I'm at a conference, and just made the connection that a certain host on a semi-competitive station in my city was wooed by WNYC to host their evening program for the reasons that I hated listening to him: casual, non-traditional. Long story made short, WNYC wants to redefine classical music by playing live Bjork and Rufus Wainright concerts during evening "classical hours." People, when you are trying to lure young people to classical music by pandering, it will not build an audience for classical music. You are building an audience for eclecticism, which we already have. I love listening to my 80s New Wave satellite station one minute followed by a CD of another genre, and then turning back to classical. I don't need my classical station to program eclecticism for me. Maybe I just made the wrong assumption about the session given today by WNYC called "Turning News Listeners into Music Listeners." I thought it was going to talk about classical music audience growth. It did not. The session offered some ideas that could be implemented even by my station, but, mostly I just didn't buy it as the way of the future. I know I'm being rather vague, but rants do tend to be irrational.
In short, while I am for the Southeastern Festival of Song incorporating Springsteen songs in their concerts, I am not for airing Bjork on a classical station. I featured Rammstein on an Art of Song show, but will never air Duran Duran on Afternoon Classics, no matter how much I think D2 and Bach rock. While I will giggle with my interview guests, I will not giggle during Afternoon Classics. When we try to bill eclecticism as classical music, we are shortchanging the latter. When we artificially make connections between pop music and classical music, we are setting up new barriers. If WNYC wanted to be really revolutionary, show how Messiaen influenced Bjork by playing the Turangalila Symphony, and not just talk about Messiaen, play a little bit of Messiaen, and then play an entire live concert by Bjork. If you want to do something really radical, play classical music. Enough is enough. Stop the pandering. Just as free concerts develop an audience who expect concerts for free, eclecticism will not build a new audience for classical music.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Wanda,
WNYC here; I just read your rant and I first want to say, the only way to create positive change is passion and discourse, and by putting your passionate opinions out into the blog-o-sphere, you're doing both, so thank you!
Secondly, yes we are definitely seeking casual (we prefer to call it eye-level) and non-traditional. Guilty as charged.
About luring young people: I hate to say it but, Bjork's audience is, well, not so young anymore. They used to be young, 15 years ago, but now the average age at a bjork concert is, what, 38? We are seeking to attract curious listeners, not necessarily young listeners. Maybe curiosity is a characteristic more prevalent in younger people? I'm not sure. But yes, those who are coming along with us for the ride do tend to be youngER (not young) than the current classical format listener.
about eclecticism: we don't define our mix as "eclectic" and eclecticism is not our goal. Rather, we have a different definition of "classical": we define classical by those qualities that we love in "classical" music (complexity, cohesive structure, tensile strength, emotional nuance and grip...) and when looking at an artist whose come to be associated with "pop" music but whose music is complex, and emotionally and intellectually satisfying (e.g., Bjork, Jonny Greenwood), we do not hesitate to include them in our so-called classical mix.
About the specific Bjork broadcast: it was part of a special program called 'The New Americans', which focused on foreign-born American artists, as Bjork is, and as you know, festivals and special focused programs are places where expansion is possible. I'm not sure we would randomly program a Bjork tune in the middle of a playlist outside of a festival, without contextualizing it in some way (but who knows, now that I think about it, maybe we will! I guess we'll have to wait till next year's conference to find out!)
And, finally, YES! we did EXACTLY what you prescribe in your recipe for being "really revolutionary": we did in fact play Messiaen next to Bjork, pointing to some of the influences. the connections were obvious and organic.
And I too don't like free concerts (except in the summer in central park). We may be closer in our opinions than you might think...
Now, ready for Elliott Carter followed by Truckin? can you get with it?
(ok just kidding...)
thanks again,
Limor Tomer
WNYC
As a member of the Atlanta Symphony Choruses I have been intimately involved in the making of new music. I sang in the choruses of Golijov's Ainadamar and Adams' "On the Transmigration of Souls." The CD of the latter will be out later this year on a disc of American music. I am passionate about them and new music in general. I love music that speaks to me, but that would not include Bjork nor John Cage. I find their music to be intellectually complex and emotionally detached, so it does not fit my definition of good music. While I am sure that you do promote the music of Golijov, Higdon, and Theofanidis, as evinced by Robert Spano's presence, I just want us to keep moving forward and not think of the post-modernists from the middle of the last century as revolutionary. All that being said, I think the Tristan Mysteries was fantastic and a wonderful and educative project, and I hope that your new audience continues to grow.
ewww...you played rammstein...seriously? cuz they kinda suck. jk heh. but they do suck.
and that guy made me feel old and sad since i go to bjork concerts, thanks alot.
I like Rammstein. It's guttural German bellowing, and you can never have too much of that.
Nine out of Ten Poles disagree
:).
What does the other Pole think?
i'm not sure...unlike 30 Helens some Poles are contrary and uncommunicative.
Late to the ball game, but very interested. My thoughts are probably tangential to the main discussion, but touch on a couple of things mentioned.
I spent a significant part of my teaching life trying to find paths from what my students already knew to what I wanted them to know. (The possibility that what I wanted them to know may have been useless to them or to anyone did occur to me, but it was what I was paid [poorly] to do, and what I loved to do.) I had mixed results.
I have always thought that complexity on many levels was one of the defining characteristics of "serious" music. I don't say "classical" because the meaning of that word has been both diluted and misused to the point of inutility. The word, "serious" is meant to define musics that are aimed at listeners who are in some way students of the art..who are aware of its elements and their interactions...who "study" a piece of music until they are satisfied that they've heard what the composer intended. There may be a lot of "not serious" music, but I've not met an aficionado of any music who hasn't been able to reveal more complexity than I first heard. That doesn't mean I love that music, it must means that there's more to it than I imagine.
I believe "serious" music comes from a variety of traditions. All of it challenges listeners to hear deeply and embrace complexity. It is at that level that I was able to challenge students from the inside out, and had some success. It isn't that I was able to point out the augmented 6th chords in the music of Buddy Holley, but I was able, occasionally, to move students from the unexpected chord or turn of melody in music that they knew to similar effects in music that they didn't know. Some of them became "fans" of complex and serious art music as well as students of it. I didn't, and don't, define good music in terms of emotional content. That seems so subjective as to provoke arguments that can't lead anywhere. Complexity may produce lasting emotional effect, but I'd hate to base any evaluation on emotion alone. Classical music endures on its *lasting* qualities..whatever produces them.
I have no objection, then, to attempts to educate new listeners to any music by making connections to complexity in the music they already know. I also know that mere juxtaposition of a variety of music doesn't do the trick. There has to be a serious challenge to a listener's intellect. Whether a radio station can do that I don't know. I know it was a hell of a task in an academic setting..and my students were at least nominally committed to the project.
Not only western art music, but serious jazz is suffering from a drain in listenership. I don't have the answers, but I sympathize with any attempt to turn the ship around. Having said that, I very much appreciate rigor in the support of the art as well. Slapdash firing at a moving target in case something sticks isn't a good strategy either.
Enough...this is a fascinating and tremendously important topic. Carry on, y'all.
Post a Comment