Beethoven transformed music, but has veneration of him stifled his successors?
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
So government endowments enable orchestras to experiment and hence stay relevant. Without those your analysis is spot on.
Rachmaninov, Schubert, Schonberg, Brahms, Beethoven (x6!), Mahler, Herrman, Barber, Mozart, Rota, Dvorak, Lekeu, Chausson, DeBussy
I'm not familiar with some of the names. I think Rota is a modern composer. But most of those names are composers who have been buried.
The Beethoven situation is a bit of an exception as they're doing a series with all 9 symphonies in a row. And I see a few more composers in http://www.operadeparis.fr/en/saison-2014-2015/concert--reci...
* Barber (1910-1981)
* Beethoven (1770-1827)
* Brahms (1833-1897)
* Chausson (1855-1899)
* Copland (1900-1990)
* Dvořák (1841-1904)
* Herrman (1911-1975)
* Lekeu (1870-1894)
* Mahler (1860-1911)
* Mozart (1756-1791)
* Praetorius (1571-1621)
* Prokofiev (1891-1953)
* Rachmaninov (1873-1943)
* Ravel (1875-1937)
* Rota (1911-1979)
* Schubert (1797-1828)
* Schönberg (1875-1951)
* Spohr (1784-1859)
* Strauss (1864-1949)
* Suk (1874-1935)
* Susato (1500-1561)
* Tarrega (1852-1909)
* Verdi (1813-1901)
I'm glad to see musicians continue to be employed because it makes the world a better place. But the 'classical music' cult was weird. It's like the State Fair tap-dancing talent competition. Why is it there? Because they've always done it. Not really a spectator sport, but folks spend 10000 hour getting good at it anyway. I'm not going to cry over the 'death spiral' of tap-dancing either.
I believe that in a world where the 3 minute radio-friendly song is an artifact of a bygone era and the constraints of physical media are gone, there will be a major resurgence of interest in epic, complex works of music. Just as Netflix has made psychologically complex, extremely long TV series much more central to our culture, I think people will start to gravitate to headier music that was constrained by yesterday's media.
Powerful stuff. Maybe Beethoven would've been a movie composer if he was alive in the modern era.
See, for example, http://properdiscord.com/2014/07/22/scott-timberg-ive-got-a-...
There are many other similar posts, all full of facts, on this blog. Alex Ross himself has written on the subject.
Now, name a modern, orchestra composer who's work you've listened to (excluding motion picture soundtracks)?
Now, imagine if rock music stopped at Pink Floyd's The Wall.
Ticket sales don't lie. Symphonies are shutting down all over the country.
Alan Hovhaness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG_gAMwGG-Q
Some symphonies are shutting down, but the Chicago Symphony just announced increases in ticket sales and attendance. Excitement over my local orchestra, the Seattle Symphony, is increased in recent years since they hired a new music director and commissioned a Pulitzer-prize winning piece by John Luther Adams.
For me, I think my concern about modern composers is that I associate them with highly dissonant or atonal music... I realize those are problematic descriptions, but I don't know the right terminology. Now, I do like atonal music to some degree -- I play the shakuhachi; perhaps honkyoku could be lumped into "atonal" somehow -- but encountering it at a concert where it wasn't the main draw for me is not always the most exciting experience, especially if I'm bringing someone who isn't into classical music and now they have to hear something that sounds like violins dying for 20 minutes (disclaimer two: I love Takemitsu's November Steps, which has violins that sound like they're dying).
I'm not saying that older music is objectively better or something like that, but I think it's not hard to argue that for many people it's a bit more approachable. As such, I think that artists who can write works that span between the old and new, such as in the case of Mason Bates' piece, will be critical in bringing in new audience members.
Whenever I would go to a chamber music event or an orchestral performance there will generally be two sets of people there - the old school bougie folk and a handful of conservatory students - the casual audience member is far and few between. Orchestras will have a better chance getting an audience by performing pops or some program full of video game music.
Still, going to the symphony hall, being part of that scene, this might retain it's importance for the upper class / professionals, and this alone could be enough to continue to support more than a handful of orchestras around the United States.
* And the only reason I can is because I studied composition and theory at University.
Why are we excluding motion picture soundtracks?
Classical composition moved in a kind of academic, atonal direction in the 20th century which was completely inaccessible to most of the public, and essentially died, in terms of a popular artistic movement. After Stravinsky, there just wasn't really much left to do. (Composers still write movie scores, but these basically just rehash what was already done in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.)
Instead, the world moved towards rock, pop, hip-hop... and there's a lot of exciting stuff there. Unfortunately, it's mostly based around 5-min songs, which limits its complexity. No matter how genius something like Brian Burton's "The Gray Album" might be, or certain Led Zeppelin songs, the format doesn't allow for even 5% of the kind of complexity that a symphony can embody.
So the Bach's, Mozart's and Beethoven's are surely out there -- but they're not doing the same kind of music, and they're harder to recognize as equivalents because we've abandoned musical structural complexity for sonic complexity instead (it's more about the sound or flavor or texture of a track, its hooks, and so on).
It's not a popular music story at all - pop/folk music has always been doing it's own thing.
It's certainly niche, and painfully so. I think there is some potential for growth, given the absurdity of my aging friends forcing themselves to continue to engage with music written predominantly for teenagers and college students.
But that's a terrible, awful reason to not write music in that old style! If Mozart were alive today, wouldn't he still be writing music in his style? So what's wrong with somebody else writing it for him, now that he's dead. Maybe it's difficult to sell, but still.
Part of why the Classical composers loom so large in our minds is that they were the only "genre" of music available (by the rich modern standards of the term "genre"). We look backwards, and they are all there is to see. Now there's a bajillion genres, and many of them are full of very smart, experienced people plugging away.
I do not mourn this turn of events. I celebrate it.
(And yes, I am well aware that "Western" music is not the only kind and there's rich traditions of music in all ethnicities, etc etc. Still, Western music of the Classical era was something special and I don't think it's amiss to observe that. In the end, what they created was for all humanity, as evidenced by how quickly it has spread to all, and it is not surprising that when we look back, what we see is Bach and his progeny, which includes Beethoven.)
See Gyorgy Ligeti, Arvo Part, John Adams, George Crumb. Phillip Glass, and Nico Muhly. Everyone except Ligeti (RIP homie) is still living last time I checked.
The reason his output is so huge is of course because he for several periods was employed as a composer and had to churn out large number of compositions.
That's not to say that there's not lots of good material there, but it's not like his entire output is of sufficient quality to keep most people interested.
Secondly, I suspect that the situation whereby musicians these days aren't expected to pen a large quantity of compositions is one of the prime reasons for the mysterious shortage of Mozartesque prodigies.
Odd that the article doesn't leverage much evidence to support this point. However, we do have some excellent examples, notably Brahms, who wrote to a friend:
"I shall never compose a Symphony! You have no conception of how the likes of us feel when we hear the tramp of a giant like him behind us."
("Him" being Beethoven.) And indeed, he didn't complete his first symphony until age 40.
There is a lot of interesting contemporary classical music, but much of it requires a formed ear to appreciate. More accessible classical music usually comes from composers dead 100+ years ago in the Classical and Romantic periods. All styles: Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern and Contemporary bring something to the table, but some of them are too elevated for the general public, just like not the finer points of functional programming not being every developer's cup of tea. I wouldn't want advanced programming paradigms or exotic new math stop being produced just because the general public doesn't have a taste for them.
The kriti eventually led to the modern Carnatic concert format, in the early twentieth century. Where concerts once used to be night-long expositions of virtuosity in rural temple festivals, the modern concert became a brisk 2 hour affair that catered to urban schedules. A couple of 'heavy' abstract pieces, then a few kritis serving as anchor, rounded off with several light blitz pieces (usually scorned by the cognoscenti).