Noted curmudgeon—and very smart and funny writer—Joe Queenan recently
threw down the gauntlet at contemporary classical music and those who, in his view, claim to like it.
Some notable quotes from his article “Admit It, You’re as Bored as I am”:
“In New York, Philadelphia and Boston, concert-goers have learned to stay awake and applaud politely at compositions by Christopher Rouse and Tan Dun. But they do this only because these works tend to be short and not terribly atonal; because they know this is the last time in their lives they'll have to listen to them; and because the orchestra has signed a contract in blood guaranteeing that if everyone holds their nose and eats their vegetables, they'll be rewarded with a great dollop of Tchaikovsky and Mendelssohn.”
“…nothing thrills a classical music crowd more than a new piece of music that doesn't make them physically ill.”
“Why has the public accepted abstract art but not abstract music? (Discordant visual art does not cause visceral pain, discordant music does.) Why does the public accept atonal music in films, but not in the concert hall? (“Jaws” wouldn't work if the shark's attacks were synchronized with “Carmen.” We expect sound effects in the movies, but we're not going to pay to hear them in the concert hall.)”
See the full piece here.
So are audiences only pretending to appreciate new music?
Is there any serious orchestral music of the last thirty years likely to still be played and listened to by willing audiences fifty years from now?
Should orchestras stick to old school, crowd-pleasers?
How do you react when you see an unknown, contemporary piece on the ISO's lineup?
Your thoughts?
Some notable quotes from his article “Admit It, You’re as Bored as I am”:
“In New York, Philadelphia and Boston, concert-goers have learned to stay awake and applaud politely at compositions by Christopher Rouse and Tan Dun. But they do this only because these works tend to be short and not terribly atonal; because they know this is the last time in their lives they'll have to listen to them; and because the orchestra has signed a contract in blood guaranteeing that if everyone holds their nose and eats their vegetables, they'll be rewarded with a great dollop of Tchaikovsky and Mendelssohn.”
“…nothing thrills a classical music crowd more than a new piece of music that doesn't make them physically ill.”
“Why has the public accepted abstract art but not abstract music? (Discordant visual art does not cause visceral pain, discordant music does.) Why does the public accept atonal music in films, but not in the concert hall? (“Jaws” wouldn't work if the shark's attacks were synchronized with “Carmen.” We expect sound effects in the movies, but we're not going to pay to hear them in the concert hall.)”
See the full piece here.
So are audiences only pretending to appreciate new music?
Is there any serious orchestral music of the last thirty years likely to still be played and listened to by willing audiences fifty years from now?
Should orchestras stick to old school, crowd-pleasers?
How do you react when you see an unknown, contemporary piece on the ISO's lineup?
Your thoughts?
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
6 Comments
Add Comment
And I actually like Philip Glass!
(I would not, however, believe anyone who claims to be able to listen to the entirety of any of his operas without the assistance of illicit drugs, or perhaps severe obsessive-compulsive disorder.)
And, just because some composers have been able to package themselves into something with mass-market appeal (Philip Glass) or accepted in academic/pseudo-intellectual circles (Ralph Shapey, for example) doesn't mean the entire new classical music medium is without merit or lacking in sincere expressive value. I have had true goose-bump moments and felt great uplifting and propulsive energy from several new works (Jennifer Higdon, Avner Dorman, Michael Daugherty, John Adams and even Philip Glass' Violin Concerto...even Glass has written some truth that speaks to people without politics playing a role.) Queenan's condemnation of new music just isn't fair.
And, BTW, the last time I felt like walking out of a concert hall, Schumann's Violin Concerto was being performed...played very well I might add, but what a dreadful piece of crap. Syphillis had indeed taken it's toll on that creative mind. OY!
rate music that 18th and 19th century audiences and critics had to sit through
before the results were distilled down to the standard repertoire of today. And
yet the best composers wrote plenty of lesser works that get regular play and
fail to get me excited when I go to a classical music concert.
Even if I consider myself a champion of new music and buy recordings and
performances any chance I get, I have heard my share of bad stuff--some of
it written by composers I know and admire. I believe the music that is good is
not getting repeat performances when they are well received. I do not believe the
musicians are holding their noses for new works unless they are the bad works.
Music is not for sound effects unless you want to buy the 20 or so recordings of
Vivaldi's Four Seasons available at any point in time on iTunes. Would rock
music be a vital music form if all you could get on the radio or online was All
Beetles, all the time, or playing you more of the Carpenter's 24/7, or your
grandparents loved this, so you better like it too!
I am amazed that music written over 50 years ago is too modern for some
concertgoers and curmudgeons and it was based on eastern European folk tunes.
Music isn't sound effects but what is wrong with music that evokes a visceral,
deep emotional response? Get over if a work is tonal or atonal. Most of the
purely academic composers have been marginalized by most good music
programers. Must music always be predictable? Is you say yes, stick with Vivaldi
and the Carpenters. I believe classical music lost its way while contemporary
art flourished because programs made bad new music choices, failed to repeat
the great works of the modern era, and kept dishing up the same old standard
repertoire as a defense for what is Truth and Beauty.