Is classical music a dying industry?  That seems to be what a lot of people
are thinking.  Now that just about every worthwhile work is on CD, and
in many versions, the sentiment is that the recording industry is going to
cut back on new classical releases.  You can see their point.  How many
versions of Pachabel's Canon or Bach's Brandenburg Concertos are really
needed?  Currently there are so many versions of all the major works out there
that
the market is saturated.  If a studio has a hundred different digital
versions of a symphony, why payout big bucks to record yet another new
version?

The saturation is such that the cds you find in the budget or cut out
bins are as good or better than the newer versions of same you find in the
front of
the store.  The classical industry desperately needs new works.  As it is,
the day maynotbe far off where the classical labels release far fewere new
cds than they do today.

37 responses total.

You could certainly make a good case for that.  I hope it isn't true,
but I'm afraid it is.  What would it take to spark a new resurgence of
interest in classical music?  What would make teenagers start going
to the classical section in droves?

I'm not sure what it is that this item alleges is "dying". Classical music
or the repetitive production of different renditions of the same works? 
The question Richard asks is about the *industry*. Do we care if the
industry contracts, as long as most (significant..don't ask) classical
works are available? There are two issues here. One is the availability of
recording of classical works, in which lots of people have an interest,
and the other is the availability of a lot of different interpretations of
the same work, for which the audience is much narrower. I am most
concerned about the former.

#2...I'm talking a little of both.  Once the industry stops releasing
new recordings of classical music, it becomes difficult for new
classical performers to practice their craft.  The day might come
when nothing you can buy in the classical music section of a store
was recorded in the last twnety or fifty years.  That is when the
genre ceases to be *current*   Music, like any art form , needs to
be relevant and a product of its times to reflect those times.

I worry that the great new classical artists will never have the chance
the old ones did.

Ahhh..I was not thinking of the recording outlet for the *performers*. This
is in my second category (different interpretations), which I pay less
attention to than than I do to the composer's work (as long as it is decently
performed.  8^}). Yes, they do deserve outlets. But, as observed, the market
can't *absorb them all*. What are performers to do?

There's an article by Allan Kozinn about the classical recording
industry's current troubles in today's Sunday New York Times.
("A Once Proud Industry Fends Off Extinction") And it does have
troubles. The classical market share has dropped from 7% in 1987
to 2.9% this year, an all time low. Contributing factors cited
include the high price of new CD's, the fact that CD re-issues
of vintage classical recordings are available at much lower
prices, the "facelessness" of many current artists, the high
cost of promoting new recordings.

    "A reissue of a Herbert von Karajan recording of a Mozart
    symphony with the Berlin Philharmonic can be expected to
    sell thousands of copies; a recent Claudio Abbado version
    with the same band stalled at a mere 200."

A few companies are employing strategies that show signs of
success. Nonesuch has tripled the size of its staff since 1983
and its sales have increased 20-fold. In concentrates on the new
music (Philip Glass, Henryk Go recki, Kronos Quartet, et al),
and diversified offerings like "world" music, theater songs,
etc -- only 20% of its releases are standard repertory. Sony
Classical has also embraced new music and jazz/classical
crossovers, and is integrating composers and performers into
"a kind of repertory company".

Kozinn closes with the observation that the standard repertory
may benefit from this diversification:

    "Perhaps consumers' rejection of cookie-cutter performances
    will be the kick in the pants that forces performers to
    find something fresh to say about these works."

Yikes! Contriving to say "something fresh" about anything is a challenge
few artisans can meet. More likely they will try to say something just
*different*. I don't know the answer for providing adequate outlets for
performers, though the recording industry tries by issuing vanity recordings
- works performed or conducted by individuals. This also seems to depend upon
the vanity of the performers - consider how many releases there are of
works performed by (say) Jimmy Galway.

Thanks, John, for the pointer to the NYT article.  I got a copy from the 
NYT web site (www.nytimes.com); also a similar article a few days 
earlier on distress in the overall recording industry.  More in a bit.

How much of the classical industry's income comes from concerts as opposed
to recordings?  I would think that it would be a larger fraction than for rock
music or other kinds.  And the income from concerts is certainly not going
to go away.  

Actually, I think concert attendance is way down.  And, well, your average
professional rock band has maybe 5 members and probably plays 4 or 5 gigs a
week, right?  Whereas your average symphony orchestra gives maybe 4 or 5
concerts a *year* and includes how many musicians?

The problem is that large orchestras cannot afford to pay their musicians
without recording contracts.  Most musicians in top orchestras are
unionized and require top dollar even for rehearsals.  Box office receipts
from live performances just dont cut it.  Sadly, many orchestras inmedkium
and small towns have disbanded because of financial realities.  It used to
accepted that a signature part of any town or city was their symphony
orchestra.   Now even the ones in thebig cities are struggling.  I used to
like the Boston Symphony years ago when they had Seiji Ozawa conducting.
Now theydont even have a recording contract and I havent seen a new
recording from them in years.  

I love chamber music but if the day comes when one's chances of seeing big
orchestral works performed are rare and new orchestral recordings even
rarer, that will be sad.

Hmm.  This does seem to be a problem.  I guess I've been spoiled by Ann Arbor
and the UMS.  

Of course, I said "average".  There are still lots of classical musicians
who tour all the time, making their livings (& very good ones, in some cases)
by playing different places all the time.  One problem, which has its upsides,
is that often they're playing as soloists with large orchestras.  Another is
that they normally have to be ready with a much larger, more varied, & more
demanding repertoire than (say) your average rock band.  This seems likely
to continue to fuel the recording industry, though I certainly agree that the
market for new performances of the same repertoire is contracting.  (I
personally - as a relatively impoverished listener - am looking for no more
than an inexpensive but acceptable performance of some particular work; I have
little interest (most often *no* interest) in the kinds of differences that
the diehard collector spends his time thinking about.)

This item has been linked from ClassicalMusic 7 to Intro 132.
Type "join classical" at the Ok: prompt for discussion of
classical music and modern performances of same.

Have anybody an Indian there? If u dont knowknow aboutthe Indian classical
MusicClassical Msic let me tell tell u about it. Have anybody heard of MS
Subbalakshmi., a great artist who used to give performances in India and
abroad.We used to put her songs early in the Morning so that we start the day
in a better way. Our mind will also become fresh of night dreams( I mean to
say bad dreams if there any). 
        Anybody heard og famous Balamuralikrishna. Calassical Music is
surviving bacause of him only in Indaia.
        In my openion the Classical Music is not dying as far as Indaia is
concerned..

Here in the US, Indian Classical Music has a small following of very devoted
fans. I am not one of those fans, however, but I have listened to some and
I do like Indian music. I am not familiar with any of its artists, besides
ravi Shankar, of course.

I am completely clueless about Indian classical music.  
Not only do I not enjoy it, I don't even know how to enjoy it.

rajeev1 told us about the classical music traditions of southern India. there
is a complet e classsical music system in North India . It is based on the
same principles ( a opposed to western Claassical) but the sound is quite
different. Ravi hankar is from that style. confused? I cant say I blame you...
I am a classical Music afficiando but the south Indian syle is beyond my
comprehension except for the melody.

I think that if people learned to play and like classical music, that more
people would attend the concerts. I haved played the violin for almost 4 yaers
now and I love it!

I often wonder how the struggling young musican survives someitmes.  In
Augusta, the Symphony was comprised mainly of volunteers.  Its kind of
shocking in ways.  I do know they got paid for their services but that the
pay was also rather meager and most have real jobs as well.  Frightening that
some people do not have more time to actually practice and refine their
talents.

re 18:  I know it to be true in my experience that in any form of art,
        a serious attempt on my part to create it has caused me to understand
        and appreciate it better by orders of magnitude.  This has proved true
        for music (performing and composition), painting, sculpture, dance, 
        poetry...

Two new items on the continued decline of the classical music business,
particular in recordings and radio.
 
Norman Lebrecht (the author of WHO KILLED CLASSICAL MUSIC?) reports 
that Britain's Gramophone magazine, probably the leading mass-market 
classical magazine, is now going to branch out beyond classical music.
This seems to be because there are no longer enough new recordings 
to cover, or enough advertising, in the pure classical market.
 
http://www.scena.org/brand/brand.asp?lan=2&id=17051&lnk=http://www.scena.or
g/columns/lebrecht/020220-nl-record.html

-----

"NPR Cultural Programming Put to Triage"

NPR has begun a review process which seems to be aimed at whacking a 
good part of the network's remaining jazz and classical shows.
NPR station managers give the music programs generally low marks,
with the jazz programs singled out for special scorn.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8064-2002Feb26.html

Appalling.

And yet. . .  WEMU seems to use local talent for its music shows.  I stopped
listening to WUOM (the little I did listen to it) when it all-talk.  I have
the impression, perhaps false, that WKAR uses local talent, too.  Maybe my
exposure to NPR affiliates isn't broad enough?

One frequently-made claim is that the lessened listenership to 
classical music is related to the fall of school music education.

Maybe, but as an individual datum that's not so in my case.  We had 
classical music education in the schools in the '60s in my youth, but 
it washed off me totally.  I fell into this field by hearing some such 
music by chance in my teens.

And no, I don't think the school experience somehow 
unconsciously "prepared" me.  What did prepare me was classical music 
in popular culture, e.g. the Lone Ranger theme on TV.

So I'm a lot more worried about the drop in radio programs, which 
furnished a lot of my early education in this music for free, than I am 
about the loss of school music programs.  And I really appreciate, when 
driving through open country, finding some boondock NPR station playing 
a challenging classical program.  I listened to them all through the 
Dakotas last summer.  I'd be sorry if they're gone.

The use of classical themes in pop culture certainly is an important factor.
But my own experience is that playing serious classical music in band &
orchestra, and (yes) high school music-appreciation courses, can provide
important exposure to kids who really never have any other exposure to speak
of, and it makes a difference.

The school music programs that I was referring to as having washed off 
me were in elementary school.  There were music classes, which 
basically consisted of singing anemic arrangements of American folk 
songs and patriotic songs to the accompaniment of an out-of-tune 
upright, and general school assemblies to hear visiting musicians give 
a talk and demonstration.  Quartets of strings, winds, and brass, from 
the local symphony orchestra, came one each year for three years, but I 
don't remember anything about what they played.

I did take high-school music appreciation and learned a lot (and 
learned even more from a harmony class), but I took them only because 
I'd already discovered music, and my interest would have remained as 
strong, if less tutored, if these courses did not exist.

The point is, at high-school level they're electives.  At least in 
California, nothing except English, civics, and swimming are legally 
mandatory.  These courses won't reach anybody who doesn't already know 
they're interested.

Now band and orchestra, that's perhaps a different matter, though I bet 
they teach some students only to hate the music they play.  But that's 
limited to those with a vocation for performing.  I have neither talent 
or interest in that: what I want is to listen.  But I ran into a mind-
set that assumed that the two interests automatically went together.

Only later did I find that wasn't true: concert-goers and record-
collectors who are passionate about music, but completely ignorant of 
performing, are very common, and that's where I fit in.  And then I 
married a soprano who loves to sing but has little interest in sitting 
there listening to other people singing.

When & where I went to high school, a 1-semester music-appreciation course
was a requirement.  Art appreciation was the other semester.

As far as grade school, your description isn't too far off of my school's
program in the primaries.  Upper elementary had rather more.  I don't think
there was much there to raise interest in classical music as such.  But I
think the goal there was to develop what talent the student had & try to
engender plain enjoyment of making music, basic knowledge of music notation,
etc.  The fact that the teachers were very enthusiastic helped.  In 5th & 6th
grade, I think at least 15 minutes or so of every school assembly - at the
beginning of the assembly - was handed over to the vocal-music teacher to get
us all singing.  I'm sure that was found to be an effective way of getting
everyone settled down to paying attention to the people up at the front, but
getting a group that big (must have been a couple of hundred, maybe twice
that) all singing together on something fun to sing has an impact you lose
in smaller groups.

All I recall from elementary school music was that we sang Tis of Thee every
day and once a week, or maybe once a month, for half an hour sang things like
I Saw Three Ships A Sailing.  My brother and I went to weekend piano and music
theory classes to learn music.  I think they may also have made us sing
Christmas carols at least one year because I remember my mother complaining
about this.  Our class of 41 had one Christian in it.  Plus the teacher.

(Where did you go to elementary school?)

I think you only need to look at popular music to see that formal education
has nothing to do with the appreciation of "difficult" or "interesting" music.
Sure, Britney Spears doesn't require much thought to listen to.  But there
are kids listening to jazz, or to post-rock bands like Radiohead, or to
experimental electronica like Squarepusher -- that's all stuff that takes some
close listening and thought to really digest.  And nobody teaches anyone how
to listen to that stuff, with the possible exception of jazz in some really
arty schools.  People pick it up because they're motivated to, and because
they think it's interesting.

"Classical" music was the same way, once.  It was pop music -- vaguely geeky
upper-class pop music for people who had the time to digest it, but still pop
music.  If nobody's listening, it's because they're not motivated, not for
lack of lessons.  

I grew up on Boston.  Jim says he got interested in classical music because
that is what they played with all the cartoons.  Lone Ranger.

I think some formal training can help with some of the more difficult
classical works... I certainly had never listened to Crumb, Scelsi, 
Nancarrow, or Berio before I began taking composition lessons.

Well, fair enough.  Neither had I.  But I don't think anyone listens to Victor
Wooten or Les Claypool unless they're taking bass lessons, or Steve Vai unless
they're taking guitar lessons, or...   I mean, Nancarrow is a composer who
composers are into, Les Claypool is a bassist who bassists are into, and so
on.  But you don't need training or special interest to see the appeal of
Mozart, any more than you need training to listen to the Ramones.  They're
both catchy, easy to follow, cool if you're into that sort of thing, and
totally dull if you're not.  

The music has to catch your ear first: it has to have emotional 
appeal.  Otherwise there's no point in, or motivation for, learning 
more about it.

Once you've trained your ear, which is not necessarily an intellectual 
process, you can use that as a stepping stone for more difficult work.

Learning the technical matters of how the music is constructed is a 
great thing, but it comes after, not before, learning to appreciate it.

What is useful with classical, however, and which does help 
appreciation - at least it did with me - is non-technical form 
analysis.  I describe this as a road map of the music, so that you know 
where you are, so that a long work doesn't seem like just one thing 
after another and hey, wait a minute, didn't we hear that theme once 
before?

I wrote a map-guide in just that form to Tchaikovsky's Romeo & Juliet, 
as part of a general explanation of sonata form, which is up on my 
website at http://www.stanford.edu/~dbratman/sonata.html - comments 
welcome.

I agree with your idea that learning technical matters comes after, not 
before, learning to appreciate music.  Also, your idea that "non-
technical form analysis" is useful as a road map is right on.  That 
used to be the main focus of what was called "music appreciation" once 
upon a time.  

[And I enjoyed your web page about Tchaikovsky's R&J.]

What md said in #34.  Don't have time to more than glance at your web page
now, but it looks really good at a glance.  R&J is one of my favorites, too.

I've just dumped it to the printer, after keeping this item 'new' for six
months. :)

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss