music & society
July 2010 » A great deal continues to be written on the future of art music, often along the alarmist lines much beloved of Norman Lebrecht, one of the numerous arts journalists who think predicting the demise of an aspect of culture which has been trampled on by neoliberal forces for more than half a century is somehow tantamount to insightful writing. In his blog ("Greg Sandow on the future of classical music"), Greg Sandow (who else) has made a fine art of it (using the postmodernist 'anything goes' definition of art).
In one of his latest entries he quotes in full what he calls the 'Manifesto' of a musical chum of his, Ken Nielsen, whose "corporate background [for confectionery-makers Mars, no less] helps make him [...] impatient with solutions for classical music that aren't entrepreneurial."
Intrigued by this billing half as much as musoc.org was? Then read on!
What happened, it seems, was that over lunch one day (which is how these things usually happen), Ken gave Greg not only his Manifesto, but also his permission to reproduce it on his blog...The salient fact here is that Greg, self-declared clairvoyant and doyen of American musical postmodernism, "love[s] every bit of it" and proclaims it "far healthier than anything I've yet seen the industry come up with."
It is, of course, very unlikely that any self-respecting member of the public with an interest in art music would advertently read anything in an Arts Journal blog (home to both Sandow and Lebrecht, and existing, like much in American academia, purely for its own self-aggrandisement), but many of the same do quite naturally read musoc.org; and for that reason, the Manifesto - despite its skull-splitting banality, and despite the fact that it's not really a manifesto in any normal sense of the word - is reproduced below...without the explicit permission of Ken or Greg, it has to be said, but with the blessing of the spirit of copyright law. And a few added pointers...
"1. The classical music industry is in decline, with an aging audience base and a low rate of new audience entry."
That 'classical music' is an "industry", rather than an art form, would presumably come as quite a surprise to the thousands of composers who have seen themselves as artists producing art rather than industry workers producing, well, products.
"2. Governments, compulsory music education or any other external action will not solve the problem."
This is, of course, the exact opposite of musoc.org's position...On the other hand, musoc.org would be very happy to see the back of the "classical music industry". [Thinks: "Farewell, Warner! Farewell, Classic FM!"]
"3. To reverse this, the industry should change to make its product more attractive and accessible. Currently, there are elements that make concerts forbidding and inaccessible to new entrants."
There are, of course, elements that make pop concerts forbidding to new entrants. Some of these are, curiously, identical to those vexing Ken and Greg, such as costume (tight trousers, short skirts, dubious haircuts), expense (opera is widely cheaper in many cases) and, ahem, impenetrable repertoire. And then there's the ear-splitting amplification; and the lingering smell of sweat and marijuana.
"4. These changes need not be (and in my opinion should not be) to the music, with one exception, mentioned next."
It's true that the Mars Bar didn't get where it is today by becoming a bag of boiled sweets.
"5. More new music should be introduced to concerts. Any art form that does not renew itself will become moribund. Because elements of the current audience are so conservative, a greater variety of concerts and formats, aimed at different audiences, is probably necessary. Stick with the current stuff for the olds, offer innovation to those excited by it."
"Probably necessary", and, in truth, started happening some time around the French Revolution.
It's hard to imagine a more conservative audience than one prepared to 'listen' for two hours to the same bland, repetitious, formulaic thumpings, whinings or thrashings of a 'dance', pop or rock gig. The "current stuff" that most "olds" like is pop (from the 1950s and 60s, for example).
As for the first 'point': how can Baroque art, for example, renew itself? How can 19th century music ever be anything else but 19th century music? All 14th century art has been 'moribund' for 600 years - but it can still be studied and marvelled at...without renewing itself!!
"6. Changes to the format and style of concerts should be tried - everything from getting players out of penguin suits to the length of concerts. Concert models that have worked elsewhere should be tried. In this area, as in most areas of business, change comes about not from strategy meetings but from innovation - new things being tried, some failing, some succeeding. Such innovation, and the risks that come with it would probably be itself attractive to a different audience. "Are you game to come and hear this just composed work?"
If ever a strategy was designed to strike back against neoliberal cultural hooliganism, this surely is it! "Are you game to come and hear this just composed work?" Phew - no wonder Sandow is enthusiastic!
"7. I believe that greater engagement with and involvement of the audience is an important part of the puzzle. A concert should be more like communication than a one-sided speech."
Ah, but what to do about all those people who insist on going to art galleries and museums to one-sidedly look at exhibits, not to mention their propensity for one-sidedly watching plays and one-sidedly reading books? And then, what to do about speeches themselves - a very one-sided art form?
"8. Such changes as I am suggesting must be tried at the level of the organisation - the orchestra, opera company or whatever - others can watch and steal the ideas if they work but an industry wide approach is doomed."
Wait a minute...if an "industry-wide approach is doomed", then what is the reflective reader to make of 3. above, that: "the industry should change to make its product more attractive and accessible"?
But then Arts Journal probably doesn't get enough reflective readers to make such rambling, self-contradictory guff very noticeable.
Comments: See "Unsurpassed Sandow", Letters, July 2010
NB: Further evidence in a similar vein of the sheer fatuousness of Sandow's rhetoric can be found in Heather Mac Donald's entertaining trashing of his over-the-top, postmodern-cheerleader critique of her recent article, Classical Music's New Golden Age.
You can respond to this article at any time by emailing gro.cosum@srettel. Musoc.org may publish your comments on this site; if you want to keep them private, please mark your email 'Not for Publication' or use the gro.cosum@ofni address.