NYT Sunday Dialogue: Is Classical Music Dying?

[Frank Forman]

Sunday Dialogue: Is Classical Music Dying?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-is-classical-music-dying.html

Readers react to a violinist's fear that its audience is declining.

To the Editor:

A schoolboy recently asked me if Richard Wagner was a pitcher for
the Yankees. At that moment I feared that classical music in America
was doomed.

Or is it? The dying of the classical recording industry, which began
in the 1990s, is indeed a cause for despair. There seem to be,
sadly, other harbingers of the death of classical music in America:

¶The recent labor disputes of American orchestras due to decreased
budgets and donor support.

¶The reduction or outright cancellation of Metropolitan Opera and
New York Philharmonic tours and concerts in the parks.

¶The demise of classical music radio stations across America.

¶The increased media focus on rock and pop superstars, while
classical music managements have difficulty booking concerts for
their artists.

Nonetheless, there is a glimmer of hope that classical music can be
saved. The New York Philharmonic has just announced a partnership
with the Shanghai Symphony Orchestra. The Metropolitan Opera
introduced live telecasts of its performances nationwide. New venues
are springing up to accommodate the excellent classical ensembles
and soloists emerging from music conservatories. Symphony orchestras
have at least temporarily settled their labor disputes.

The future of classical music lies with the younger generation,
which must be weaned away from the cacophony of rock and the neon
glitter of "American Idol"-type TV shows. Instead of dragging
children to concerts, where they squirm with boredom, rent some old
movies featuring soundtracks of classical music.

Even toddlers can be exposed to classical music through animated
films like "Fantasia" and "Peter and the Wolf." Elementary
schoolchildren would love "What's Opera, Doc?" (1957), with its
thrilling Wagnerian soundtrack as Elmer Fudd chases Bugs Bunny. Tell
them the great music is by Richard Wagner. At least this audience
will not think that he pitched for the Yankees.

LES DREYER
New York, Nov. 16, 2012

The writer is a retired violinist with the Metropolitan Opera
Orchestra.

Readers React

Les Dreyer accurately describes the steady decline of classical
music, and his points are well taken. That said, when he calls for
parents to pull their children away from the cacophony of rock, he
is making a generational error, for it's not today's children who
have been missed by classical music, but their parents who grew up
on rock and roll.

The failure to bring younger audiences to classical music happened
more than 30 years ago. Now, while classic rock remains a vibrant
radio format, and artists like the Rolling Stones, Billy Joel, The
Who and Elton John continue to be popular, middle-agers who never
migrated to classical music are content with the songs they grew up
on. Too many of those listeners were never introduced to the power
of Beethoven, the elegance of Mozart or the soulfulness of Mahler,
and if they were, it was the aural equivalent of "eating your
vegetables."

But it's not too late. What is needed is a well-funded national plan
--probably via philanthropy--to market this great music. It needs
to be packaged as an experience, not an education; passion needs to
be reintroduced. Then we need to re-brand classical radio. That
doesn't mean dumbing down; it means taking what is great and putting
it in a package the target market recognizes.

So it's not hopeless, but arresting decline is not easy. What is in
our favor, however, is that the product, the music, is incredible
and can transcend generations.
ANTHONY RUDEL
Stamford, Conn., Nov. 19, 2012
The writer is the author of "Classical Music Top 40" and was on air
and served as vice president of programming for WQXR FM and AM.

As a lifelong player and lover of music, I have to sadly shake my
head and say, Mr. Dreyer, you don't get it. Classical music is dying
because it is and long has been an expensive, mannered and stuffy
enterprise as far as the public is concerned.

For the past 40 years, rock has taught us that emoting and
participating with our bodies and voices are part of the show. You
can't do that in a concert hall. The entire society dresses
informally now; concerts still involve formal wear by the audience,
as if back in the 1890s.

Popular music has been growing exponentially in terms of newly
created music; classical orchestras are just "cover bands" playing
the same old tunes. Pop music has happily commingled every genre
under the sun; classical remains, well, classical.

I recall the thrill of hearing Beethoven's Fifth when I was a child
50 years ago. But has the business of classical music made any
significant advances in its appeal to the public since then, or kept
up with societal changes and consumer tastes? Not that I can see. It
should not surprise us, then, that this genre is on the ropes
financially.
GRANT WIGGINS
Hopewell, N.J., Nov. 19, 2012

As someone who grew up thinking I was the only one my age who
listened to classical music, I am as concerned as you are. But you
say we need to be "weaned away from the cacophony of rock." This is
where you lose me.

That argument is, frankly, condescending and counterproductive.
Nothing about classical music is intrinsically superior to any other
kind of music. You will find as much artistry in certain parts of
the rock world as you will in classical music, albeit of a very
different kind. Young people need to come to classical music on
their own terms, and telling them they should abandon another kind
of music that they love is not the way to accomplish this.

Also, think of how many great classical pieces were condemned as
cacophonous when they were premiered: Beethoven's "Grosse Fuge," for
example, or Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring."

I appreciate your concern for the future of classical music, but
please, please, never pit classical music against rock, because the
latter will almost always win, and it isn't a choice anyone should
ever have to make anyway.
CHARLIE VOLOW
Williamstown, Mass., Nov. 19, 2012

It is not children who should be wooed to the classical canon, but
young and early middle-aged adults. Although I was lucky enough to
attend Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts as a child, it
wasn't until my late 20s that I realized, as a sometime rock
musician and composer, that the New York Philharmonic was as
thrilling in concert as The Who or Eric Clapton.

Once one comprehends the high level of precision that goes into
classical performance, the multitude of varying melodies presented
by each piece and the emotional ride that a symphony orchestra can
provide, there is no going back. In addition, pop music often
doesn't wear well with the years, and its audience is pining for new
adventures in music.
BERNARD LANGS
New Providence, N.J., Nov. 19, 2012

Exposure to classical music (and sneaking it in through movies and
cartoons) is fine, but what is really likely to make a difference is
experience playing classical music. Until recently this was possible
only for children whose parents had the means to buy instruments and
pay for private lessons.

But El Sistema, an intensive orchestral program begun in Venezuela,
is now spreading throughout the United States and other countries,
in schools and in after-school programs. All children in an El
Sistema program play an instrument in an orchestra, and they start
young.

Performing powerful compositions puts music not just in the ears of
children, but in their fingers, heads and hearts.
ELLEN WINNER
Chestnut Hill, Mass., Nov. 19, 2012
The writer directs the Arts and Mind Lab at Boston College, where
she is a professor of psychology of art.

Yes, classical music is dying in America, of a wasting illness that
goes back to way before the 1990s.

Technology has been replacing live musicians since the '60s, first
in live radio and TV, then in Broadway orchestra pits, now even in
recording studios, leaving the symphony orchestra as the most
labor-intensive, and therefore most expensive, enterprise in music.
Given the economics, the only solution is the one most other
civilized countries adopted long ago--government support for the
arts.

But the more serious, more obstinate problem is in the education of
our children. In the 1950s, between the ages of 7 and 12, I spent
every Saturday morning at the Cleveland Music School Settlement,
learning music theory and history, to read and write musical
notation, to recognize instruments by ear. I learned to play the
clarinet and sang in the choir, and I did so with other
working-class kids of all colors, at a price working-class families
could afford.

How many of our grade-school children can read music today? Or
recognize the difference between Bach and Mozart, Haydn and
Beethoven, Verdi and Wagner?

We have responded to our multigenerational failure to educate by
cutting the budgets for music, art, foreign language, even physical
education, and diverting all our resources to "core" subjects. But
even if we succeed in teaching our kids reading, writing and
arithmetic, we will have failed to teach them their place in their
own cultural history. We will have failed, in short, to civilize
them.
DAVID BERMAN
New York, Nov. 19, 2012


Classical music is not dead; it's not even resting. The classical
world is evolving. Live listening experiences are incorporating new
elements like video feeds, audience chats, short lunchtime or
dinnertime programs and late-night cocktail concerts. The old major
record labels have been largely replaced by new majors (Naxos and
Harmonia Mundi chief among them) and a constellation of specialty
labels.

Yes, radio stations are abandoning classical formats, but the sounds
still echo on streaming sites like Spotify and YouTube, and online
shops like iTunes. Last year, I watched the Glyndebourne Opera's
"Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg" live through a feed on my laptop
screen.

Does my own perspective influence my optimism? Undoubtedly. I am 23
and felt no qualms watching Gerald Finley sing Wagner while I was
clad in my pajamas. My generation is shaping the musical world in
the same way that Mr. Dreyer's influenced his.

Many things will change, but some will not. Artists are as plentiful
and talented as ever before. Audiences are engaged by new twists on
concertgoing traditions. And nothing can ever diminish the power of
the music.
BRIAN REINHART
Dallas, Nov. 19, 2012
The writer is a critic for MusicWeb International.

While some of the litany of concern for the future of classical
music rings true, focusing entirely on the negative ignores
overwhelming evidence of the resiliency of symphonic music in
America and throughout the world.

There are far more orchestras working in harmony than struggling
through contractual disputes. For every orchestra that has faced a
difficulty, there are orchestras that have been setting fund-raising
and attendance records since the recession.

Unfortunately, the positive stories do not receive the
sensationalistic coverage of the negative stories. And that is, to
some degree, a fault of the classical music field itself. Success is
not as easy to headline as failure.

The next generation of music lovers will have greater access to
music of all types than those who have come before. Mahler is as
available to them now through iTunes (and other sources) as Lady
Gaga. Great music of all styles does not have to be in competition.
The more you love any music, the more open you become to loving all
music.

Orchestras remain strong economic engines for their communities,
vital educational organizations for the next generation and
monuments to the elevation of the human spirit. Orchestras will
remain so if we stop emphasizing the negative litany and reach out
in more authentic ways to our audiences, both present and future.
BRUCE RIDGE
Chairman, International Conference of Symphony and Opera Musicians
Raleigh, N.C., Nov. 19, 2012

I can pinpoint the exact moment when I stopped attending live
classical performances. While on a university trip, I noticed that
the Boston Symphony Orchestra was playing, and with Seiji Ozawa
conducting I had to attend.

Being dressed in khakis and a polo shirt, I was underdressed
compared with the rest of the crowd. No big deal until a woman asked
me if I thought I should dress better for the occasion. "Not unless
my clothes affect my hearing" was my reply.

Here in Buffalo, where there is an excellent symphony, I have
detected the same kind of condescension and class snobbery. So it's
the radio and iTunes for me.
KEVIN STEVENS
Buffalo, Nov. 19, 2012

I disagree with Mr. Dreyer about the value of dragging kids to
concert halls. Live music, especially orchestral and chamber
performances, may be the best way to introduce anyone to the wonder
of what composers and musicians and instruments can create.

However, if someone is used to frenetic pop music with lyrics and
videos, don't bludgeon them with Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.
Instead, let them see and hear performances of some of the great
modern short pieces, which can be frenetic or languid, but never
boring. Expose every seventh grader and a parent to John Adams, Toru
Takemitsu and Christopher Cerrone, to name just three of the many,
many contemporary composers whose work would never be lumped with
the dreaded "classical music," and we might be on our way to a new
generation of listeners.
CHARLIE HATHAWAY
Tenafly, N.J., Nov. 19, 2012

I am a classical music lover--in my 60s, of course. As much as I
admire Mr. Dreyer's optimism, I think classical music lovers are a
dying demographic.

Some of the reasons are familiar: Music appreciation isn't taught in
schools. Also, the sadly diminished resources going into performing
arts are going mostly into "Glee"-type vocal music and various
schools of rock, not groups that aspire to the classical canon.

Demographics are changing rapidly. Classical music is rooted in
Europe, whereas today's children look at least as much toward Latin
America, Asia and Africa for their cultural roots. Performing arts
groups overwhelmingly program works by dead men, not living men or
living women.

Even efforts to expand audiences aren't working well. From what I
hear, the Metropolitan Opera simulcasts are attended by an
overwhelmingly white-haired audience.

Maybe this can be turned around, largely by more intense involvement
by classical musicians in schools as well as performances that don't
look or feel like conventional concerts. Alas, it's an awfully heavy
lift.
RICHARD LAMPERT
Philadelphia, Nov. 19, 2012

I disagree that young people need to be "weaned away from the
cacophony of rock and the neon glitter of 'American Idol'-type TV
shows." Those forms of popular entertainment thrive because there is
a mass market for them. Classical music can exist alongside and in
spite of these entertainments, but it must present itself as equally
relevant to potential listeners.

Reaching that audience is daunting. Performers' costumes remain the
same as those mocked in the cartoons of a half century ago that Mr.
Dreyer cites. Rather than relying on unimaginative formulas, concert
programming must stimulate feedback, debate and speculation.
Accessibility to classical music should be improved through
performances outside the concert hall (clubs, galleries, and so on).
Concert times should be similarly handled. Not everyone is available
for a concert at 8 p.m.; why not earlier or later?

Young people can be encouraged to attend through grants that
underwrite the cost of their tickets, something the Cleveland
Orchestra does. Musicians must be visible in the public school
system (as teachers and mentors), for if they ignore the larger
culture they live in, they risk marginalization. If all a child has
access to are Pink, Snoop Dogg or Taylor Swift, then Bach, Brahms
and Birtwistle are unlikely in their future.

There is a difference between culture and entertainment.
Entertainment is market-driven, its technical resources attuned to
the whims of current mass culture. Classical music maintains the
cultural legacy of the past along with the often difficult works of
the present. It is up to performers and managements to convincingly
give these compositions a place in greater society.

Mr. Dreyer's questioner wasn't that far off, however. There was a
pitcher named Richard Wagner. He never made it to the Yankees.
CLOVIS LARK
Principal Librarian
Utah Symphony Orchestra
Salt Lake City, Nov. 19, 2012

The Writer Responds

Mr. Rudel, your letter humbles me. And I agree with you 100 percent.
Yet my "generational error" is understandable: I grew up in a
Russian Jewish neighborhood where every kid was a budding Heifetz,
Piatigorsky or Rubenstein. That said, I applaud your idea of
repackaging classical music in a format recognizable by the target
market, and reintroducing it as a passionate experience instead of a
forced education. Whether the funding for this project is
philanthropic or federal or whatever is irrelevant. The point is
that you are optimistic, as I am, about saving classical music in
America, and the rock-infected parents must give their children at
least a chance to form their own musical taste.

Mr. Langs, as a rock musician and composer, you confess discovering
in your late 20s that the New York Philharmonic was as thrilling as
The Who or Eric Clapton. Congratulations! It is never too late to
cross over (which seems to be the trend in opera lately), and we
classical music lovers welcome you aboard. Moreover, your
realization that "pop music often doesn't wear well with the years"
is what differentiates it from classical music, which is eternal.

Mr. Wiggins, you regret that you can't rock and roll at a classical
music concert. What on earth does emoting with our bodies and voices
have to do with classical music? Would you let out a yell of joy
during a Mozart opera, or a moan of despair during "Parsifal"? And
who nowadays wears formal wear to symphony concerts or solo
recitals?

Moreover, I am mortified that you refer to symphony orchestras as
"just 'cover bands' playing the same old tunes." That's like calling
the Mona Lisa merely a grinning dame.

This is Beethoven Awareness Month. Please sit quietly while
listening to him.
LES DREYER
New York, Nov. 21, 2012

[Joe Roberts]

Mmmm,

"Life is like music, it must be composed by ear, feeling and instinct, not by rule. Nevertheless one had better know the rules, for they sometimes guide in doubtful cases, though not often."

... Paracelsus

- - -

Yeah, OK. Whatever.

Ears and heart don't come from being pushed into piano at an early age. The right start for a child is one that's fun. It's having music already in the family. DVDs make music a joy to learn. "Music" and "happy" are not four-letter words. Then during the year an afternoon at a recital happens because it's become a welcome and refreshing moment.

Joe

[Christopher Webber]

On 28/11/2012 01:54, Frank Forman wrote:
> concerts still involve formal wear by the audience,
> as if back in the 1890s.

I wish! Not here it doesn't. Anyone so much as wearing a tie at a
Barbican concert in London these days gets funny looks. I have to wear
my ties in private, and go open-necked in public, for fear of mocking
laughter.

Where is this "formal wear" still adopted? I'll book a ticket straight
away (provided they're playing Bax, Martinu and Enescu of course rather
than Brahms.)

[Christopher Webber]

On 28/11/2012 05:42, Joe Roberts wrote:
> The right start for a child is one that's fun.

Fun? FUN?? A self-defeating precept. Indulging infantile "fun" leads to
a nation littered (literally) with grown-up babies in expensive therapy.

If you want a healthy society start 'em with Bruckner.

[Gerard]

Christopher Webber <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> typed:

> On 28/11/2012 05:42, Joe Roberts wrote:
> > The right start for a child is one that's fun.
>
> Fun? FUN?? A self-defeating precept. Indulging infantile "fun" leads
> to a nation littered (literally) with grown-up babies in expensive
> therapy.

I don't know about the price of that therapy.
But infantilizing the public with "fun" results in more infantlizing the public.

>
> If you want a healthy society start 'em with Bruckner.

Not Shostakovich?

[Frank Berger]

I took my 10-year old grandaughter to the Baltimore Symphony for the first
time recently (hers and mine). The dress was all over the place. Formal
and jeans. The Orchestra's web site encourages you to dress however you are
comfortable. Nobody got or gave any funny looks, that I noticed. The
program was Dvorak 8 and Brahms PC 2 (Denis Kozhukin, who I'd not heard of).
We sat in the first row and looked at the bottom of the piano and the
pianists legs. The musicians themselves don't apparently have a dress code,
except to wear black. Some of them were a little scruffy. No matter. The
Dvorak was good. I thought Kozhukin technically adept, as they all are
nowadays, but not otherwise interesting. The sound was a little unbalanced
in the front row towards the right. We sat right in the front of the
cellos. One of the cellists winked at my grandaughter. She got a kick out
of that.

[Mark S]

The only thing that's dead is the ability of people who write doom and
gloom articles about the death of classical music to come up with
anything new to say on the subject.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 28, 3:43 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

Whenever a sitcom character is dragged to an opera by his wife, he
wears black tie. Otherwise, never, or maybe at an Opening Night Gala
(which is a fundraising event, not a musical occasion, anyway).

[William Sommerwerck]

Isn't the real problem that children aren't given a systematic musical
education? It needn't focus on classical music, by any means. But children
should be exposed to music theory; hear music that's more complex than a
handful of chords; and most importantly, learn that "music" includes works
written hundreds of year ago, that are still performed.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the "juvenilization" of American society if it's
not new, it's can't be interesting or relevant. Children should learn that
what /they/ like or want is of little or no interest to people who are
decades older than they.

[O]

In article <k95d4q$ken$1...@dont-email.me>, William Sommerwerck

<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Isn't the real problem that children aren't given a systematic musical
> education? It needn't focus on classical music, by any means. But children
> should be exposed to music theory; hear music that's more complex than a
> handful of chords; and most importantly, learn that "music" includes works
> written hundreds of year ago, that are still performed.

Children learn that the music they listen to is a "personal choice" to
be taken with other children who opt for similar choices, choosing
either Kanye or Kesha. It's a personal message from a celebrity teen
idol to them, and a lifestyle option that reflects on their personal
wisdom, fashion choices, and peer status. It assuages their rebellious
nature by providing various sexual and racial epithets whereby they
feel they are challenging the status quo. But this has been going on
since music started being recorded and easily available. Don't tell my
parents I listen to Benny Goodman.

> Children should learn that
> what /they/ like or want is of little or no interest to people who are
> decades older than they.

Oh, I think they're well aware and approve of that.

-Owen

[Mark S]

On Nov 28, 8:12 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Isn't the real problem that children aren't given a systematic musical
> education?

Children aren't given systematic training the the art form called
films/movies, but they have no problem finding their way to the same.

They're not given systematic training in rock music or boy bands or
EMO or The Beatles (retro!) or any of the other musical genres they
seem to enjoy favor among the youth.

Isn't the real problem that we've decided that the problem classical
music faces today is the lack of a growing youth market, when the
truth is that the youth market has never been a significant segment of
the classical market?

[Ed Romans]

On Nov 28, 8:43 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:
>

> Where is this "formal wear" still adopted? I'll book a ticket straight
> away (provided they're playing Bax, Martinu and Enescu of course rather
> than Brahms.)

Not sure about Bax, but try the Salzburg fesitval. I hate to admit I
was about the only person in jeans even at standard orchestral
concerts.

Ed

[John Thomas]

Classical music is not dying. Attendance at live performances is
dying. Too expensive, too formal, music too conservative, half the
audience dozing, not enough interaction between performers and
audience as happens in rock. And you can't dance to it.

There's nothing like a live performance and I'll be sorry to see live
classical concerts decline and disappear. But the issue isn't the
music, it's the way we present and finance it.

The comedian Louis C.K. recently began offering downloads of videos of
his live 1+ hour shows to anyone who'd pay $5 to receive them. I'm no
particular fan of Louis but I do like comedy and I was intrigued by
the idea. I got at least $5 worth of laughs out of it and was able to
keep the download (no DRM.) Louis C.K. got tens of thousands of
dollars at $5 a head, far more than he expected and far more than he
would have earned from a live show (which he'd already given anyway
when he'd made the video and for which he'd been paid through ticket
sales.)

It wouldn't be hard to adapt this idea to live recitals and concerts
streaming on your computer for $5 a head, downloads for $7 to those
who couldn't make the live broadcast, CD's/DVD's for $10 - $15
available to those who wanted a physical record. Plus downloads from
iTunes and promotional excerpts on YouTube. And increased CD sales
for the artists through normal channels. This is a method plenty of
young and not so young people can relate to and can afford. It lacks
the virtues of in the flesh concerts and recitals but offers the
advantages of low cost and easy informality. It would take some faith
and early losses to get it going, but not doing something innovative
can only mean even worse losses.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Isn't the real problem that children aren't given a systematic musical
>> education?

> Children aren't given systematic training the the art form called
> films/movies, but they have no problem finding their way to the same.

And look at their exquisite taste in the movies they like: "Transformers".
Slasher films. Stupid sex comedies. Add a few of your own.

> They're not given systematic training in rock music or boy bands or

> EMO or The Beatles (retro!) or any of the other musical genres that

> seem to enjoy favor among the youth.

They receive "systematic training" through constant repetition over the
radio.

> Isn't the real problem that we've decided that the problem classical
> music faces today is the lack of a growing youth market, when the
> truth is that the youth market has never been a significant segment
> of the classical market?

But that isn't the point. When you fail to expose children to "good" art,
music, literature -- what do you expect will happen? Once they reach the age
when they should start appreciating "better" things -- they won't, because
their tastes have been perverted.

[John Thomas]

On Nov 28, 12:33 pm, "William Sommerwerck"

That's right, it's the potential audience's fault, not something the
classical community itself is doing, like for instance trashing things
the potential audience already likes. It's not me, it's those other
people with no taste who are causing the problem. Psychotherapists
know this syndrome well.

[Mark S]

On Nov 28, 12:33 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>

> But that isn't the point. When you fail to expose children to "good" art,
> music, literature -- what do you expect will happen? Once they reach the age
> when they should start appreciating "better" things -- they won't, because
> their tastes have been perverted.

"Come here, kids! Treacle time is upon us. Now, off you go to the
symphony!"

I happen to have two kids, aged 19 and 15. One in college, one in high
school. Their exposure to the arts is much deeper and greater in many
respects than was mine, especially in the exposure they have received
in their public schools. The both appreciate the arts, but they are
not raving maniacs about classical music as I was at their age. Why?
Could it be because different people end up liking different things?
Kids growing up in a home where their parents love classical music and
where their dad works in the classical music industry is no more a
guarantee that they will evolve into "the audiences of tomorrow" than
it is a given that the children of a doctor or a school teacher follow
the same career path as their parents.

Kids today ARE exposed to good art and literature and music. Most of
them aren't going to make those things a major part of their adult
lives, and thus has it always been. The vast majority of people
haven't been consumers of the arts. The arts aren't dying because vast
swaths of people are turning away from the arts or not being exposed
to the arts. The arts are dying because the arts have always existed
to a great extent by the skin of their teeth, that skin being the
patronage dollars supplied by the wealthy. And THAT's what is really
killing the arts: the death of philanthropy in general among the heirs
who are taking over the fortunes of their families, fortunes that used
to - at least in part - fund the arts, but that are now kept in the
personal bank account, poised to purchase that fifth mansion or to
take that tenth world cruise, or to engage in the other self-centered
activities that have replaced philanthropy among the new idle rich.

The fact is that unless you're ready to raise the cost of a seat at an
orchestral concert by a factor of three to four, you will never bring
in enough money to fund an orchestra through ticket sales alone. Sell
out every seat at every concert and you'll still go out of business if
you don't have some wealthy patron making up the difference in
operating costs by writing that 6- or 7-figure check every year. It
matters not if that ticket is purchased by a blue hair or a teenager.
The ticket cost covers only 40-50% of the expense of putting on that
concert.

Existing donors are pulling back on their donations while new donors
are getting as rare as hen's teeth. Money is the lifeblood of the
arts, and the blood is drying up, and quickly. That's the problem that
needs to be addressed, not the age of the audience.

[Frank Berger]

We just need a special arts tax imposed on the rich. Simple.

Tongue now out of cheek:

You don't suppose that high taxes on the rich might deter them from giving
to the arts, do you?

[William Sommerwerck]

>> But that isn't the point. When you fail to expose children to "good"
>> art, music, literature -- what do you expect will happen? Once they
>> reach the age when they should start appreciating "better" things --
>> they won't, because their tastes have been perverted.

> That's right, it's the potential audience's fault, not something the
> classical community itself is doing, like for instance trashing things
> the potential audience already likes. It's not me, it's those other
> people with no taste who are causing the problem. Psychotherapists
> know this syndrome well.

I don't recall ever doing that. When I try to introduce classical music to
someone, it's always in the context of "This is fun stuff you're going to
like."

[William Sommerwerck]

> Kids today ARE exposed to good art and literature and music.

Such as...?

By the way, I'm not talking about "the classics". There should be plenty of
contemporary art and literature that kids could profitably read and discuss.
Music, I'm not so sure about.

[William Sommerwerck]

> You don't suppose that high taxes on the rich might deter them
> from giving to the arts, do you?

No, I don't. Aren't most arts contributions at least partially
income-deductible?

[Peter T. Daniels]

What does the Met Opera charge for the "Live HD broadcasts" in movie
theaters?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 28, 6:05 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

And when the republicans solve all our problems by capping deductionas
at $17K (Romney I) or $25K (Romney II) or $50K (one Sen. Corker, just
today), then what?

[Christopher Webber]

On 28/11/2012 17:47, Mark S wrote:
> Children aren't given systematic training the the art form called
> films/movies, but they have no problem finding their way to the same.

Not sure about that. Most of them find their way to cinematic dreck,
rather than the Coen Brothers or Miyazaki. Music has no worse a problem.

[Christopher Webber]

On 28/11/2012 21:00, John Thomas wrote:
> like for instance trashing things
> the potential audience already likes.

One has a duty to trash trash, though, don't you think?

[Christopher Webber]

On 28/11/2012 22:58, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> When I try to introduce classical music to someone, it's always in the
> context of "This is fun stuff you're going to like."

My approach is, if you don't like this, you can leave. On your own.

[Christopher Webber]

On 28/11/2012 21:15, Mark S wrote:
> but they are
> not raving maniacs about classical music as I was at their age.

That's a shame. Peer pressure is far worse than in (y)our day, and has
much to answer for.

[Christopher Webber]

On 28/11/2012 23:01, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Music, I'm not so sure about.

There's loads of fabulous contemporary stuff out there which can't be
pigeon-holed into one box or another, and has to pay for itself. May I
recommend BBC R3's superlative nightly show "Late Junction" (not so late
in USA of course) for a sampling of it?

The great news here, is that the Arts Council is thinking about funding
rock bands. That is *guaranteed* to kill 'em off and make Bax
fashionable again.

Come to think of it, he already *is* with music college undergrads: I
had a conversation recently with a Royal College academic, who was
regretting the fact that his students nowadays get together to play Bax
and Ireland, rather than Stravinsky and Schoenberg!

[Mark S]

On Nov 28, 2:57 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Existing donors are pulling back on their donations while new donors
> > are getting as rare as hen's teeth. Money is the lifeblood of the
> > arts, and the blood is drying up, and quickly. That's the problem that
> > needs to be addressed, not the age of the audience.
>
> We just need a special arts tax imposed on the rich.  Simple.
>
> Tongue now out of cheek:
>
> You don't suppose that high taxes on the rich might deter them from giving
> to the arts, do you?

The limitation or elimination of the charitable deduction would
certain hurt.

But since you ask, higher taxes on the rich - much higher taxes -
would be a boon to the economy. Why? Because it would have the effect
of forcing the rich to reinvest in their businesses, just as it did
when the top marginal rate was around 90%. Nobody ever paid that rate
because they took advantage of breaks in the tax code that rewarded
businesses for reinvesting. That reinvestment often came in the form
of paying higher wages and benefits to employees, insuring a loyal and
highly skilled workforce. Those costs of doing business were
deductible from taxes levied on the business. At the same time, those
investments in people created a consumer class that had the spending
power to purchase goods and services that allowed businesses to expand
even more.

Today, the business owner screws the worker and takes more of the
earnings out of his business as personal profits. And why not? His
rate of taxation on his personal income is now so low - roughly a
third of what it was under Ike - that he's more than happy to pay the
low taxes due. He can then turn around as an individual and invest the
money left after paying taxes into entities that earn capital gains,
which are taxed at the super-low 15% rate. Now, the profits he took
out of his business are being put to work to earn him a personal
fortune that sits outside of whatever he's doing in his business.
Eventually, he gets most his business salary paid in stock options and
tax-deferred funds that allow him to avoid paying taxes at all, or at
the worst, at the 13% Romney level.

I'm not really worried about the rich giving to the arts if they were
taxed higher, or much more highly. Why do we have this deal in this
country that the arts exist at THE WHIM of the rich, who can pick and
choose which arts organizations THEY want to support, and get a tax
break for doing so? I'd sort of prefer the state-subsidy model, where
enough tax revenue is collected from the citizenry that the government
can support the arts more robustly. I'd still be fine with rich people
getting a deduction for charitable giving, but I think the percentage
of any gift usable as a tax deduction could be more limited than it is
today. Surely, a rich person gets a benefit from having their name on
the front of a concert hall. Do they really need to get a giant tax
deduction for putting their name on a hall through a multimillion
dollar gift? How about a small deduction and the good feelings and
esteem that come with being altruistic? Must virtue have a price tag,
and a fully deductible one at that?

Of course, we then get down to what the priorities are of our nation,
and as long as we believe that making a profit is the first-and-
foremost goal of any and every endeavor in life, then the arts and a
whole lot of other non-profit-generating entities are going to not
only get short shrift in our national psyche, but be looked upon with
disdain for their inability to achieve Job One, which is "make a buck."

[Mark S]

On Nov 28, 3:01 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Our local high school has over 300 kids in the instrumental music
program. 180 of them are string players. My son played oboe in the top
orchestra (they have 3) and the wind ensemble. The orchestra played
the Brahms Academic Festival Overture on the final concert my son
played as a senior. And not some bastardized, make-it-easy
arrangement. They played the real thing (albeit under tempo in some
places). On that same concert, the played RNK's Procession of the
Nobles from Mlada. The year before the played The Moldau. On both
concerts, they played a selection from Star Wars, which didn't come
off as well technically because they didn't practice it as much as
they practiced the classical pieces.

When we lived in Fresno - fucking backwater, armpit-of-California
Fresno! - my son's *marching band* played a 10-minute version of
Scheherazade that was technically as difficult as the orchestral
version...and they had to scamper around the field all the while
playing the damn thing.

Maybe my experience has been the exception to the rule, but there are
many examples of the arts thriving in public schools.

BTW - IIRC, enrollment at music schools at American universities is at
an all-time high. How is that possible if these just-out-of-high
school kids weren't exposed to music?

[Mark S]

Around $20. Still no substitute for attending live theater. Opera
voices sound best in an unamplified, unelectrified environment.

[Christopher Webber]

On 29/11/2012 00:13, Mark S wrote:
> Opera
> voices sound best in an unamplified, unelectrified environment.

... which seems to rule out The Met itself!

[Mark S]

On Nov 28, 4:25 pm, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

Depends on the voice.

A voice with the right size can be very enjoyable in The Met.

The mouse-fart-sized voices? Not so much.

[Christopher Webber]

On 29/11/2012 00:26, Mark S wrote:
> A voice with the right size can be very enjoyable in The Met.

I was impishly alluding to the Met's use of amplification, for the
"mouse-fart" brigade.

[Frank Berger]

Yes. So what? Tax deductiblity means more charity *everything else the
same.* High taxes can still deter charitable giving.

[Frank Berger]

Why do Rs want to cap deductions? Doesn't that hurt the rich?

[Frank Berger]

In general, children, having not yet developed sophisticated taste, prefer
dreck. My grandaughter enjoyed her first classical concert, but would prefer
to see Carrie Underwood or Taylor Swift (not that they're dreck).

[Frank Berger]

Neither my wife nor my children share my love of classical music.

[Frank Berger]

The mind reels.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Because they claim they can increase revenue without raising taxes.

[Peter T. Daniels]

> voices sound best in an unamplified, unelectrified environment.-

In the middle of the last century, they toured. And performed complete
operas in English. (I just saw a TV commercial for a 2-hour Barber of
Seville in English. I wonder what they leave out.) With a local
repertoire company of folks like Roberta Peters, Eleanor Steeber,
Patrice Munsell, Jan Peerce, Richard Tucker, Sherrill Milnes, ...

[Frank Berger]

Huh?

[William Sommerwerck]

> Maybe my experience has been the exception to the rule, but
> there are many examples of the arts thriving in public schools.

It's good to hear that your son's school is one of them.

> IIRC, enrollment at music schools at American universities is at
> an all-time high. How is that possible if these just-out-of-high
> school kids weren't exposed to music?

I was talking about exposure to /good/ music.

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> Why do Rs want to cap deductions? Doesn't that hurt the rich?

>> Because they claim they can increase revenue without raising taxes.

> Huh?

Capping deductions effectively raises taxes.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 29, 5:27 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

It raises _revenue_. It doesn't raise tax _rates_. That's their new
crusade.

[jeffc]

> What does the Met Opera charge for the "Live HD broadcasts" in movie
> theaters?

What does the Munich Staatsoper charge to watch Turandot in 3D live on
the internet?
Or didn't any of you catch the broadcast on Sunday at

http://www.bayerische.staatsoper.de/866-ZmxhZz0xJmw9ZW4-~Staatsoper~bso_aktuell~aktuelles.html

Classical music? You mean anything composed prior to the death of
Puccini?
Or Beatle tunes from the '60s? Or Charlie Parker?

How many of us would be into classical music if we were introduced via
Stockhausen or Cage?
When 'classical music' became 'academic', it lost any hope of
appealing to the hoi poloi. Bernstein
and Lloyd-Webber -- almost 'classical' and almost 'popular'.

I saw a massive crowd in Central Park enjoying Andy Boccelli
attempting to sing 'classical music'.
And I thought I heard strains of Carmina Burana played at some
telecast sporting event.

'Classical music' appeals to a certain segment of the population and
always will.
I'd offer some characterization of them but that would surely raise
the ire of the political correctionists.

[Frank Berger]

And hurts the rich, which brings us back to my first question.

[Kip Williams]

jeffc wrote, On 11/29/12 7:37 AM:

> And I thought I heard strains of Carmina Burana played at some
> telecast sporting event.

I still want to hear an Italian soccer mob launch into an impromptu
chorus of "Va, Pensiero" from Nabucco.


Kip W

[Kip Williams]

jeffc wrote, On 11/29/12 7:37 AM:

> And I thought I heard strains of Carmina Burana played at some
> telecast sporting event.

[Kip Williams]

jeffc wrote, On 11/29/12 7:37 AM:

> And I thought I heard strains of Carmina Burana played at some
> telecast sporting event.

[Kip Williams]

Frank Berger wrote, On 11/28/12 10:03 PM:
> Mark S wrote:

...

>> Of course, we then get down to what the priorities are of our nation,
>> and as long as we believe that making a profit is the first-and-
>> foremost goal of any and every endeavor in life, then the arts and a
>> whole lot of other non-profit-generating entities are going to not
>> only get short shrift in our national psyche, but be looked upon with
>> disdain for their inability to achieve Job One, which is "make a
>> buck."
>
> The mind reels.

And makes no coherent reply. The desire is there to sneer, but not
enough ammunition to do more than announce the intention to spit.


Kip W

[John Thomas]

On Nov 28, 3:25 pm, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:
> On 28/11/2012 21:00, John Thomas wrote:
>
> >   like for instance trashing things
> > the potential audience already likes.
>
> One has a duty to trash trash, though, don't you think?

No.

[Gerard]

Frank Berger <frankd...@gmail.com> typed:

In what year?

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-11-29 12:37:00 +0000, jeffc said:
> How many of us would be into classical music if we were introduced via
> Stockhausen or Cage?

Gilbert and Sullivan and Beethoven worked a lot better for me. (Not
late Beethoven, though. Not to start with.) And the usual von Suppé and
"Fantasia" and "Peter and the Wolf" (in my case, the Basil Rathbone
recording). Then, when they're teenagers, hit them with "Fidelio", and,
if they're intellectually inclined, Boito's "Mefistofele". (But not
Gounod; reading a synopsis of "Faust" at age eight so revolted me that
I couldn't take opera seriously for a decade.) And after they've read
"The Lord of the Rings" at least twice, give 'em the Ring.

> When 'classical music' became 'academic', it lost any hope of
> appealing to the hoi poloi. Bernstein
> and Lloyd-Webber -- almost 'classical' and almost 'popular'.

And John Williams and Howard Shore. And, on the other hand, "Days of
Future Past", "Concerto for Group and Orchestra", and even "Tommy",
which is pure rock and role, but has some lessons to teach about scale
in a musical world dominated by songs.

--
John W Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)

[Mark S]

I have to admit that the idea of the rich being "hurt" strikes me as
being comical.

Why no similar concern about policies that hurt the poor or middle-
class, Frank? Is it because you believe they're a bunch of lazy
moochers who deserve the economic hurt they encounter?

[Christopher Webber]

On 29/11/2012 16:12, John Thomas wrote:
>> One has a duty to trash trash, though, don't you think?
> No.

I admire your pure, unsullied and laconic relativism. Sad to say, it
won't wash, in music or anything else.

But the reality is that *somebody* has to lead the way on quality. There
has to be a moral dialectic on what's good and bad. Otherwise the tide
of passive aggression from people who dimly perceive something is wrong
(but lack the will to do anything about it) will soon swamp the whole of
society.

I suggest a re-reading of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
might act as a salve for complacent certitudes.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-11-28 17:47:29 +0000, Mark S said:

> On Nov 28, 8:12 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Isn't the real problem that children aren't given a systematic musical
>> education?

>
> Children aren't given systematic training the the art form called
> films/movies, but they have no problem finding their way to the same.
>

> They're not given systematic training in rock music or boy bands or
> EMO or The Beatles (retro!) or any of the other musical genres they
> seem to enjoy favor among the youth.
>
> Isn't the real problem that we've decided that the problem classical
> music faces today is the lack of a growing youth market, when the
> truth is that the youth market has never been a significant segment of
> the classical market?

Actually, judging from the 78s in my parents' record collection, they
were a good deal more interested in classical music before I was born
than I remember them as being.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-11-28 22:57:42 +0000, Frank Berger said:

> Mark S wrote:

>> On Nov 28, 12:33 pm, "William Sommerwerck"
>> <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> But that isn't the point. When you fail to expose children to "good"
>>> art, music, literature -- what do you expect will happen? Once they
>>> reach the age when they should start appreciating "better" things --
>>> they won't, because their tastes have been perverted.
>>
>> "Come here, kids! Treacle time is upon us. Now, off you go to the
>> symphony!"
>>
>> I happen to have two kids, aged 19 and 15. One in college, one in high
>> school. Their exposure to the arts is much deeper and greater in many
>> respects than was mine, especially in the exposure they have received
>> in their public schools. The both appreciate the arts, but they are
>> not raving maniacs about classical music as I was at their age. Why?
>> Could it be because different people end up liking different things?
>> Kids growing up in a home where their parents love classical music and
>> where their dad works in the classical music industry is no more a
>> guarantee that they will evolve into "the audiences of tomorrow" than
>> it is a given that the children of a doctor or a school teacher follow
>> the same career path as their parents.
>>
>> Kids today ARE exposed to good art and literature and music. Most of
>> them aren't going to make those things a major part of their adult
>> lives, and thus has it always been. The vast majority of people
>> haven't been consumers of the arts. The arts aren't dying because vast
>> swaths of people are turning away from the arts or not being exposed
>> to the arts. The arts are dying because the arts have always existed
>> to a great extent by the skin of their teeth, that skin being the
>> patronage dollars supplied by the wealthy. And THAT's what is really
>> killing the arts: the death of philanthropy in general among the heirs
>> who are taking over the fortunes of their families, fortunes that used
>> to - at least in part - fund the arts, but that are now kept in the
>> personal bank account, poised to purchase that fifth mansion or to
>> take that tenth world cruise, or to engage in the other self-centered
>> activities that have replaced philanthropy among the new idle rich.
>>
>> The fact is that unless you're ready to raise the cost of a seat at an
>> orchestral concert by a factor of three to four, you will never bring
>> in enough money to fund an orchestra through ticket sales alone. Sell
>> out every seat at every concert and you'll still go out of business if
>> you don't have some wealthy patron making up the difference in
>> operating costs by writing that 6- or 7-figure check every year. It
>> matters not if that ticket is purchased by a blue hair or a teenager.
>> The ticket cost covers only 40-50% of the expense of putting on that
>> concert.

>>
>> Existing donors are pulling back on their donations while new donors
>> are getting as rare as hen's teeth. Money is the lifeblood of the
>> arts, and the blood is drying up, and quickly. That's the problem that
>> needs to be addressed, not the age of the audience.
>
> We just need a special arts tax imposed on the rich. Simple.
>
> Tongue now out of cheek:
>

> You don't suppose that high taxes on the rich might deter them from
> giving to the arts, do you?

No. It's an impudent lie.

--
John W Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich
have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"

[Mark S]

On Nov 29, 2:24 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

What makes you think that a youth starting university music school
hasn't been exposed to "good" music? Dontcha sorta think the string
players had some exposure? Or were they all playing Bluegrass
exclusively before their college days? How about singers? Think any of
them may have sung Messiah at some point before leaving for college?

People need to audition for music school, and they're always required
to play/sing classical music selections. I doubt there's even an
option to play a non-classical piece in an entrance audition. Do you
think these kids had no exposure to good music prior to learning their
audition repertoire?

[RichD]

On Nov 27, 5Frank Forman <chec...@panix.com> wrote:
> Sunday Dialogue: Is Classical Music Dying?http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-is-c...
>
> Readers react to a violinist's fear that its audience is declining.
>
> To the Editor:
> A schoolboy recently asked me if Richard Wagner was a pitcher for
> the Yankees. At that moment I feared that classical music in America
> was doomed.
>
> Or is it? The dying of the classical recording industry, which began
> in the 1990s, is indeed a cause for despair. There seem to be,
> sadly, other harbingers of the death of classical music in America:


blah blah

Hasn't classical music been on its deathbed for ages?
Shit or get off the pot, pal!

In fact, orchestral has always appealed to a small audience,
and always will. That audience - along with philanthropy - is
still large enough, to keep it alive. All these 'get out the vote'
programs and agendas are pissing into the wind.


> Classical music is not dead; it's not even resting. The classical
> world is evolving. Live listening experiences are incorporating new
> elements like video feeds, audience chats, short lunchtime or
> dinnertime programs and late-night cocktail concerts.

I like this attitude.

Why should performance be stuck in the past? Does
'preserve' mean stagnation? Mozart, Liszt, and the gang
were rebels and trendsetters, were they not? Were they
obsessed with 'preserving the past'?


--
Rich

[Frank Berger]

Let me spell this out for you, Mark. Ds accuse Rs of forumulating policy
practically exclusively to help the rich. He is a supposed R policy that
appears to hurt the rich. So I called attention to the apparent
inconsistency. It has nothing to do with my own feelings about helping or
hurting the rich or the poor. You can be SO dense, sometimes.

[Christopher Webber]

On 29/11/2012 19:08, RichD wrote:
> Mozart, Liszt, and the gang
> were rebels and trendsetters, were they not? Were they
> obsessed with 'preserving the past'?

No. They hardly thought about it, though Mozart worshipped Handel and
revived whatever he could.

But nor did he think of himself as a rebel or iconoclast when it came to
music - rather he felt part of a continuum which everyone thought would
go on for ever. But you're right to say he couldn't understand people
who confused proper seriousness about art with merely pompous solemnity.

It's the solemnity which sanctifies, ossifies and kills art forms, not
the seriousness. As you say, the audience for intellectual music has
always been small, in almost all times and places (though not quite
all). And it's always relied on Princes, in one form or another, to keep
going.

But its diversity is immense. Insiders often can't see what's new and
important and what's not. It takes decades to become clearer - sometimes
centuries. And people who think that so-called "classical" music is all
about stuffed-shirt concert halls and well-heeled opera houses are
falling for a media lie.

[John Thomas]

On Nov 29, 8:37 am, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

The reality is that *somebody* has to lead the way in being a pompous
dork and you're
obviously doing your duty.

[Christopher Webber]

On 29/11/2012 22:56, John Thomas wrote:
> The reality is that*somebody* has to lead the way in being a pompous

> dork and you're
> obviously doing your duty.

Thank you John. It's nice to feel appreciated. Sorry I don't express
myself as vulgarly as you, but I will keep trying. Sorry you don't get
my point - doubtless my fault for using words of more than one syllable
to a John Thomas.

[John Wiser]

"Christopher Webber" <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:ahqa27...@mid.individual.net...

I'm confused here. I thought dork
was another term for a John Thomas,
a hampton, or what you willy?

jdw

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 29, 2:16 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark S wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 6:56 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >>>>>> Why do Rs want to cap deductions? Doesn't that hurt the rich?
>
> >>>>> Because they claim they can increase revenue without raising
> >>>>> taxes.
>
> >>>> Huh?
>
> >>> Capping deductions effectively raises taxes.
>
> >> And hurts the rich, which brings us back to my first question.
>
> > I have to admit that the idea of the rich being "hurt" strikes me as
> > being comical.
>
> > Why no similar concern about policies that hurt the poor or middle-
> > class, Frank? Is it because you believe they're a bunch of lazy
> > moochers who deserve the economic hurt they encounter?
>
> Let me spell this out for you, Mark.  Ds accuse Rs of forumulating policy
> practically exclusively to help the rich.  He is a supposed R policy that
> appears to hurt the rich.

Did I miss something? Where did you show that the policy "hurts the
rich"?

> So I called attention to the apparent
> inconsistency.  It has nothing to do with my own feelings about helping or

> hurting the rich or the poor. You can be SO dense, sometimes.-

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Nov 29, 11:32 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2012-11-29 12:37:00 +0000, jeffc said:
>
> > How many of us would be into classical music if we were introduced via
> > Stockhausen or Cage?
>
> Gilbert and Sullivan and Beethoven worked a lot better for me. (Not
> late Beethoven, though. Not to start with.) And the usual von Suppé and
> "Fantasia" and "Peter and the Wolf" (in my case, the Basil Rathbone
> recording).

I _think_ the first concert I ever went to was a children's concert
put on by a City College of New York ensemble (my mother worked there)
when I was maybe 6; it was Peter and the Wolf and Carnival of the
Animals.

I know that the first two movies I went to (but not which came first)
were Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and Hansel and Gretel (the
latter being a marionette version of the opera -- I found out when I
came across a Beta copy decades later that Anna Russell was the Witch,
and Helen Donath was one of the kids, and I have a feeling that Father
was DFD early in his career; at any rate someone quite eminent.

> Then, when they're teenagers, hit them with "Fidelio", and,

Has anyone done Fidelio since Jon Vickers retired?

> if they're intellectually inclined, Boito's "Mefistofele". (But not
> Gounod; reading a synopsis of "Faust" at age eight so revolted me that
> I couldn't take opera seriously for a decade.) And after they've read
> "The Lord of the Rings" at least twice, give 'em the Ring.

How about Dutchman? It's a great tune.

> > When 'classical music' became 'academic', it lost any hope of
> > appealing to the hoi poloi. Bernstein
> > and Lloyd-Webber -- almost 'classical' and almost 'popular'.
>
> And John Williams and Howard Shore.

feh.

> And, on the other hand, "Days of
> Future Past", "Concerto for Group and Orchestra", and even "Tommy",
> which is pure rock and role, but has some lessons to teach about scale
> in a musical world dominated by songs.

And then the rest of the Ken Russell music movies!

[Frank Berger]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2:16 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mark S wrote:
>>> On Nov 29, 6:56 am, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why do Rs want to cap deductions? Doesn't that hurt the rich?
>>
>>>>>>> Because they claim they can increase revenue without raising
>>>>>>> taxes.
>>
>>>>>> Huh?
>>
>>>>> Capping deductions effectively raises taxes.
>>
>>>> And hurts the rich, which brings us back to my first question.
>>
>>> I have to admit that the idea of the rich being "hurt" strikes me as
>>> being comical.
>>
>>> Why no similar concern about policies that hurt the poor or middle-
>>> class, Frank? Is it because you believe they're a bunch of lazy
>>> moochers who deserve the economic hurt they encounter?
>>
>> Let me spell this out for you, Mark. Ds accuse Rs of forumulating
>> policy practically exclusively to help the rich. He is a supposed R
>> policy that appears to hurt the rich.
>
> Did I miss something? Where did you show that the policy "hurts the
> rich"?
>

A person chooses the level of charitable contributions given his income,
tastes, etc. If the new cap is less than what he was giving, his effective
tax rate goes up. That makes him worse off. This goes for anyone, of
course. If the rich are more affected by the cap, they would be
differentially worse off than the non-rich.

[Mark S]

It only "hurts" in that the tax deduction allowed is smaller.

I'm sure most rich people will find any hurt they encounter to be more
than offset by the good their charitable donations do for others.
You'd think that would be enough.

[Christopher Webber]

On 30/11/2012 03:25, John Wiser wrote:
> I'm confused here. I thought dork
> was another term for a John Thomas,
> a hampton, or what you willy?

Quite. Maybe the gentleman is confusing me with himself. Or maybe his
guardians have managed to shield him from British slang for all of his
82 or so years. But if you prick us, do we not bleed?

[Peter T. Daniels]

> You'd think that would be enough.-

I don't know who or where you are, but did you follow the US election
campaign? When Romney finally got around to releasing his 2011 tax
returns [this is a standard practice for all candidates for public
office above trivial levels], it turned out that he declined to
declare some considerable portion of his "gifts" to his church for the
year so that the charitable deduction would not put his effective tax
rate under 13% (which he had boasted he had never paid less than over
the past 10 years).

[Mark S]

Yes. And now that he lost - and lost in a landslide - and will never
run for another public office, he will go back and file an amended
return (as has been his history) amd take all of those deductions, no
doubt lowering his taxes to 0%.

[Kip Williams]

Mark S wrote, On 11/30/12 9:57 AM:

Forbes, I think it was, got hold of his 2007 return, and it appears that
he not only used a charity dodge to lower his taxes, he used it in a way
that allowed him to short the Mormon church, no less. It should have
gotten more play, but that liberal press that's so bent on playing the
gotcha game with him snored on through it all, as usual.


Kip W

[Peter T. Daniels]

How can we know that? Isn't that at best an assumption?

Among all the many "explanations" for his reluctance, one of the best
was the suggestion that he took advantage of some "tax amnesty" in
2009, meaning he had been doing something that was, at the least,
underhanded earlier than that. (I don't remember anything about a tax
amnesty then, though.)

> amd take all of those deductions, no

> doubt lowering his taxes to 0%.-

Why stop there? Oil companies get "refunds."

[Peter T. Daniels]

I suspect that if anyone actually did see a 2007 return, the lefties
would have been all over it -- The Nation (John Nichols, Katrina
Vanden Heuvel), Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, etc. (I would say Ed
Schulz but I'm quite sure he wouldn't be able to understand the issue
-- he's still saying the Dems shouldn't do anything about filibuster
reform in January, the Reps will just continue to self-destruct. He
doesn't seem to grasp that what the reformers want to do is go back to
the old rules where you actually had to filibuster, not just say you
were going to filibuster. He seems to think they want to do away with
it -- which he seems to forget was the "nuclear option" the Reps
threatened when they last had control and Dems threatened a
filibuster.)

[J.Martin]

>
> Classical music? You mean anything composed prior to the death of
> Puccini?
> Or Beatle tunes from the '60s? Or Charlie Parker?
>

Thank you. It is foolish to presume, in a world where people are
increasingly exposed to cultures from around the globes and music of
every conceivable form, that one particular style of music performed
in a particular way in Europe during a particular period of history
will maintain a certain level of popularity indefinitely. Much of the
complaining about the supposed "death" of classical music amounts to
nothing more than a variation on the familiar definition of
ethnocentrism: "there are certain universal values im music, and they
happen to be mine."

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-11-30 04:23:22 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:

> On Nov 29, 11:32 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2012-11-29 12:37:00 +0000, jeffc said:
>>
>>> How many of us would be into classical music if we were introduced via
>>> Stockhausen or Cage?
>>
>> Gilbert and Sullivan and Beethoven worked a lot better for me. (Not
>> late Beethoven, though. Not to start with.) And the usual von Suppé and
>> "Fantasia" and "Peter and the Wolf" (in my case, the Basil Rathbone
>> recording).
>
> I _think_ the first concert I ever went to was a children's concert
> put on by a City College of New York ensemble (my mother worked there)
> when I was maybe 6; it was Peter and the Wolf and Carnival of the
> Animals.
>
> I know that the first two movies I went to (but not which came first)
> were Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and Hansel and Gretel (the
> latter being a marionette version of the opera -- I found out when I
> came across a Beta copy decades later that Anna Russell was the Witch,
> and Helen Donath was one of the kids, and I have a feeling that Father
> was DFD early in his career; at any rate someone quite eminent.
>
>> Then, when they're teenagers, hit them with "Fidelio", and,
>
> Has anyone done Fidelio since Jon Vickers retired?

They certainly keep recording it.

>> if they're intellectually inclined, Boito's "Mefistofele". (But not
>> Gounod; reading a synopsis of "Faust" at age eight so revolted me that
>> I couldn't take opera seriously for a decade.) And after they've read
>> "The Lord of the Rings" at least twice, give 'em the Ring.
>
> How about Dutchman? It's a great tune.

Yes, but it takes a certain mindset to appreciate the story, one that
is more likely to appear in college.

>>> When 'classical music' became 'academic', it lost any hope of
>>> appealing to the hoi poloi. Bernstein
>>> and Lloyd-Webber -- almost 'classical' and almost 'popular'.
>>
>> And John Williams and Howard Shore.
>
> feh.

John Williams is not a profoundly great composer, but he is /popular/,
and unquestionably works in the style that is called "classical". Shore
can be quite brilliant, and he does his own orchestrations, which
shows. And he has an ear for exotic instruments; I play pennywhistle,
myself, and the "hobbit" theme is beautifully suited to it. His use of
the hardingfele, too, is damned effective.

>> And, on the other hand, "Days of
>> Future Past", "Concerto for Group and Orchestra", and even "Tommy",
>> which is pure rock and role, but has some lessons to teach about scale
>> in a musical world dominated by songs.
>
> And then the rest of the Ken Russell music movies!

--
John W Kennedy
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump
of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that
because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in
the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear
I can't see it that way."
-- The last words of Bat Masterson

[Doug McDonald]

On 11/28/2012 10:12 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Isn't the real problem that children aren't given a systematic musical education? It needn't focus
> on classical music, by any means. But children should be exposed to music theory; hear music that's
> more complex than a handful of chords; and most importantly, learn that "music" includes works
> written hundreds of year ago, that are still performed.
>
> Perhaps the worst aspect of the "juvenilization" of American society if it's not new, it's can't be
> interesting or relevant. Children should learn that what /they/ like or want is of little or no
> interest to people who are decades older than they.
On 11/28/2012 10:12 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> Perhaps the worst aspect of the "juvenilization" of American society if it's not new, it's can't be
> interesting or relevant. Children should learn that what /they/ like or want is of little or no
> interest to people who are decades older than they.

That's true ... but so is the reverse. But today, "innovation" is
a big plus in everything from technology and science to food to art to
pop music to classical music. Though far-out innovation in classical
music is not so much the sine qua non of critical success today as it
was 50 years ago. Perhaps this is a reaction to the lack of populatity
of classical music? [Rhetorical question alert]

Doug McDonald

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Perhaps the worst aspect of the "juvenilization" of American society
>> if it's not new, it's can't be interesting or relevant. Children should
>> learn that what /they/ like or want is of little or no interest to people
>> who are decades older than they.

> That's true... but so is the reverse. But today, "innovation" is a big

> plus in everything from technology and science to food to art to
> pop music to classical music. Though far-out innovation in classical
> music is not so much the sine qua non of critical success today as it

> was 50 years ago. Perhaps this is a reaction to the lack of popularity
> of classical music?

Rhetorical or not, how often do you hear a new, appealing work in the
concert hall? A work doesn't have to be tonal, or be immediately
comprehensible on every level to be appealing.

[Mark S]

> On 11/28/2012 10:12 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>  >
>  > Perhaps the worst aspect of the "juvenilization" of American society if it's not new, it's can't be
>  > interesting or relevant. Children should learn that what /they/ like or want is of little or no
>  > interest to people who are decades older than they.

On Dec 1, 6:35 am, Doug McDonald <mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

> That's true ... but so is the reverse.

Anybody who is a parent today knows that today's kids are into all
things "retro," at least as that applies going back to the 50s.

Nothing new there.

[Gerard]

Mark S <markst...@yahoo.com> typed:

Those fashions don't live longer than a year.

[Mark S]

On Dec 1, 11:18 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>

> Rhetorical or not, how often do you hear a new, appealing work in the
> concert hall? A work doesn't have to be tonal, or be immediately
> comprehensible on every level to be appealing.

Most if not all of the new music I've heard in the concert hall over
the past decade has been violently atonal. coming off more as
organized noise more suitable to the sound effect track of a horror
movie than to that movie's music track.

Apparently, today's composers still feel the need to be shocking and
in-your-face about what they write. Perhaps that's why so much of
their music comes off as being unoriginal carbon copies of each other.
They all tend to have the same instrumental effects, way too much
percussion, an obsession with including exotic instruments for no
discernible reason, and avoiding tonality at all expense. The few that
do write in a tonal way tend to write music suited to movie
background. You know, the kind of music that never cadences, never
climaxes and is instantly forgettable.

[Kip Williams]

Mark S wrote, On 12/1/12 3:38 PM:

> Anybody who is a parent today knows that today's kids are into all
> things "retro," at least as that applies going back to the 50s.

I feel keenly for the young people who work in stores that relentlessly
replay a track of my old pop music, from the fifties (slightly before my
time, but I was into the oldies show) to early seventies. I asked one
once — at Friendly's — if it bothered her, and she said she mostly tunes
it out. Maybe when she's my age, she'll start missing it.

"No, not here. Let's go find a store/restaurant that's playing 50s-70s
Christmas songs." —Things you never hear


Kip W

[Christopher Webber]

On 01/12/2012 20:45, Mark S wrote:
> Most if not all of the new music I've heard in the concert hall over
> the past decade has been violently atonal. coming off more as
> organized noise more suitable to the sound effect track of a horror
> movie than to that movie's music track.

John Adams. James MacMillan. Thomas Ad�s. Louis Andriessen ... none of
these four, who happen simply to be the first four off the top of my
head, fit such a caricature cartoon of 21st century "new music".

They all four write music which is varied in mood, orchestral and vocal
layout, consistently interesting, sometimes light, sometimes provoking,
sometimes powerful or moving. Technically they are wonderfully secure.

Not everything they write is successful, but the same's true of every
composer who ever wrote a bar. Adams's operas, MacMillan's sacred choral
works, Ad�s's orchestral and chamber pieces, Andriessen's big band
minimalist fantasias ... To my mind this small handful taken at hazard
show the huge diversity, quality and sheer interest of the contemporary
music available to us today. (And none of their stuff sounds like film
music, either, horrific or otherwise.)

[Mark S]

On Dec 1, 1:12 pm, Christopher Webber <zarzu...@zarzuela.invalid.net>
wrote:

> On 01/12/2012 20:45, Mark S wrote:
>
> > Most if not all of the new music I've heard in the concert hall over
> > the past decade has been violently atonal. coming off more as
> > organized noise more suitable to the sound effect track of a horror
> > movie than to that movie's music track.
>

> John Adams. James MacMillan. Thomas Adés. Louis Andriessen ... none of

> these four, who happen simply to be the first four off the top of my
> head, fit such a caricature cartoon of 21st century "new music".

You asked: "Rhetorical or not, how often do you hear a new, appealing

work in the
concert hall? A work doesn't have to be tonal, or be immediately
comprehensible on every level to be appealing."

You've answered your own question, have you not? The composers you
cite all wrote highly tonal music, and their music is heard quite
often in the concert hall.

My post took on the second part of your question. Beyond the tonal
composers you mention - who really pose no challenges to the average
listener. Their music is no more adventurous than what one hears on
B'way - who out there is writing accessible music that meets your
criteria of, "doesn't have to be tonal, or be immediately
comprehensible on every level to be appealing?" I don't know of any.

[Jenn]

In article
<5c8c1b8c-025c-459b...@uk1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

There's an entire "school" of neo-romantic composers who are quite
popular with audiences: Lauridsen, Ticheli, Whitacre, Rouse, et al.

[Christopher Webber]

On 01/12/2012 21:36, Mark S wrote:
> You asked:

Not I, Mark - Mr Sommerwenck I believe.

Still, there's nothing exclusive about my Four non-atonal Musketeers.
They are just the tip of a large iceberg of working composers who are
doing good things - and they're doing it right now.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 1, 2:18 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

In 2000, the Juilliard School put on a series called "Piano Century,"
one concert for each decade of the 20th century, each containing music
composed during that decade (and each played by a different Juilliard
piano student), no composer represented by more than one work.

I didn't know about it till the 3rd or 4th one (the 1930s) but didn't
miss one after that -- and the single most thrilling work in the
entire century was Stefan Wolpe's Passacaglia (1936).

It's hyper-Schoenbergian -- he tried to control every variable, Webern-
like -- yet it is also profoundly _musical_. (At the same time that he
was creating academic -- and unplayable -- works like that, he was
_also_ making popular pieces from Palestinian folk tunes, so he was
always in touch with what "the folk" wanted.)

He had fled from Germany to Palestine in 1933 or 34 but came to New
York in 1940. The only person who could play the Passacaglia was his
wife (she did record it, but that doesn't seem to have gotten to CD),
and it didn't have its first public performance until 1954, by David
Tudor. And _that_ recording is disturbingly mechanical -- unlike the
half-dozen or so since then.

I heard a piece on Israeli radio when I happened to be there on
Memorial Day in April that I thought must be Wolpe -- it turned out to
be Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time!, in an out-of-print
performance (featuring Joshua Bell) that was resoundingly panned when
it came out ca. 1990; the reviewers all preferred more "romantic"
renditions. I was very lucky to find it at Academy Used CDs some
months later. It is probably much closer to the performance at Trinity
Church that closed their summer concert season on September 6, 2001 --
which I found so moving and disturbing that I couldn't simply get on
the subway and go home, but walked through the World Trade Center to
the bank of the Hudson for a spate of decompression.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 1, 3:45 pm, Mark S <markstenr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 11:18 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rhetorical or not, how often do you hear a new, appealing work in the
> > concert hall? A work doesn't have to be tonal, or be immediately
> > comprehensible on every level to be appealing.
>
> Most if not all of the new music I've heard in the concert hall over
> the past decade has been violently atonal. coming off more as
> organized noise more suitable to the sound effect track of a horror
> movie than to that movie's music track.

So why are you going to retro concerts? That doesn't describe the work
of Tower, or Zwillich, or Corigliano. (Hate though I do to say
anything nice about Adams or Glass or Reich, it doesn't fit them,
either.)

> Apparently, today's composers still feel the need to be shocking and
> in-your-face about what they write. Perhaps that's why so much of
> their music comes off as being unoriginal carbon copies of each other.
> They all tend to have the same instrumental effects, way too much
> percussion, an obsession with including exotic instruments for no
> discernible reason, and avoiding tonality at all expense. The few that
> do write in a tonal way tend to write music suited to movie
> background. You know, the kind of music that never cadences, never
> climaxes and is instantly forgettable.

Oh, you mean Wagner?

Have you ever tried George Crumb? or George Rochberg?

[Mark S]

Rochberg is dead. Crumb is still writing, but how many of his newer
works are catching on like Ancient Vices or Black Angels.

I thought we were discussing NEW music.

[Peter T. Daniels]

> I thought we were discussing  NEW music.-

The complaints are about mid-20th-century music.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Have you ever tried George Crumb? or George Rochberg?

I remember when Crumb's "Music for a Summer Night" came out. He was
criticized by a few reviewers for writing music that wasn't sufficiently
difficult.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 10:43 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Did Mr. Slonimsky collect those remarks? (Did you?)

[William Sommerwerck]

>> I remember when Crumb's "Music for a Summer Night" came out.
>> He was criticized by a few reviewers for writing music that wasn't
>> sufficiently difficult.

> Did Mr. Slonimsky collect those remarks? (Did you?)

Crumb never became a sufficiently popular composer for the late NS to poke
fun at those who failed to appreciate him. And, no, I did not collect the
remarks.

If you don't have a copy of the "Lexicon of Musical Invective"... get one.

http://www.amazon.com/Lexicon-Musical-Invective-Composers-Beethovens/dp/039332009X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354485114&sr=1-2&keywords=nicholas+slonimsky

One of the repeated criticisms of Romantic composers is that the listener
doesn't know whether a particular note is "correct" or not. This suggests a
very parochial way of listening to music -- one, perhaps, unduly influenced
by musical theory. (No, I am /not/ implying that "the less you know, the
more you'll enjoy the music".)

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 4:55 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> >> I remember when Crumb's "Music for a Summer Night" came out.
> >> He was criticized by a few reviewers for writing music that wasn't
> >> sufficiently difficult.

> > Did Mr. Slonimsky collect those remarks? (Did you?)
>
> Crumb never became a sufficiently popular composer for the late NS to poke
> fun at those who failed to appreciate him.

I remember him being quite popular ... if the book had had revised
editions, perhaps the critics would have gotten in.

> And, no, I did not collect the
> remarks.
>
> If you don't have a copy of the "Lexicon of Musical Invective"... get one.
>

> http://www.amazon.com/Lexicon-Musical-Invective-Composers-Beethovens/...

As I mentioned a few weeks ago, when I was the shelver at the Cornell
Music Library, Karel Husa used to check it out every couple of
weeks ... he retired to North Carolina and is in his 90s now.

[Jenn]

In article
<308056d9-45b9-4ee3...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> As I mentioned a few weeks ago, when I was the shelver at the Cornell
> Music Library, Karel Husa used to check it out every couple of
> weeks ... he retired to North Carolina and is in his 90s now.

I love him dearly.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 2, 8:11 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <308056d9-45b9-4ee3-aa9c-1026c0ab1...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

>  "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > As I mentioned a few weeks ago, when I was the shelver at the Cornell
> > Music Library, Karel Husa used to check it out every couple of
> > weeks ... he retired to North Carolina and is in his 90s now.
>
> I love him dearly.

He bought me my first beer, on my 18th birthday (1969).

[Jenn]

In article
<67f8a201-a47b-4be3...@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

:-) Very cool. Big year for him, emotionally and musically.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 3, 1:39 am, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article

> <67f8a201-a47b-4be3-a69f-b2b18348b...@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,

>  "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 2, 8:11 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <308056d9-45b9-4ee3-aa9c-1026c0ab1...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > As I mentioned a few weeks ago, when I was the shelver at the Cornell
> > > > Music Library, Karel Husa used to check it out every couple of
> > > > weeks ... he retired to North Carolina and is in his 90s now.
>
> > > I love him dearly.
>
> > He bought me my first beer, on my 18th birthday (1969).
>
>  :-)  Very cool.  Big year for him, emotionally and musically.

Eh, what's the big deal about a Pulitzer Prize or the invasion of your
homeland?

Did you know that Music for Prague 1968 was originally a concert band
piece, but he then had some sort of falling-out with the band director
Marice Stith, who was also a virtuoso trumpet player and a virtuoso
recording engineer -- he recorded the Camrima Burana concert _from the
first chair of the trumpets -- and so arranged it for orchestra?

At one of the orchestra rehearsals for C.B., with the chorus there, he
wanted one of the non-choral movements to go a little slower, so he
said, "In Bohemia we are a little bigger, we dance a little more
slowly."

[Jenn]

In article
<82a30741-3e54-46d3...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

Indeed, I've done Prague for wind band several times, an absolute
masterpiece. It doesn't work quite as well for orchestra, IMO.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Dec 3, 11:22 am, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article

> <82a30741-3e54-46d3-b30e-587b2824b...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

> masterpiece.  It doesn't work quite as well for orchestra, IMO.-

Still, on I think it was the 20th anniversary, the Grant Park Symphony
(Chicago) under Zdenek Macal (during the season he was music director
of the Milwaukee Symphony) observed the occasion with a complete Ma
Vlast -- which incorporates the same folk tune, but the Husa would
have been more appropriate. (Alternatively it was in 1989, celebrating
the liberation, but I don't think so.)