Universities, concerts, the public, money, and the greater good

In response to Erik's New Years wish list, here I am (kind of) writing about music. I've also been writing a lot about the University, and there is one pressure point between the two that I find very troubling-- the many university music schools and departments that charge admission to their concerts.

There are a great many institutions that do this; in fact, it seems that the better a school of music does in the rankings, the more likely it is to charge admission for concerts. This is particularly troubling for music schools that are part of state universities. In no uncertain terms, I find this reprehensible and irresponsible-- to shut out low and middle income people and families from performances is contrary to any university's mission and place in the community. I understand that revenue is always a problem, but charging money for admission is not only socially irresponsible, but it is counterproductive as well. There are several reasons for this claim:

[1] Charging even a nominal amount for tickets reduces the size of the audience. Fewer people hearing the music is not good for the future employment of said institutions' students. The idea is to bring more people to hear live music, to discover the particular joy of hearing music in an acoustic space performed "in the raw". For young people especially, this is important. Fostering understanding and appreciation of this singular experience is vital to the continuation of the medium; if there is no next generation of concert-goers and donors, there won't be orchestras, ballet companies, opera companies, or string quartets.

[2] Money for cultural and artistic experiences, like money for all other things, is limited for the vast majority of people. Universities that charge money for their concerts are competing with local professional arts organizations for the same money. Diluting that pool of money is very unwise. If orchestras and other groups start failing because of budget shortfalls, the jobs for which these schools are training students will no longer exist.

[3] Universities, in their positions as vital parts of the community, are not serving that mission well by excluding lower-income people and families. In fact, it reinforces the stereotype that concert music is for a wealthy, elite audience. Should this stereotype persist and grow, popular support for arts institutions could erode even more than it has, especially in this economy. Many, if not most, organizations depend on grants from not just private donors, but from city, state, and federal programs as well. This rare and scarce funding cannot be replaced easily.

[4] Ultimately, it makes little financial sense. No large classical music organization is solvent based on ticket sales. There just isn't that much money in ticket sales when one considers how expensive it is to present a concert. Universities make such a small percentage of their operating budget from ticket sales that discontinuing the practice would be fairly negligible. In contrast, there must be donors to university music programs who agree with me; I would certainly withhold any donation to any university that charged admission for its concerts.

[5] This practice is also fairly dishonest. To charge admission, sometimes approaching what it costs to attend a professional orchestra, implies that the product is as good. Remember that these are student performers who are unpaid for performing the concerts. In fact, ensembles are required courses for music majors. In essence, these schools are asking the public to pay to attend the coursework for which students pay the university to do.

It is my hope that a dialogue begins in earnest about this. Of the three institutions I attended (one private, two public), all charged admission for at least some of their concerts (opera and orchestra are the most common; all three charged for opera performances). I am very happy to report that the school at which I teach does not charge for any concerts. Until this practice stops, I could have all the money in the world and would not give them a red cent. Only by withholding donations will this practice change. I challenge any prospective donors to hold benefiting schools' feet to the fire on this (or start talking to a school which has a more socially responsible concert policy-- one that might be in need of, I don't know, a few endowed scholarships in composition?)

Lyrad's Random 10

Little information is available about Antoni Rutkowski, a Polish Romantic composer who lived 1859-1886. In fact, beyond his dates and a quote in a book about Ignacy Paderewski [Paderewski: The Story of a Modern Immortal by Charles Phillips], which describes Rutkowski as a close, but short-lived, friend of his "...whose creative powers were exceptional, lived long enough to see his boyhood companion reach the height of fame; but himself only in his thirties when he died [he wasn't quite in his thirties...he's a writer, not an arithmetician, give him a break], he might have achieved high rank, especially as a composer, had he been spared." His cause of death is a mystery. This sonata is a playful work with interesting and complex interplay between the violin and the piano that is reminiscent of Tchaikovsky and other contemporaries from the East, with a large helping of Polish traditional music on top of it. It's good stuff. I wish I could find more about him, or at least hear some more works but, according to what I can find, this cd of 19th and 20th century Polish violin music is the extent of his recorded catalog.

If anybody has further information [friends at Detritus Review, I'm looking at you] on this obscure Polish composer, or some recommendations to more of his work, I'm all ears.

1. Antoni Rutkowski--Sonata in c for Violin & Piano, Op.5; 4.Rondo. Finale; Adagio. Presto (Tyrone Greive, Vn; Ellen Burmeister, Pn)
2. Gustav Holst--Beni Mora (Oriental Suite) in e for Orchestra; 3.In the Street of Ouled Nails (London SO; Gustav Holst, cond)
3. Tom Waits--Bottom of the World
4. Matthew Shipp--Pastoral Composure
5. Blind Willie McTell--Chainey
6. Maritime Murder--Copache
7. Artist Unknown--Hot Buttered Beans (from the soundtrack to Manimal [some '70s porno])
8. Lou Reed--Metal Machine Music
9. Golden Gate Quartet--Bye and Bye Little Children
10. John Zorn--End Titles (from the soundtrack to The Golden Boat)

Modern Music Criticism

Sator Arepo found a particularly horrible Bernard Holland article on how much he doesn't like modernist music in the Times. He proceeds to tear it apart.

One sentence really sums up the problem critics have with modern music:

You wish it was 1774 and you're at the new Haydn symphony.

Yep, that's about right. So-called classical music critics are so beholden to the canon that they cannot handle innovation at all. Holland does in fact wish it was 1774 and he was at the new Haydn symphony. He probably dreams about it at night, in between the nightmares he has of Elliott Carter and George Crumb.

Rather than provide intelligent criticism of modernist music, Holland and others dismiss it outright as unlistenable, i.e., completely unchallenging and exactly what they heard their whole lives.

Critics like Holland remind me of Bad Company fans. What?!!???!! Am I comparing Mozart to Paul Rodgers? No. While Mozart only wishes in his grave that he could write "Feel Like Makin' Love," I'm not denying the greatness of most canonized figures. But like classic rock fans who listen to the radio hoping to hear "Hotel California" for 4000th time, too many members of the classical music institutions just want to hear the same thing over and over again. Interpreted by different people, it is true, but ultimately they want no challenges.

Of course, one can legitimately criticize much modernist music. It is often an investment. It's one that I usually find worth making, though when we get to pieces like Morton Feldman's "For John Cage" which only goes on for around 80 minutes (literally), I begin to get impatient. But to dismiss it outright because it makes you think and work a little bit is absurd. However, such absurdity never stopped the Times from hiring writers.

Idiot Connoisseurs

This "experiment" conducted by Washington Post writer Gene Weingarten and violin virtuoso Joshua Bell is the epitome of why classical music is in decline. In January, Weingarten arranged with Bell to film him playing for 45 minutes at the L'Enfant Plaza Metro station to see if "In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?" What they got was a bunch of random people racing from the train to get to work, to get to school, to do whatever compels them to be getting off a train at 7:51am on a Friday. This reaction, shocking to them, is proof of the lamentable death of classical music, and the general lowness of our culture in turn. There is so much wrong with this article, but I will just point out a couple of things.

--It is amazing the arrogant lengths some classical music connoisseurs will go to prove that their tastes are better. I may not consider myself a connoisseur, but I am a long time classical fan, starting at around age eleven when I played viola. While I have long since quit that, I remained a fan and worked for four years cataloging classical CDs for Schwann Opus. On my best day, I might be able to recognize Joshua Bell on sight, but probably not. Definitely not if it is 7:55am and I have five minutes to get from the station to work. He writes that 1,097 people passed by in the time Bell played, but fewer than five percent stopped to watch for even a minute. This stands as proof for Weingarten that everyday schlubs do not recognize greatness when it slaps them in the face. I mean, c'mon people, this is Joshua Bell play Bach with a Stradivarius, how could you not drop everything and watch for forty-five minutes on a cold January morning? The reality is that very few (arguably nobody) can tell the difference between a Stradivarius and another high-end instrument. The average person will not be able to tell the difference between Joshua Bell and his equally good peers. With no context, throwing "beauty" in the face of the masses, this is not the way to appeal to people. This is like a street corner religious fanatic screaming at you that you're going to Hell, then scoffing at you for not stopping to convert on your way to the movies. The experiment appears set up to fail, to exist for no other reason than to prove the lowness of the everyday person.

--Speaking of arrogant, I hope Weingarten was being facetious in the delusional attitude of his fellow editors on likely outcomes of the event. "The most widely held assumption was that there could well be a problem with crowd control." Indeed, a riot scene because Bell plays Bach...gasp! Weingarten even uses tear gas and rubber bullets to describe what he hoped for. While I'm sure he isn't serious with the last part, the gall that it takes to even think that a possibility is laughable. Joshua Bell may be a heartthrob to prep school debs who swoon over his class but Elvis he ain't. That he could feign any kind of surprise that the reaction didn't happen is clearly insane.

--Classical music fans often lament the seeming death of their musical love. Indeed, there is much to lament. As the generations pass, there seem to be fewer and fewer young people interested in the genre, and this is a shame. There are a number of reasons, some of which are accurately described in the article. A very important reason, however, remains undiscussed as, in order to do so, Weingarten would have to look in on himself as complicit in the murder. In his description of the pieces Bell played, Weingarten floridly describes the two Bach pieces, relays the historical signifcance of Shubert's "Ave Maria," then glosses over the rest, going so far to say "then a piece by Jules Massenet," which clearly does not deserve the same kind of gushing. When connosieurs discuss the greatness of classical music, their discussion begins and ends with the canon which, basically, contains the "3 B's" (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms), Mozart, and virtually nothing written in the 20th century, let alone currently. Therefore, every generation that passes gets farther and farther removed from the cultural relevance that they great composers brought to their respective times. Why was rock music so popular with kids in the middle of the 20th century? Cultural relevance. Why rap at the end? Cultural relevance. Add some back into classical composition, take it out of the academy, and the forms could resurge. It will die before long without some kind of action, but the masses will never rise to the connoisseurs level, much as they would like the masses to.

--I wonder what would happen if metal guitar virtuoso, Buckethead, showed up at the Washington Post offices, plugged in and played something good and heavy for 45 minutes? Would Weingarten stand there admiring the complexity of his chord choices or the rich textures he creates? No, rather I think there would be a quick call to the cops. Why? Obviously, metal guitar is a "lesser" form than classical violin and is unworthy of such an impromtu performance? Or is it that Weingarten and I do not, nor should we, have exactly the same tastes. While classical music may be on the decline, listening to music is certainly not and, if somebody gets joy and enlightenment from Mos Def, from Buckethead, or from Jascha Heifetz, isn't the important thing that people see beauty from art, regardless of it's form?