Fuck Classical Music

Older and Eastern European

2012-01-19T18:28:00.002-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/the-phone-that-interrupted-the-philharmonic.html?_r=1

For the fans of the Philharmonic, this episode was, I think, a defining moment in the career of Mr. Gilbert, who was appointed music director in 2007. Like other longtime concertgoers, I’d had some difficulty embracing Mr. Gilbert. I’m old-fashioned. I can’t help thinking a conductor has to be older and Eastern European, and should arthritically mount that podium with a furrowed brow, brooding over every note.

---

"older and Eastern European"

Where does the New York Times find these assholes?

2011-11-17T00:33:00.002-05:00

Wow, Eric Booth responded to a post of mine on Create Equity. Now I'm nervous, dangit.

Will I have the courage to continue to speak my mind, even to confront, challenge, or contradict him?

Out of respect to his work, I must, if I feel it's right.

Aw, fuck it. This is fuck classical music, after all.

Dear music deans: you're going to use buzzwords to save the day?

2011-11-11T15:24:00.003-05:00

Entrepreneurship. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

This guy, Ian Moss, writes a great blog. Here's his recent take on entrepreneurship in music:

http://createquity.com/2011/11/emerging-ideas-classical-musics-new-entrepreneurs.html#comments

He's a smart guy; it's always well-written and balanced, and he's definitely covering things from a younger, NOT-been-writing-grants-for-20-years-and-can't-talk-normal-speak perspective. But the whole musical entrepreneurship thing is definitely a hottie hot button for me, so I had to pour my normal vitriol all over the fucking table. Yes, and drop the f-word.

Here was my comment which elicited a highly civilized response from Ian, which means I have to grow up for 2 seconds and answer him...

Let me highlight 2 big questions I have, not rhetorical fist-jabs, actual questions:

How does ICE compare to early Orpheus? Why is it so new or different? (Really, I’m curious)

Why did Speculum Musicae dissolve? (They got teaching jobs/kids/old/??)

------
My post:

I have the distinct impression that the current crop of innovators, at least in NYC, is heavily funded by their parents.

Sorry if it sounds like sour grapes, as I obviously don’t have that sort of backing, but it’s not just a simple a matter of “if I had more money, I could do more of my art” but rather, what is possible and sustainable in this field if you’re a middle class participant? Is it reasonable to attempt to build a stable american life in this field? If the ‘meritocracy’ of music is build on such a steep pitch that only the upper class can climb the ladder, then we might as well say that it’s the same aristocratic pursuit as was in old europe. Oh no, wait — people are taking headshots of themselves in front of rusted box cars. Sometimes I forget how egalitarian we’ve become.

I think a VERY rich study waiting to be done is the philanthropy that occurs in the familial setting. The dollars that go into the arts by parents funding their childrens’ study and professional activities. I can’t tell you the number of people I know who DO NOT MAKE THEIR LIVING through their entrepreneurial activities. They are supported, in some cases by their normal-job-working spouses, and in many cases by the financial support of health insurance, apartments purchased, and instruments purchased through their families. I’ll never forget the heated discussion I once had with a colleague who insisted that all she needed to do was cover rent, utilities, and food, and therefore, she was making a living in NYC. Nevermind her wealthy fallback: health insurance paid by parents, retirement guaranteed via inheritance, a lifetime of summercamps and quality lessons from a young age, etc.

How the fuck does classical music belong to everybody when it’s only practiced by rich kids? How the fuck do we expect normal americans to fall in love with music that is infused to the core with upperclass money and values and arcane practices? How the fuck can classical musicians not see the appeal of pop music, it’s most “degenerate” forms, which allow people to express themselves in new ways, without the cumbersome, dinosauric, aristocratic apparatuses of the classical regime? I don’t know, but I’m going to put on my tuxedo and think about it.

There is certainly a burst of activity going today on that fits into the entrepreneurial category. Though we say this at the risk of thinking that we are the generation that invented sex. But I have the nagging questions:

How does ICE compare to early Orpheus? Why is it so new or different? (Really, I’m curious)
Why did Speculum Musicae dissolve? (They got teaching jobs/kids/old/??)

In the quasi-recent NYT article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/arts/music/05musicians.html?pagewanted=all
several pessimistic case studies (people) are examined. The article balances this perspective, essentially entirely with Claire Chase. I seem to remember her saying something to the effect of working with new models, not waiting for work to come in, getting off your butt to make it happen, etc. All good and fine. But what exactly is so different in the SUSTAINABLE sense of the word? How is ICE really any different? Don’t get me wrong – I love that group! They sound amazing! They can play the ‘standards’ as well as anyone, as they proved at this recent Mostly Mozart. But I don’t think they are a NEW MODEL of any sort… (someone happily prove me wrong?)

Even without the support of rich parents, you can kill yourself throughout your 20′s and 30’s, making all this stuff happen, getting your reviews, building your website, and the question is: what will you be left with? (Here’s the answer: BEST case scenario, present day, is a university teaching job. How is that entrepreneurial? That’s institutional, not entrepreneurial.) I really really hope this doesn’t sound like a frothy-mouthed rant from someone who hasn’t gotten the gigs they wanted. Far from it, I’ve been pretty lucky to get what I have. It’s the road ahead that is making me think twice. It’s the realization that I’m one of the few people on this ship who doesn’t have a lifejacket or a spot reserved in a lifeboat.

I think these organizations are very far from proving that something new is afoot. I think they are certainly wearing new clothes, and producing new types of music, and hoping that the perceptions of audiences grow, become pluralistic, and financially giving. But I don’t think we’re there yet.

Honestly, I think the best shot that these leaders in the field have, is securing the middle-class positions that universities and conservatories provide. I hope they do. I hope I do, too.

Now, as far as conservatories catching on to any sort of entrepreneurial trend, someone needs to take them to task in major ways. This really looks like window dressing for institutions that rely on students to buy into a ponzi-scheme. What sort of morality governs these institutions that pump out thousands of graduates into a field that can support hundreds? They are really rubbing shoulders with for-profit vocational institutes, here. Phoenix online looks saintly in comparison. Sending a student into an artistic field with student debt is one of the stupidest (and cruelest) things you can do to someone. At the age of 18, a musician in love with music can’t make that rational assessment, but the administrators who know the field CAN. Med school, law school, b school – ok, I can buy into that. It’s a reasonable investment. But MUSIC school? It’s a flat out gamble!

If Knight, Mellon, Ford, Dorris, or whoever, REALLY wants to shake things up, they should take a critical look at the conservatory system. The conservatories and the orchestras are the institutional pillars of american classical music. The state of classical music falls squarely into their lap. I don’t see them doing anything interesting. I don’t see anything entrepreneurial going on. Just different ways of embalming the same music. New pedestal, same museum.

Which brings us to the individuals which you profile, here. They’ve gone outside the institutional routes (to start, at least). My contention is that this isn’t a sustainable path, unless you have serious financial backing. And even so, traditionally, the most successful get absorbed back into the university system.

Of course, I sincerely hope they succeed. A rising tide lifts all boats.

But the longer I think about it, the more I’d rather just go the pop music route. At least I’d never have to wear a fucking tuxedo. (no, seriously.)

2011-08-09T12:26:00.002-04:00

"Making art for art’s sake, free of monetary concerns or deadlines, is a fantasy for many professional artists. But listening to snippets of Brahms and Schubert waft through sun-dappled trees one afternoon, a critic had the sense that at Marlboro such utopian fantasies remain a vibrant reality. "

By VIVIEN SCHWEITZER
Where Musicians Bask in the Luxury of Time
New York Times, Published: August 8, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/arts/music/marlboro-music-school-and-festival-in-vermont.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=music

It's a "vibrant reality" because most of these people are not people who have to work for a living. They don't have to stress out about rent on a monthly basis. Of COURSE there are Cinderella stories here and there. But I'm talking the culture as a whole, it's an upper class thang.

So why should we be impressed that they take off an entire summer from money making when they were never subjected to those pressures in the first place? I'm mostly talking about the younger generation, here.

I honestly don't think this is an appropriate way to position the relevance of Marlboro. Yes, we all know it's the golden land for chamber music, a mega resume builder, (career guarantor, almost), and in a beautiful part of the country, with really nice people. If I ever got accepted, I would drop everything and go in a heartbeat, even if I had to pay my rent off credit cards.

But to say that they have unlimited time is somehow missing the bigger picture. When these folks return to NYC et al, and start hammering away on concerts that are put together in a couple rehearsals, what's the reason for the difference? Are most of these folks *really* funding the standard of living in which they partake? Are they really covering their expenses with their work? Are they being forced to work in a way that compromises their ideal artistic activity due to financial reasons? Really?

What I'm trying to say is that, most of the upper eschelon classical musicians in NYC live a middle class existence, and of the younger ones that are headed (or have 'arrived') in that circle are NOT PAYING THEIR OWN rent with their work. So whether they do this in a highly-visible way at Marlboro, or dispersed amongst east cost urban enclaves, what's the difference?

Nice apartment

2011-04-11T09:26:00.004-04:00

I'm playing some chamber music with some of the fucking finest musicians of my generation. I'm so lucky.

If I had to type a resume listing their accolades as my own, my computer would crash. (they probably have macs)

We are rehearsing in apartments in manhattan that are... very nice. Like, the kind of nice that I'll never be able to afford. They feed us gourmet sandwiches, juice, coffee, whatever you need, dear. Warm and sincere hospitality, like a breath of fresh air in this town.

But this is not my life. These are not my people. Oh, if they saw where I come from. Oh, if they knew the miles of fecal piping I've crawled through. Life in this city, and sometimes anywhere else, is fucking hard. Fucked up landlords, fucked up neighbors, fucked up neighborhoods, fucked up drivers, etc.

I don't know how to deal with this nice stuff. It's not real. It's only possible through the insulation of millions and millions of dollars. These people are nice, and I like them, but they're just not my people.

I don't like that I'm devoting my life to an artform which lives in the well-appointed apartments of rich people. The pinnacle of which, as demonstrated by this concert, is to play for a bunch of really old people who fall asleep in the concerts.

I am so blessed to be playing this music with these people. And in the moment, I'm just loving it, just rocking hard into the sound and turning like a river in a jagged valley, splashing over glistening round rocks.

But this rich-people thing just don't fuckin feel right.

Now they're on the same boat as us.

2011-04-11T09:16:00.003-04:00

Movie theaters face streaming.

Hollywood is looking at ways to stream product directly into people's homes, up to 8 weeks after theatrical release.

What does this mean?

It means theaters are having to come to terms with their reason for existence. Just like live classical music has to..

It's a convergence of issues concerning the congregant-arts -- which is any artform that requires the gathering of people. If we treat art as information, it can be piped into a computer without any 'loss'. If we treat (performing) art as a process, it is a much stickier topic.

A fearsome idea, indeed, the notion that the reception of the audience is every bit as important as the creative impetus of the composer. It totally upends the entire structure of conservatory/music-school education.

Interested to see how this plays out, in the movies.

Performance Practice

2011-02-04T22:57:00.003-05:00

Performance practice.

Can't put some distortion into a baroque piece, they say...

I'll tell you what performance practice is: walking home after a gig with a heavy instrument, through fucking frozen streets gusting with trash, to a shithole freezing apartment, to try and catch some sleep before the sun claws at your eyes to get up and fight the next day.

If you're not fighting this hard, I don't know how the fuck you can afford to live in NYC as a creator of art, and if you are funded by your husband, or your parents, then fuck you, why are you reading this blog at all?

Indie Classical Music

2011-02-04T22:46:00.003-05:00

The problem with indie classical music is that....

most of it sucks.

Like my classical-music-outsider girlfriend said, at the Ecstatic Music marathon:

What's the deal with this guy? He sounds like a bad wedding singer? Is it karaoke night?

I understood how it was a blend of post-minimal, modernist-lieder, pan-diatonic, bang-on-a-can-for-the-2010's. But when she said that, I listened from my pop music side. And yeah, it sucked balls.

See, the idea that music encapsulates the most incredible things that make us human, and tell us about LIFE, that idea get's a little lost in classical music, due to the huge technique buffer. I.E., you have to practice for 20 years like a machine to even "speak" coherently in the language.

So you put a bunch of well-trained, formally groomed rich kids on stage, put the spark in their head that they can draw on pop influences, and what do you get?

A bunch of posturing? Some compelling whining about how their college-prep education was so sub-par?

I'll take the singer songwriters any day.

On a separate note, I'm wondering why the critics are giving all this shit a total pass. They'll pan a performer for the most arbitrary aesthetic nuances in Chopin. But go play some radiohead/aphex/beatles??!/etc and you're fuckin golden.

I think they nervous. Trying to stay relevant. Relevant.... Elephant.... Sycophant.

Orchestras: Haute Cuisine at the dining hall

2010-10-25T11:48:00.001-04:00

http://mirushto.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-some-orchestras-too-good.html

Michael's post about Hospitals and Olive Garden sparked out some thoughts. Here was my response:

One debate surrounding hospitals, is concerning how they have replaced primary care facilities for the poor. What's cheaper, emergency kidney dialysis or eating healthy food? Fixing hospitals w/o fixing healthcare is impossible.

So I contend, that focusing on orchestras outside of the analogous larger contexts is similarly dangerous and ill-conceived.

Classical music doesn't fall under the umbrella of the Orchestra. It's the other way around. Unfortunately, as fundraising behemoths, they inevitably control the conversation, and take representation of classical music ex officio. This might seem like a small point, but this misalignment is responsible for many of the woes we are facing today.

The institution is simply outdated.

Classical music is not outdated. High quality music is not outdated. People gathering for concerts is not outdated. But the orchestra as an institution is outdated.

The question is whether we can build institutions that serve audiences with great music. That doesn't mean pandering to the lowest common denominator. But I think it means addressing the idea of building a sustainable ECOSYSTEM of music in our large cities, rather that hand-wringing over how to fill a hall for the same product, over and over again.

Orchestras do not encourage the sort of thinking that is required for this transformation, either in on the management side, and CERTAINLY not on the artistic side. And both are required.

Anyway, regarding a diversity of dining options, yes, we need that. Pop music gladly fills the spectrum of price points. But I think it has to do with more than ticket prices. Many many top-notch institutions offer lower priced alternatives that are quite reasonable. When I see an orchestra, it's like eating a high quality meal at a tacky, chintzy restaurant filled with a demographic gulf of at least 40 years.

It's going to take a lot more than transcriptions of Radio Head and Aphen Twin to turn our United Colors of Beneton image into a reality.

Oh no, wait, NY Phil musicians went to a junk yard. I guess we've knocked down that wall and we're in with the blue collar crowd, now.

If Carnegie can't break 10k on a fundraiser... who can? And what good is it all?

2010-03-18T17:22:00.004-04:00

NYTimes: More Cash to Go to a Hall Than to Haiti

There something disingenuous about arts organizations taking up disaster causes.

I mean, how can non-profits help other non-profits, when the needy-non-profits just need some *profits* to put towards the cause?

I worked with a small ensemble on a 'fundraiser' many years ago. It seemed more like an excuse to get a bunch of people to work for less/or free, and build good will towards putting on a concert. I mean, we raised peanuts, and everybody knew it.

And this thing about raising the profile of the disaster, so it doesn't leave the public's mind. Ok, I get that. But the organization/talent also gets an *association* with the idea of charity, and gets to be seen "rushing to the rescue," even if they're just tossing a rubber ducky to flood victims.

I'm not trying to pick on Carnegie, they're by far the most progressive large concert music organization I can think of. But it's really something to think about. Should there be a certain level to meet? It would have to be based on a sliding scale? But what scale? Non-profits can hardly be measured by their cash flow, it ignores the important cultural capital they trade in. And would decide...etc, etc.

Oh well. NY will be listening, eating, and drinking, and patting ourselves on the back for doing it all in the name of Haiti.

Loogies, Hearing Aides, New Music Concerts, and blushing in Flushing

2010-02-24T00:25:00.003-05:00

New Music concert tonight. All living composers, in the room. (except Mr. Marquis)

You know that scene in "Heat," where DeNiro barks into the phone, "What am I doin? I'm talkin to an empty telephone." [Dude in trouble]: "I don't understand." DeNiro: "Cause there is a dead man on the other end of this fuckin line."

Well, how about an empty hall? Filled with clingers on. Standing on the shore. One foot in the river, already. Buncha old guys who wrote tunes, buncha young losers sawing them out, buncha old people listening.

This is music?? What the FUCK!!

The most beautiful sounds were the overtone series, streaming out like fairy icicles, from the hearing aid from an old mountain of feathery white hair and bundled coat material, hunched in the back. At one moment, he was hawking the most disgusting loogies, which reverberated throughout the entire church. I'm talking loogies that would make the old chinese men/women who, with them, pave the streets in Flushing, end up blushing. If I tried, I couldn't re-create these repiratorally clawing sounds of imminent death.

At one point, he pronounced to his wife, "Can you hear it?"

But it was the dulcet tones of his hearing aid, removed and adjusted every five minutes, that gentle whistling of the aural post-man, to make Schoenberg jealous, which made my heart gentle.

God set us all awound in his santuary, that room, whose scope was shrunken by the paucity of our intentions, and watched the unfolding. Pure theater.

2009-06-26T12:44:00.004-04:00

corwinchristie talks about what we get paid

Do you remember the last time you met a romantically desperate person?

It wasn’t really a turn-on, was it? This can happen to physically beautiful people, to the same effect.

Romance aside, desperation is poison to friendships and business. It’s not really a character fault, but a perversion of a basic need. Deprive someone of the love and acceptance they desire, and they will begin to yearn for it in uncontrollable ways.

Well, classical music is like a really hot chick with a bad case of desperation. She’s got the goods, personality, cute laugh, good T-zone skin, but she’s so caught up in proving her self-worth that she’s become a desperate tramp who wants to please everyone.

When did we become beggars? When did art become medicine - something that you tolerate, because it’s *good for you*? HEY. Wake up call. You know what? WE’VE GOT THE GOODS. WE ARE THE SHIT. WE MAKE SOMETHING THAT NOBODY ELSE CAN MAKE.

WE ARE THE MUSIC MAKERS, AND WE ARE THE DREAMERS OF THE DREAMS.

It’s time for the world to come to us. And I don’t mean it’s time to retreat into ivory towers. We’re taking our ball and leaving the playground to go smoke behind the bleachers.

We’re not holier than thou, we’re just fuckin cooler than you.

Poker faces

2009-04-30T09:25:00.001-04:00

"It is exceedingly rare to see orchestral musicians exhibiting feelings onstage, especially feelings for conductors; the code of the profession demands a poker face under almost all circumstances." -by Alex Ross, May 4, 2009

"Because orchestral musician are transformed from their artistic selves into douche bags via the oppressive machinery of the institution, whose mission is guided by the fear of offending." -FCM, 4/30/2009

Our "Gelded Age"

2009-04-13T21:59:00.003-04:00

This is my reply in the comments of a post from the Minnesota Orchestra Blog
Minnesota Orchestra Blog
Friday April 10th

My response:

I'm sorry if my post was taken personally. The sarcasm about Gershwin was not directed towards you or your esteemed colleagues, but towards our industry as a whole. (And I'm sorry if anybody reading loves Gershwin, but...well...nevermind, I won't even address that softpedalling towards "mass appeal")

Artistic integrity IS central, germane, and relevant to a discussion of the business model. How could it not be? It's the *Raison d'Etre* of business model that supports it! This supposed 'firewall' between 'talent' and 'administration' is a plague upon us.

100 bored-as-hell musicians might be a crass way to put it, but let me ask, when is the last time you were able to take an artistic chance on stage? I mean, a chance that put your artistic capital at DIRECT risk? A situation, where say, you developed a personal artistic statement/product/interpretation that varied from 100 years of precedent, but which you believed in, and which you believed shed light on a facet of the work you were dealing with. Only one person on stage can do that, practically speaking.

Symphonic music has a particular divinity that can't be achieved without the synergistic euphony of 100 highly talented instrumentalists. But like anything, it can be overdone. The individualistic sacrifice required to achieve this artistic product forces musicians to play it safe AS ARTISTS. That small amount of Safety is stored in the body, like mercury, and becomes a narcotic in the doses that the American symphony orchestra administers.

It's why orchestras are unionized and string quartets are not. (For the record, I believe that in concept, unions are very necessary, and a symptom, not cause, of deeper conflicts)

How about this:
Wouldn't you rather be part of a healthy ecosystem of solo playing, chamber playing, orchestral playing, and teaching? (yes, operas, cantatas, and more) Wouldn't you rather see your salary go towards these diversified activities? (That's an honest question, not rhetorical.)

Why don't orchestras give their musicians "20 Percent Time" like we see at Google? Yes, it's a silly question given the current status quo. But I think it illustrates the vast chasm between the notion of individualism, cherished and forever embedded in American myth, lore, and practice, and the clashing of that notion with the internal culture of our symphonies.

BTW, nobody likes to see a chicken little screaming his little head off about how "classical music is dying." No need to kick that fossilized, equestrian corpse. But let me say this, the real chicken little, should have been screaming during our recent "Gilded Decades" of finance and the generation of enormous private wealth (i.e., did philanthropy increase correspondingly?) Because now, ALL non-profits may be looking at riding it on down the "Gelded Decade."

To Recap:
I love music. I love symphonies. I love musicians. I love chocolate. I think the way our system incorporates these things, ultimately, blows donky balls.

PS, @ Mauskapf:
A Harvard composer (unnamed) once described the american conservatory system as a ponzi scheme. When you consider that the culture fosters the widespread idea of education as a "backup" or "safety net" (can we just call it bastard stepchild?) to performance, the description becomes quite unfortunately apt.

PPS,
Symphonies aren't generally known for their progressive tendancies:
from Ross's (Ross'? Ross's's? Rosssessss) recent NYer article:
Miles Davis used harsher language when he explained why he gave up studying trumpet at Juilliard: “No white symphony orchestra was going to hire a little black motherfucker like me.”

New World Symphony does fast and cheap.

2009-04-07T10:38:00.002-04:00

From NPR
Classical Music in Miami: Fast and Cheap

This is interesting. Why fight the shrinkage of attention spans, eh?

I wonder how it is, that in our world of such diverse pieces, that there is a sort of consensus of concert durations, that is prevalent throughout the country. (and world?

Scaring children

2009-04-06T17:37:00.002-04:00

This is poignant.

Get lost, damn kids!

From the UK Guardian:
Another thing: I've noticed that bus and train stations now pipe canned classical music, day-in, day-out, through their speakers as a way of stopping young people hanging around. So toxic have the associations become, that this experiment actually works: there is evidence that playing Beethoven and Mahler has reduced antisocial behaviour on the transport network.
END QUOTE

If that is true. Well.... what can you say......

Waitaminute. What would Fuck Classical Music do in a situation like this? I KNOW! We'll play agro punk death thrash gabber at classical music concerts to scare away all the conservative old people. (Not the old people, the conservative old people.)

How about this. How about we mount a campaign to take back our fucking music. Putting good music onto elevators and shopping centers and phone hold-lines is like prostituting that shit. Background music is the equivalent of aural pornography. You're taking something beautiful and forcing it to lay flat for an unfulfilling ritual of the unresourced.

Anybody who puts our music out as background music is pimping that shit on the streets.

Anybody want to play an entire concert with porn projected behind the whole thing, to make this point? What's that? Subjugation of women? Fine, gay porn.

I'm starting to get this funny feeling..

2009-04-03T10:36:00.004-04:00

I'm starting to get this funny feeling.. like, I'm going to have to let go of the idea that the music has to be good. Any red lights going off in your head? Slippery slope, right?

What I never liked about Fluxus or Dada is that, the music, the PRODUCT, the TITS were just too weak. Cut up. Street level crap. When all I want is pure columbian.

Just hearing a little blurb that Fred Ho said (w/ Oteri on NewMusicBox) about the weight of the CLASSICAL CANON. THE CANON.

We've see how the product, the music, can be commodified to the nth degree. I mean, check this out: pressing a million different versions of Beeth 9 doesn't diminish the quality of the work, right? It only invites more opportunity for people to experience it, right? But let's be real here, has the public's involvment with music been comensurate to the proliferation of recordings? Don't ask me for a fucking Pew funded chart: it hasn't. I think it's actually easier to shuffle that piece away, thinking, "oh yeah, i've seen that everywhere a million times." Like the Carol King Tapestry record that I saw in every used record store I entered. (Anybody who's browsed vinyl knows what I mean) I never wanted to listen to it, it looked like musical wallpaper to me. (How ignorant of me! I don't know a thing about this lady!)

I have sort of always liked the idea of encountering a phenomenon (a piece of music) that is totally transcendant of it's surroudings. Like, just golden music, whipered down from God's doves into Greg's ears, and to hear it is like looking back up a fiberoptic shaft of light, straight into gods balls, to see the swirling gestation of future universes.

The idea that this phenomenon is distilled from the mundanities of daily life makes it so intoxicating.

But maybe it can be too distilled. Maybe what makes it so seductive is also a poison to our mindfulness of the present. A desperate attempt to fulfill a 19th century ideal of virtuosic genius. Someone once said that every man is trying to either live up to his father's expectations or make up for his father's mistakes.

Maybe this pursuit has devolved into a blinding fetish that sends us stumbling into the woods, trying to catch the horizon.

But, to cast aside the hard-earned, cultivated understanding of SOUND. Is it too precious, like the ego? Does it put us in danger of becoming rambling renegade monks?

It's scary to think about throwing that compass down a ravine.

Fred Ho.

2009-04-03T10:30:00.000-04:00

http://www.newmusicbox.org/article.nmbx?id=5785

I like this dude.

FRED HO:
We don't have think tanks or summits of our own artists trying to figure out these questions. We're still letting the industry wonks determine the agenda, because what we always say is that we have to be artists first. But I've always felt that we can't separate being producers and our own entrepreneurs, and being masters of our own artistic destiny. It's inextricable. To have the artistic freedom to do what we really want to do—particularly the more transgressive and the more "out" it is—requires us to be even better in terms of management, organization, and entrepreneurship.
END QUOTE.

"Please be more rowdy."

2009-03-28T10:00:00.004-04:00

the revolution will not occur by the writing of new pieces or the polite urging of audiences reconsider the fashion not to clap between movements. I find it just as stilting when people feel obliged to clap after jazz solos.

It will have arrived when the audience member doesn't give a fuck what anybody thinks and wants to hoot at the badass sound they just heard.

We have to throw the whole vase against the fucking wall and walk out.

It's going to take microcosm-ecosystems of venue, audience, performers, and composers to grow a separate world from what we know. The hardest part is allowing the process to be organic, and thus, authentic (and then, sustainable). When we contrive nonchalance or edginess or coolness, we're treating the symptoms and missing the root cause.

We're going to have to live this, not simply change our season brochure's background color to black, or post blogs in all lower case letters.

Get to the root, motherfuckers, get to the root. Time is short.

Here's a small trap that leads to big snobbery.

2009-03-24T15:17:00.000-04:00

Jay Nordlinger in the New Criterion, March 2009 Ed.

The above review sort of makes me cringe, (reminding me of my own shortcomings?) because it's filled with the platitudes and cliches that we all rely upon when speaking about music in a casual sense. In fact, it would really be at home on a blog, as it's written in a very casual, approachable, personal style. Before hucking stones at this house, though, I wanted to look inward, and find out why I had an adverse gut reaction.

I think the reasons are, that I sensed a kind of pretentiousness in the writing for which the classical scene is so often reviled. Let's back up for a minute: In expressing a wealth of subtle and complex opinions about subtle and complex music, ya sort of have to accept a certain language (and inevitable social-economic implications) that is an easy target for egalitarian contempt (see? like those big words, right there!) Sometimes, pretentiousness is an unfortunate byproduct of narrowly-focused, passionate, and brilliant intentions held up to exacting standards. I'm willing to accept that language, to enter that world, if it bears some fruit. Like walking through shit on an organic farm to get some nice, juicy, informed, mind-expanding fruit.

But if yer gonna write in a casual style, and you're not going to deliver some insights into the content of your subject - I have to insist that the writing must be scrubbed of all traces of arrogance, disdain, and the beloved Bush-era-propaganda-depiction-of-Frenchness.

Nordlinger’s piece is full of criticisms, but he doesn’t explain them to the reader. That’s the fatal weakness. It’s a flaw passable in personal expression, but this is a published article in an established journal, a format demanding some respect to the reader and the critiqued performers. Failing this, Nordlinger falls into an insidious classical music trap (whose teeth leave no ankle unscarred, my own included): his criticisms are unexplained and casually lobbed. However unintentional, this moves in the direction of implying that his name is enough to back the goods without explanation, furthering the myth of the classical music snob.

Our field can’t endure those kinds of mistakes, big or small.

Some excerpts which speak for themselves: (you can read the article yourself, but placing them in context won’t salvage them)

On this night, she sounded frayed—battle-scarred—but was also game. Gameness counts for a lot in singing.

He is never unprepared. But he, and the opera, could have used more flavor and oomph. Over this entire performance hung a grayness: a mediocrity, an okayness—a sense of “Good enough for government work.”

One night he is world-beating—a pianist of the first rank; another night he is—okay. In his recent recital at the Metropolitan Museum, he was okay.

They showed obvious respect for the music, which is prerequisite. And each player evinced a soloistic quality, while cocking an ear to the whole.
[??????]

Levine closed out the program with a Mendelssohn symphony, the fourth one, called the “Italian.” He was very Germanic in it—but the symphony is “German” too, of course.

Internal combustion engine + musical instrument = Awesome.

2009-03-23T10:12:00.000-04:00

Photo by Ben Keyserling

New Musical Instruments Battle for $10K in Prizes

This. Gives. Me. A. Boner.

Is there anything cooler than combining a combustion engine with a musical instrument?

No.

Madlibs: Society doesn't need orchestras; What we need is ______.

2009-03-23T10:05:00.000-04:00

Clay Shirky on Newspapers

Excerpt:
"Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That’s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we’re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead."

Ok. Little switch-a-roo, here, Bloggo Madlibs on that first sentence:

SOCIETY DOESN'T NEED ORCHESTRAS. WHAT WE NEED IS MUSICAL INSTITUTIONS.

First of all, institutions are able to support artists and compensate them to a degree that reasonably allows a life dedicated to the performance of art. This baseline function is necessary to entice brilliant minds from other creative, capitalistic ventures. (If there was a musical organization that offered free snacks and lunch like Google, I would do ANYTHING to get in. Even learn four-part voice leading.) It also allows for the support of large-scale artistic productions that are not possible to realize on the individual scale. For a long time, the orchestra was a spectacle of size and sound that could not be imitated any other way. It was cause for social interaction, display of wealth and power, allowed a huge color and dynamic palette .

But the fact of the matter is that, these qualities of live orchestral performance have been stripped away by movie theaters and rock bands and a host of other modern day activities. What is left is a unique and highly valuable artistic product, but that in itself is simply not cause for attention from the community. In fact, what we have is wasted potential. Our system of auditioning-based pedagogy has created a class of myopically trained instrumental technicians, who in the younger generations are increasing better at performing the canon of classical orchestral repertoire, and in the older generations, are retired in place (RIP), as it is called. All eventually grow bored of the actual ACT of playing under the direction of a conductor, and some simply think of the symphony as a way to support their "true" artistic endeavors (if they harbor any such ambitions).

(BTW, what the fuck: 100 highly talented people submitting their will to a stick-wielding genius on a podium, as the BASIS, the Raison d'être, of American classical music. What the FUCK? Is there possibly a dead-er European paradigm that we can resurrect here? I’m not saying the occasional orchestral concert could be a wonderful thing as part of a healthy musical eco-system, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s corn subsidy and our kids are fat on the syrup.)

Can you imagine the results of 100 highly trained, inspired, and supported musicians doing work in the community? Just fucking imagine that. Sure - it could easily devolve into a chaotic mess of intentions and competition for resources, and dillution of branding, vision, and results, etc. Yes, I sound like a dreamy 16 year old high on coffee and a bright new idea. But just *imagine* what it could be. A bunch of musical ninjas swarming a city from within, pouring paint across the black and white pages of our culture.

Another excerpt to ponder (again, switch “Orchestras” in for “Print Media”).
BEGIN QUOTE:
“Print media does much of society’s heavy journalistic lifting, from flooding the zone — covering every angle of a huge story — to the daily grind of attending the City Council meeting, just in case. This coverage creates benefits even for people who aren’t newspaper readers, because the work of print journalists is used by everyone from politicians to district attorneys to talk radio hosts to bloggers. The newspaper people often note that newspapers benefit society as a whole. This is true, but irrelevant to the problem at hand; “You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone!” has never been much of a business model. So who covers all that news if some significant fraction of the currently employed newspaper people lose their jobs?

“You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone!” has never been much of a business model.
END QUOTE

Or an artistic model.

Somebody was here.

2009-03-23T10:03:00.000-04:00

Holy crap. There is evidence that somebody actually read this blog.

Greetings, cyber traveler. Please make yourself at home and be destructive while you are here.

Laid-off bankers discover their creative side.

2009-01-02T19:44:00.001-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/jobs/28bankers.html?8dpc

NY Times article. Bankers who are laid off are taking their severance packages and spending a few years trying to transition into their secret passions.

HEY! WAKE UP CALL, MR. NEW YORK TIMES! There are people who made this decision in their teens and early twenties. These people are called artists and musicians. They decided to take a few decades off from making money, and pursue artistic endeavors.

From the article:
“Things look so bad in finance that if you think the difference in salary multiple isn’t as big as it used to be between doing what you are viscerally interested in versus a job that’s just about money, it puts a whole different spin on it,” Mr. Terry said.

Mr. Gatter said that many of his colleagues at the bank commended his choice to leave, telling him that they also nursed ambitions to be chefs, photographers, writers and artists.

“Everyone seems to have something else they would rather be doing than their 9-to-5,” he said. “I think that people who are losing their jobs are being forced to pursue their dreams and, in a way, are being liberated from the golden handcuffs of Wall Street and venturing into something that might fulfill them.”
End Quote.

So.... the point is... that bankers are liberated from the seduction of greed, because greed isn't really delivering the goods right now; so these layed-off purveyors of an industry that has completely fucked the entire world are gonna do some arts and crafts while waiting for the next big bubble.

Bril.

You know, I'm just not really as successful as I would like to be in music. I'm gonna take my freelance severance and go start a hedge fund, which up until this point, I had just been doing on weekends and Wednesday nights.

I would like to start a concert series with the subtitle:

"No bankers allowed. EVER! (Even when things get good again! Go away!!)"

Anyone with me?

Obama and a new era for the arts

2009-01-01T07:09:00.000-05:00

"Obama and a new era for the arts."

Man, is that some bullshit headline or what? And yet.. irresistibly seductive to imagine. Maybe what Obama will do is make us believe that we can make good things happen, and let us believe in ourselves to get them done. He can teach us how to fish instead of just serving up the sushi.*

Story on NPR this AM, commenting on how Obama is bringing a poet to his inauguration. Elizabeth Blair said this has only happened four times before in history? Did I hear that right? And the guy used to WRITE poetry, it was suggested. !!!

And the man had an actual arts advisory committee during his campaign? Again, unheard of. Can you imagine hearing about an appointment for a position called "Secretary of the Arts". On Meet the Press, Obama is quoted as saying that we NEED the arts during tough times. Of course, financial turmoil is the easiest excuse for anyone to sever arts funding, but maybe we'll be going by a different play book right now.

Obama has indicated that he wants to bring arts back into the White House. Imagine - classical music and all kinds of other music at the White House! As part of the public image.

There's also a clip of Laura Bush promoting reading. "Reading." What the fuck is "reading"? It's a safe cop-out, right? By not addressing particular authors or pieces, you don't leave yourself open to associations that could become political liabilities. So just hearald "reading." That's like saying "listening." We want our kids to listen more. If you listen in the household, your kids will see you listening, and they will want to listen, too. Listening will make you smarter. Studies have shown that listening increases your enjoyment of life by 10% of those who don't listen.

* I had sushi last month, after about 2-3 years of none. I'd been broke those 2-3 years. Had a job, couldda had sushi every day, but just got my job hours cut way back. So I'm broke again. It's like one of those country songs.

Some thoughts about Gilbert E. Kaplan at the NY Phil

2008-12-19T09:11:00.000-05:00

What a great debate.

The Kaplan issue illustrates several things going on in our industry.

The last decaded is being heralded as the Gilded Age. So what happened to arts organizations? Did we flourish in step, as private wealth grew exponentially? If that happened, I missed it. Though we are sure to fall apart as the economy does as well. History will take note at the philanthropic activities as of late, and judge our culture accordingly. Like why an orchestra finds itself at the mercy of a single donor, in the richest, most powerful city in the world. Puzzling. I have no acute personal sympathy for the musicians per se (they'll be fine), but doesn't it say something about our American culture?

Playing under amateur conductors makes musicians uncomfortable, because it makes them feel like prostitutes, whoring out their musical talent to a dollar amount. These amateur conductors may not be hiring the orchestra for a set fee, but their involvement nets an aggragate contribution to the organization, in combination of politics, dollar amounts, and cronyism. And that's a breach of the firewall that stands between development and programming. The keystone of any performing arts non profit. If the orchestras were truly believed that they could broaden their horizons by picking people off the street to have Cindarella moments on the podium -- we'd know by now.

See, playing in an orchestra requires an enormous amount of trust. One essentially puts the artistic desires of oneself aside, for the unity of the ensemble, which is stewarded by ONE person: the conductor. The musicians, by walking onto a stage where they know they will be conducted, are giving cart blanche to their conductor. The conductor answers to no-one, musically. The scope of the conductors power, musically speaking, would make it look like Henry Paulson was wearing a straight-jacket.

The audience also implicity grants this trust. It is completely reasonable to assume that a curious, well-meaning listener of music may not know Mahler's 2nd Symphony. It is completely reasonable that a culturally exposed, philanthropically inclined listener might not know it. But these listners go to a symphony not simply to VERIFY that a genius is conducting the work. They expect to be guided through the work. As a listeners to a work of art, they are accepting that not all of their expectations will be met (not in quality, but in *content*). The work, hopefully, will challenge them. And they will have to trust that working through those challenges are a worthy, noble endeavor, that is worth their time.

I'd rather reflect on the intentional dissonance of a Ligeti chord rather than the unintentional dissonance of a Mozart chord played out of tune.

The orchestra, a relic of musical organization, which bears ABOSLUTELY NO relevancy to the 21st Centry, except through the sheer value of the repertoire it presents and the nature of institutional strength, does not really have the leeway to fuck around with loser conductors. Does the NYPhil take chances with picking a random kid from the bronx to conduct? A famous scratch DJ to impart new rhythmic ideas onto a Phillip Glass piece? How about a Japanese robot to conduct a fully serialized Boulez piece? Those ideas might be on par with inviting an enthusiastic rich donor to get on up. Are they taking equally adventurous "populist" chances with their marketing? Programming?

If populism is the banner under which the emperor is clothed, then why don't they host "American Idle Condcutor", let kids with dreams compete to conduct via YouTube, let people vote, involve the Nintendo Wii in some way.

Show me how throwing a wild-card onto the podium is part of a larger process, and we can forgive the error in the spirit of experimentation.

West Side Story

2008-12-15T11:13:00.000-05:00

West Side Story. On NPR this morning.

Does WSS bother anybody else except for me?

I guess I should reserve judgement, since I am personally biased against musicals. I just generally don't like them. Can't say why. It's not my bag, baby. But nonetheless, I can't understand the perennial fascination with this work. Is it because the music is amazing? The text? The incredible synthesis between the two? Does it somehow capture the ethos of the American spirit during it's time?

Maybe I'm too young to understand. Cuz. It just sounds stupid to me. Just goofy, contrived, and dumb. It offends the part of me that still really likes Nirvana.

Yeah, I know, blasphemy again Bernstein. Perhaps I am annoyed at the fuss that surrounds this work, much more than the work itself. Sort of like my reaction to Steve Reich. (I had to come to terms with the fact that I think he [Reich] is a patently mediocre composer, whose ideas have a lot of utility for classroom explanation, easy visual correlations, and apt representation for post-moderism. His primary accomplishments are an inevitable result of the technology of the day. The music is cool, and worth consideration. The lavish praise, festivals, and general celebration surrounding his music is sickening.)

Musicians from Marlboro, Freer Gallery, 12/10/2008

2008-12-14T06:47:00.000-05:00

So many old people. The performers, young, virile.

This is the height of success. To be at the top of your game, playing for the elderly. The TOP. Can you get better than Marlboro? Almost in a vacuum on stage. Do classical musicians ever feed off the audience?

Perhaps this is like Dick Dale playing the Warped tour or something. Old man, young audience.

The Mendelssohn Octet is so fun. It makes me want to explode into a million pieces. Talent like this does justice to string instruments. To hear 8 pieces of well-worn wood, thundering in accord.

Inaugural Post

2008-12-14T06:12:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, things are just so sticky, messed-up, complicated, and clusterfucked, that the only way to fix the situation is to blow the whole thing up with TNT and start new.

That is not a socially acceptable opinion. It is not a particularly thoughtful way to do things. In fact, it is most likely not the best way to go about doing things. There is something juvenile about it. It's facile and and fraught with cinematic illusion.

But I think right now, it's neccessary.

This blog is named partially in the hopes that I can never use this on a resume. That I can never mention it in fancy social circles. That it is too dangerous to merge with my public self. And that in such anonymity, I... ....WE... can find a freedom that thrills and inspires our best nature to come forth.

Eloquence is nice. And while it comes easier to some than other, it always takes consideration and calculation if it is earnest and of value. But the weight of its responsibility can be stifling. There is no deficit of restriction in our field. Time to shed it. Let us forgive ourselves for relying on clichés, speaking from the gut, tripping over our words, and stumbling around. We will stumble not as drunks, but as newborns. We will find something new in ourselves and in our music.

We will trade meticulously buttressed assertions for the chance to say outloud, the risky thoughts that have been simmering in the back of our heads. And like any self-proclaimed revolutionaries, we may fall inevitably prey to the heritage of our training and traditions. Like Schoenberg, unable to truly escape tonality. But I'm willing to give it a shot.

So to our chosen field: Forgive me. And fuck you.