Art music isn’t dead (yet)

How do we judge the worth of an art form? Can it be measured by album sales, or magazine covers, or the age of its participants? Is there anything else to guide our thinking? Using figures for classical music in America Mark Vanhoenacker wrote recently in answer to the question ‘Is Classical on death’s door?’ that, despite some reasons for hope, ‘Looking at the trend lines, it’s hard to hear anything other than a Requiem’. I would judge art music differently. Although it might need a bit of intensive care it’s not dead yet – really it’s an attitude transplant that’s most in need.

Mark Vanhoenacker, like many others, appears to put a lot of faith in figures relating to art music’s album sales, radio airtime, and ageing audience. I suspect that these figures are broadly similar in the UK, although they may be held in check to some extent by public services such as BBC Radio 3 and local youth music groups. Let’s be honest, figures that show art music’s inferiority in comparison to other styles should not be a surprise. ‘Popular’ music (in the broadest sense) is (obviously) defined by popularity, and therefore to a certain extent, by its accessibility – anything that doesn’t reach out to large numbers of people will struggle to be seen as pop. Art music, in contrast, has tended towards increasing difficulty, at least to the uninitiated. To pretend otherwise is pointless – once one is intiated the likes of Wagner, Boulez, and Cage can be wonderful, but it should not be a surprise that this is not the case for a beginner.

However, there are still two problems with the perspective these figures give us that I think may present reasons for optimism. Firstly, I think looking at album sales misjudges how we should value art music. Recordings are fantastic, and have changed musical culture in both the USA and UK in the last 100 years through providing easy access to huge catalogues of music. However, I believe that the best of music as an art form lies in experiencing it as live performance. Therefore information relating to performances – the number of people listening to or participating in live music – matters more than anything else. Furthermore, often when considering performances we discount amateur music, which is just as important as professional music to a vibrant musical culture (if not more important in some respects). It is figures that show huge declines in the number of art music participants of all ages across the board, not just professional music, that would be truly awful. Of course, this situtuation may already be upon us, but it is certainly true that if we are to improve our musical culture then amateur music needs further encouragement.

Secondly, I don’t really understand why the idea that art music being supported by donations, rather than run as a purely commercial business, is such a bad thing. I would say so, as I work in development, but I think the public funding the art that they experience is potentially very powerful. In fact, I would argue music has only been an ‘industry’ run in a business-like, profit driven way for a very small part of its history (beginning somewhere around the mythical figure of Josquin Desprez, and only really developing around the time of CPE Bach). Certainly it is not an inherently bad thing for music to be a non-profit enterprise.

On the other hand, I would certainly agree that art music has some serious issues, many of which I think stem from attitude problems. Instead of glorifying past ‘great’ composers and focusing on historic music we need to open up to debate and develop more truly new music (hence my use of ‘art music’ rather than ‘classical’ which partly implies historicism). Amateur music needs to be valued more highly, with greater support for community ensembles, rather than leaving performers hung out to dry when they leave school or university after years of lessons and practice. Those that do value art music need to be encouraged to support what they love beyond simply purchasing tickets, so that professional groups have sufficient funds (although vital government support also needs to be maintained). Art music needs to cease being held up as superior to any other form of music, situated on a higher plane from which its listeners gaze down at the unwashed masses below. There is great art music, and there is terrible art music and we should demonstrate that more clearly by engaging in debate and developing more truly new music (i.e. from the last ten years). Art music could also learn a lot from pop in relation to new music, as well as striking a balance between composition and performance. 

I don’t think art music is dead yet, but it certainly needs some work. Perhaps, though, we need to stop treating it as the sick elder relative of cool and trendy pop, but more as a teenager with an attitude problem, stubbornly burying its head in the sand.

Music of the Day / 51

Alban Berg / Lyric Suite  – 3  pieces for string orchestra // I’m biased, but this was performed superbly by WNO’s orchestra a few weeks ago – a great piece, I love the shifting textures.

Spotify tracks after the break… Continue reading

Streaming isn’t going away…

The streaming debate continues to run and run in many parts of the music world, fueled by artists’ complaints, new competitors (hello there, Beats Music), and a sense that the sector isn’t yet settled. This is particularly the case for art music, where CDs still rule the roost.

However, from a technological perspective, there can be no doubt that streaming is the future, nevermind most of the present. One point that has been noted in amongst Apple’s recently releasedd earnings is the continuing decline of the iPod range, which has been overtaken – cannibalised – by the iPhone range, the main driver of Apple’s profits for the last few years.

Why does this matter in relation to streaming? The vast majority of iPhones (and many other smartphones) sold have 16 to 32 gigabytes of storage, which is not very much music for a device you take everywhere. What they do have, along with tablets, is connectivity, and fast connectivity at that with the rise of 4G. Many people are asking why, if they’re already shelling out hundreds of pounds for a device that can stream a vast music library (nearly) wherever they are, should they pay extra for a dedicated music device that only has limited storage itself?

Streaming makes sense for the consumer in many ways, and there’s no putting the cat back in the bag now. The way music is consumed will continue to change and the music industry, particularly art music, needs solutions that work better for it, as well as the consumer.

Music of the Day / 50

Passenger / Let her go // I think I’m still undecided on whether this song focuses too much on the chorus, but good nonetheless.

Spotify track after the break… Continue reading

Music of the Day / 49

George Dyson / The Blacksmiths // I’m a newcomer to Dyson, but as this is the 50th anniversary he’s gone onto my listening list, and this is a great piece.

Spotify track after the break… Continue reading

Music of the Day / 48

Muse / Madness // When Muse first started becoming more ‘electronic’ I wasn’t a fan, but I’ve changed my mind. I was wrong.

Muse / Time is Running Out // Great bass line.

Muse / Muscle Museum // An early gem.

Spotify tracks after the break…

Continue reading

Twitter lists

Thanks to the internet there is too much information in the modern world. Alongside newspapers, TV, and radio there are endless websites, blogs, and podcasts sharing ‘content’ and fighting for our attention, let alone Twitter. Twitter, I feel, is the most extreme example of this phenomenon.

Twitter features the most content by the most people accessible with the greatest ease (i.e the majority of accounts are public, accessible at the click of a follow button, and assembled into a single timeline, as opposed to friend requests having to be accepted or website menus navigated). Of course, none of this is at odds with the brevity of Twitter’s content (140 characters or less) but is actually a function of it. The easier and quicker it is to create something, and the lower the threshold at which that thing is considered worth sharing, the more content is likely to be created.

The problem with such a surfeit of information is navigating it. Many of is have become skimmers, ruthlessly filtering out anything that does not immediately grab our attention. The implications of this behaviour are beyond what I want to get at in this post, which is that Twitter should improve how it displays lists.

I am sure I am not the only one who feels that in some ways their Twitter timeline becomes less useful the more accounts they follow. The more tweets one has access to, the more likely one is to miss something. On the other hand, in my experience at least, the more I use twitter the more accounts I want to follow, as I am drawn towards interesting information and conversations. The only real way to combat this is to use lists, in order to group accounts together, and sort the vast expanses of twitter in some basic way.

The problem with this is that lists are a pain to access. After Twitter’s most recent redesign of their iOS app, the timeline, notifications, search, the compose tweet function, draft tweets, my profile, and now messages are easy to access. Lists are not. To access lists I have to go to my profile, scroll down, and then click on lists. This is a pain (albeit it a first world problem), particularly when the list section has a tendency to close sometimes when I navigate away from Twitter and then back again. Given the huge amount of information Twitter features, making that content easy to navigate and sort has to be a priority. Making lists more easily accessible would surely be an easy improvement to make, particularly in the app, where it could be accessed by a long press on the home button. Please twitter?

PS. A bit of a weird thing to write so much about, but I really wanted to write a post on something, anything, for the first time in a long time – this was one take, no stopping and no editing.