them together to help commit a tune
to memory. I can do it too, but most people can't because it's not normally
a natural gift. Some people can jump ridiculously high, but I imagine those
who do it highest learned how to do it.

Jonathan ;o}

[William Graham]

Post by Jonathan ;o}

Post by William Graham

Post by Jonathan ;o}

Post by William Graham
At least, when I hear a catchy tune on the radio, and the announcer
doesn't tell me what it is, and I drive into a Warehouse, or Hollywood

video

Post by William Graham
to buy it, and I go in and whistle the tune to the clerks, (and I can
whistle a tune very accurately) I am met with blank stares every time.

They

Post by William Graham
say, "Well, do you know who does it?" "Do you know any of the words?"

The

Post by William Graham

Post by Jonathan ;o}

Post by William Graham
tune seems to mean nothing to them. So I am left with the impression

that

Post by William Graham

Post by Jonathan ;o}

Post by William Graham
these people are virtually tone deaf.

That's a bit harsh. You're assuming the clerks have heard the piece of music
you're trying to reproduce. All it proves is that they don't know it -- they
can't possibly know every piece of music ever. How many people do you
suppose come into their shop every day and hum a tune at them? Try whistling
something they know.
Jonathan ;o}

I'm not asking them to, "Know every piece of music ever". I'm asking them

to

Post by William Graham
know a contemporary top 40 tune. One that gets played every 30 minutes or

so

Post by William Graham
all day long, by one of the most popular groups/bands/singers of the day.

Well that's a feature of memory (or lack of it) rather than the music, or
the flaws of sales guys. I could do the same as you when I was fifteen but
it's been a long time since then. However, if you hummed those same hits
from thirty something years ago I could probably identify them.

Yes. Isn't musical memory wonderful? - That's how I first got into music. My
mother took me to a place where they measured kids' "aptitude". They found
out that they could play a long sequence of notes twice, and I could tell
them whether the second time was the same, or different from the first. And,
as you say, I can still remember all those old pop tunes from the 40's and
50's. The main reason why I can't remember the popular "tunes" of the 90's
is because there is very little "tune" in anything they sing or play
today..... After I listen to most of them, I get the impression that If I
took away their drum section, they would all have to disband and go
home......:^)

Post by Jonathan ;o}
Of course, songs that you hear every 30 minutes are the ones currently being
plugged by record companies and are often heard weeks before they are
actually on sale (God knows why - by the time you can buy it, it's
popularity has passed). Maybe they don't even produce the discs until they
know the reaction. And staff in record stores are at work so they don't get
a chance to hear the radio programmes you hear.

This has changed since I was a tad.....In those days, the record came out
first, and then you started to hear it more and more on the radio. I think
the fans would call in and ask for it, and that's how it made the, "top 40".

Post by Jonathan ;o}
I think that you've forgotten how many skills you've acquired on the road to
becoming musical. You've learned intervals and what they sound like, and
you've learned timing, and you can put them together to help commit a tune
to memory. I can do it too, but most people can't because it's not normally
a natural gift. Some people can jump ridiculously high, but I imagine those
who do it highest learned how to do it.
Jonathan ;o}

Well, all of these musical skills can be developed with work, but few are
willing to do the work unless they have some natural talent to begin with.
In those days, most people thought that you HAD to have the natural talent,
or there was no hope. I used to love to sing, but my voice wasn't too good,
so I was never encouraged. Now I know that good voices are developed, and
had I studied voice, I could have been a very good singer. (Probably opera,
since I love classical music.)

[Jonathan ;o}]

Post by William Graham
Well, all of these musical skills can be developed with work, but few are
willing to do the work unless they have some natural talent to begin with.
In those days, most people thought that you HAD to have the natural talent,
or there was no hope. I used to love to sing, but my voice wasn't too good,
so I was never encouraged. Now I know that good voices are developed, and
had I studied voice, I could have been a very good singer. (Probably opera,
since I love classical music.)

Sadly, most of my early music lessons involved a big stick (although it
wasn't used, just threatened), so I wasn't led and there was no element of
personal choice. I'll never know how much of my music was inherent.

But since I now make my living from it, I like to think that I would have
followed another path to the same place anyway.

I'm so glad some things have changed.

Jonathan ;o}

[a***@hotmail.com]

- A musical education is necessary for musical judgement. What most
people enjoy is hardly music; it is, rather, a drowsy reverie relieved
by nervous thrills.

George Santayana