The following is taken from the end of Mr. Sandow's article. Please read and leave a comment below, if this topic interests you:
… There really is an alternative new-music audience, one that is hardly connected to classical music at all.
The beacon for this view of contemporary music would be Bang on a Can, a sharply informal New York group that is presented by Lincoln Center (and might even play thoroughly classical music by Elliott Carter), but does not look, feel, taste or smell like a classical institution, and in fact refuses to think of itself as part of the classical-music world. It draws 1,000 people to its annual new-music marathons, and these, said its director of development, Christine Williams, are in their 20's and 30's, attracted in part by aggressive marketing aimed at lovers of downtown dance, jazz, visual art and performance art.
In Milwaukee, an enterprising contemporary group, Present Music -- which gets up to 700 people at some of its events and impressively sells more than 200 subscriptions to its six-concert season -- has a similar philosophy. "You can look down from the stage, and see the earrings and nose rings and different- colored hair," said its director, Kevin Stalheim. "If I were going for mailing lists, I'd go to the art museum and modern dance companies, not the Milwaukee Symphony."
Present Music plays more traditional programs than Bang on a Can, ranging from mildly alternative composers like Henryk Gorecki and Steve Reich to mainstream stalwarts like Joseph Schwantner and Harrison Birtwistle. Why doesn't New York's alternative audience -- the people, for instance, who enjoy going to the Brooklyn Academy of Music -- come to hear similar programs at Carnegie Hall?
One big part of the answer is presentation. "We did a piece with black light, and we threw Ping-Pong balls around in the audience" Mr. Stalheim said. "We start our season like opening day at the ballpark, and maybe we'll play 'The Star-Spangled Banner' on a theremin. We try to end our concerts with parties." This is not selling out, Mr. Stahlheim insists, because most of the time the group is serious. But it gives his concerts good press and makes them fun.
Nonesuch Records cultivates its own version of this alternative audience, and has done wonderfully, sometimes selling more than 100,000 copies of CD's by Steve Reich, Philip Glass, Astor Piazzola and the Kronos Quartet, and only slightly less of John Adams. This, says Robert Hurwitz, who runs the label, is a market that was already there, one that overlaps with the classical-music audience but is also distinct from it, and which Nonesuch's vice president of marketing, Peter Clancy, described as "people open to the new, different and unusual, who seek out world music, modern and ethnic dance, and performance art." This, perhaps, is a contemporary version of the "intellectual audience" Virgil Thomson identified among classical-music listeners in New York in the 1940's, and the success of Nonesuch suggests that it might be bigger, at least potentially, than anybody thinks.
Can mainstream classical-music institutions attract these people? The enterprising Albany Symphony has placed composers in elementary and high schools and also presents an alternative new-music ensemble -- the Dogs of Desire -- at local colleges, thus using contemporary music to give the orchestra new roots in its community.
Mr. Wyjnbergen, of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, thinks he might present new music in "rock clubs, art galleries or an old factory that has been rigged up." He doesn't expect to attract younger people to the orchestra's existing programs, but instead hopes to include them by extending the Philharmonic's reach. He also identifies another "niche audience" for contemporary music, made up of "visual people, architects, painters, photographers and graphic artists." These, he thinks, he can attract by asking 40 of them to create visual impressions of contemporary musical works.
Mr. Pastreich, too, says he has tapped an alternative crowd when the San Francisco Symphony presents "maverick" composers like Lou Harrison or Meredith Monk. And while he says that 90 percent of his new-music listeners are drawn from his regular audience, he also notes that younger people are now buying tickets, thanks to the informality and commitment of Michael Tilson Thomas.
Should we be trying to educate the classical music audience, as my colleague so strongly urged? Why talk as if there's something wrong with it, as if it has a disease that needs curing? Instead, let's arouse it, excite it and draw new people to new kinds of artistic musical events. That way, even large institutions might renew themselves and heal the split between contemporary classical music and the rest of the arts.What do you think?
_____________________
If you like Mr. Sandow's writing, please check out some of the many links to his other articles on his home page.
_____________________
See my next post, Marketing Contemporary Music (2) for my thoughts on this topic.
_____________________
UPDATE: Both links above have been fixed (Jan, 2023). I also considerably expanded the portion of Mr. Sandow's original article quoted above.
Posts
5 comments:
I really think that there should be more attention and education devoted to contemporary classical music.
I do think that part of the problem is directed at concert halls who program shows and seasons with only the same ol' pieces that everyone is used to and has grown to love. It totally makes sense why venues do this of course. They need an audience to pay for funding and whatnot, and to ensure a good audience, there needs to be music that is pleasing and will draw a profitable crowd.
But there should be more chances taken and more opportunities for audiences to learn to accept and love works but new and current composers. There are some outstanding works being composer, and have been composed in the last century, but it is often dusted under the rug, and assumptions are made that people just won't like it.
If symphony's continue to just play works by Beethoven and Mahler, then what is the point of even composing in the first place? That is an absurd question, and it really gets me going to even think about it, but it is a sad truth.
If more people are educated, and learn the newly developing techniques and practices of modern music, they will quickly develop a liking towards it.
Hopefully in the future, there will be a bigger drive for contemporary music, especially because there is always a rising number of promising and talented composers come into the scene.
I think your link is broken, but I googled and found the same article from this slightly different URL: http://www.gregsandow.com/old/marketing%20contemporary.htm
Greg offers an inspiring insight on how to engage society in modern music. I especially like the idea of changing the setting and mood from a solemn concert hall to a party mood in a rock club. This idea has the potential to captivate a completely different clientele in new and exciting ways.
I think that 'educating' society on modern classical music is an elitist way of looking at this situation. I prefer to think of it as 'engaging' and 'exposing' society to these new sounds.
The link in this article is broken, but this one works - http://www.gregsandow.com/old/marketing%20contemporary.htm.
This article poses a challenge to those of us composing new music, and that is how are we going to get it heard? How do we find the people who would enjoy our music, and connect them to it?
The classical music audience goes to hear music that they are familiar with. "In Milwaukee, an enterprising contemporary group, Present Music -- which gets up to 700 people at some of its events and impressively sells more than 200 subscriptions to its six-concert season -- has a similar philosophy. 'You can look down from the stage, and see the earrings and nose rings and different- colored hair," said its director, Kevin Stalheim. "If I were going for mailing lists, I'd go to the art museum and modern dance companies, not the Milwaukee Symphony.'" Do we put up our posters beside those of modern dance companies, or make them in similar styles, or plaster them in and around art museums? How do we let people know what our music sounds like, in order to entice them to come out to hear it?
I like the idea that there is a different audience for contemporary music. However I also think there is overlap. For example, I love hearing classical music in concert, as well as modern music (at least some of it). I wonder if there is more connection between a contemporary music audience and an early music audience - if people who enjoy listening to baroque music on baroque instruments are more likely to enjoy contemporary music than the traditional classical music audience. Both of these types of music employ sounds that are not part of our regular soundscapes and are novel and invigorating, for audience members who like a bit of adventure.
The question posed at the start of the quote is very interesting to me and something I’ve thought heavily about. Why do we often try to market modernist music to a classical-music loving audience? Why is it that marketers often assume that the best audience for Schoenberg is the same audience of people who love to hear works by Beethoven, Mozart, and Grieg. Why not market this music to an audience of people interested in avant-garde works, and novel soundscapes? Someone who would go see a concert of noise music is just as likely, if not more likely, to enjoy a concert of Stockhausen, yet the works of modernist composers are shoehorned in with those of romantic composers in almost every major classical music venue. While education from a young age plays a big role in whether or not people are open to “new” music, at the present, it seems foolish to ignore the obvious market of people who enjoy avant-garde experiences. This seems to be less of a problem in some places as modernist music has gained a large audience in places like Scandinavia. This problem seems to mostly persist in major orchestral houses, and not in underground, and indie music scenes.
What is the problem with shoehorning these pieces in with romantic or even earlier classical styled works? It falsely assumes that these people will enjoy all of it because it all falls under the umbrella term of “classical music”. For many fans of western art music, the noise, unpredictability, and often harsh nature of modernist music is incredibly distinct from the aspects of classical music that they enjoy. Classical music is often treated as a sort of spa treatment for tired souls (in the words of Alex Ross). No wonder then, that people dislike these works, as they are not presented in an appropriate context. This is all of course, another aspect of marketing as the structure of programming is a part of marketing.
What’s the solution? Well, part of the solution is to rally the many people who enjoy experimental music into hearing modernist classical music as well. There is a large audience for avant-garde noise and industrial style music that would love to hear Stockhausen, Dallapicolla, etc. if they were presented these works in an appropriate manner. These same people may be less likely to go to a regular orchestral concert as there are certain customs for dress and behaviour that can go against their idea of a good listening experience. Presenting new works in venues with looser rules, and a more open atmosphere can attract many different kinds of listeners to works that they might not otherwise seek out. I’ve seen this work out great with local events like Nova Collective and I’m sure it can work throughout the rest of the world. Breaking down the barriers created by people who attempt to “gate-keep” the classical music world is essential to finding a larger, and stronger audience for modern music.
When I read the thesis of this article on this blog post, I was immediately intrigued. Unfortunately, when I clicked on the link, it said that the page was not able to be found. SAD! It's a good thing that this thesis alone is enough to warrant a comment. The way our collective perspective judges new music has always been of prime interest to me. While yes, some of the pieces are jarring, it is an artistic expression in musical form, equal to all the classic caucasian European men who have dominated classical music for way too many years. I, on the other hand, have been intrigued at all kinds of music, from Baroque all the way to atonal Schoenberg pieces in modern music. We see people going along with trends more and more so, with the rise of social media, and that is also true in music. If we changed the way in which we converse with people about new music, we will change other people's premonitions about new music. Modern music is a whole batch of things. So many amazing composers will do awesome, unique things, while others will stay basic, which we so often see in film scoring. That absolutely does not mean that film music is any less valid than the music of Schoenberg or Beethoven. Modern music should be celebrated instead of giving people a "listener discretion", such as "this piece may be jarring." Instead, we could say "This piece is jarring, but that's what makes it an awesome listening experience!" While it is understandable that people like pleasurable-sounding music, I have always interpreted music, even way before my degree, as an experience rather than something that has to be pleasureful all the time. Let's focus on engaging listeners with the experience of new music, the beauty and the creative heart that goes in it, via composers like myself. It is so easy to focus on the negatives: "This piece may be jarring." It's something we're used to. If we try and focus on the positives: "The experience of listening to this Schoenberg piece live is so awesome and fascinating, I can't even describe it." Then in time, we will usher in the classical / new music renaissance!
Post a Comment