Libertarian Think Tank Says Modern Classical Has Failed the Market Test

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Delicious Manager

Please, LISTEN to more contemporary music - don't simply reiterate these (frankly) tired objections to any music that might actually demand some effort from you (remember, they thought Beethoven was a madman once) or that might not be to your taste (taste is a very different thing in many cases to 'quality').

And if you try it and still don't like it, why moan about it?

Hear hear.

But this article doesn't just moan and groan about the music. It explicitly states that this "noise music" is a failed artistic experiment being kept on expensive life support by shadowy elites and its arrogant punditocracy. What do you think about this curious polemic against government subsidies for a highly unionized industry? How about the exhortation to let the awesome free market sort the wheat from the chaff?

[Delicious Manager]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

But this article doesn't just moan and groan about the music. It explicitly states that this "noise music" is a failed artistic experiment being kept on expensive life support by shadowy elites and its arrogant punditocracy. What do you think about this curious polemic against government subsidies for a highly unionized industry? How about the exhortation to let the awesome free market sort the wheat from the chaff?

The problem is this: what constitutes "noise music" will vary from person to person. For some, Webern and Berg would qualify as "noise music" (with Stravinsky and Bartók barely escaping lambasting) and this is music (in some cases) a hundred years old or more.

Such things promote a great number of emotive responses (perhaps that, by itself, justifies this music's existence?), but who is the arbiter? The judge? One person's "noise" is another's "challenging masterpiece", surely.

Of course, in the end, posterity will be the judge. The amounts of money spent in government subsidy for the arts are TINY when viewed in the context of total national budgets (the cost of one cruise missile would keep a small chamber orchestra going for nearly a year, for example), which is why the arguments about whether or nor public money should be spent on them is almost irrelevant.

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Delicious Manager

The amounts of money spent in government subsidy for the arts are TINY when viewed in the context of total national budgets

That's true. But the Mises Institute blogger's problem is that in the context of the budgets of the classical music organizations, such paternalistic largesse is very significant. Regardless of what modern classical music sounds like, he argues, it represents a command economy of sorts. Audiences aren't only not clamoring for this music, they usually actively avoid it and denigrate it whenever possible. So the continued emphasis on premieres of atonal, cerebral, non-Romantic works betrays the arrogant elitism of an industry insulated from market forces.

[GoingBaroque]

One of the first Classical pieces I heard was Alexander Mosolov's Iron Foundry on a 78rpm disc and it did not chase me away. Every generation has had its good music and its not so good. I love music from all of the periods although my favorite is Baroque and especially the Organ.

[haydnguy]

Check this link out. How many fans do you think "contemporary/modern" classical really have?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012904193.html

[Stlukesguild]

From those sales figures some guy may be the only one having purchased some of the more obscure recordings.

[haydnguy]

I look at it this way, if someone has the money and the passion to put out a "helicopter concerto" more power to him. At least he's following his passion and not selling out.

As for mainstream classical, we'll probably all end up downloading. Much cheaper that way.

[Balthazar]

In the meantime, I have a ten CD set of Francisco Lopez that I haven't yet listened to all the way through. Time's awastin'!!

This is a serious affront...an almost unforgivable insult...to those of us who have never heard of Francisco Lopez. How dare you take on such an air of superiority? How are we supposed to develop an appreciation for new composers when you constantly remind us...with your I-know-more-than-you tone...that there are composers we've never heard of? The only thing I hate worse than this type of ivory-tower arrogance is the ‘quote’ function.

First I'm going to post a picture of a painting, to make a point about contemporary music:



With that out of the way, I insist that you read the following list again, and resist the urge to mention anyone more avant-garde...less "accessible"...than the slew of safe, digestible contemporary composers I tell myself is the cutting edge of music as we know it. I personally enjoy a wide array of Modern, Post-Modern, Pre-Contemporary, Contemporary, and Post-Contemporary "serious music" ranging from Delius, Schmelius, Richard Strauss, Levi Strauss, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Henze, Kurt Weill, Stravinsky, that guy standing next to Stravinsky, "Sully" Shostakovitch, Hans Werner Henze, Debussy...on through Barber, Shoeshiner, Shaver, Copland, Bartók Bela Bela Bartók, H.W. Henze, Alan Hovhaness, Mieczyslaw Wienberg, Hassan Wienberg, Ricky Wienberg, Penderecki Wienberg, Hans W. Henze, Ned Rorem, David Diamond, Takemitsu, Wasabi, Sashimi on Rice, Benjamin Britten... on to Phillip Glass, Arvo Pärt, his brother Fompous Pärt, "Happy" W. Henze, Henryck Gorecki, Daniel Catan, James MacMillian, Thomas Ades, Lemon Ades, Evergl Ades, Tristan Murail, Hans Henze, David Lang and the rest of those “Bang on a some guy” people, Peter Lieberson, William Bolcom, John Corigliano, John Tavener, oh I just thought of some more, Erkki-Sven Tüür, Per Nørgård, some other Scandinavian whose name can't be typed without special software, Sofia Gubaidulina, Einojuhani Rautavaara, whatsisname, and Osvaldo Golijov... to name but a whole lot for no particular reason.

It’s insulting…truly galling…to hear you say that until the audience comes around to recognizing all that you or academia deem to be the one true music they are to be assumed to be ignorant. Not that you’ve ever said that, but it makes me seem more virtuous…more manly and principled…if I take offense to it anyway. The comments you haven’t made about brainwashing…and musical re-education centers…are further evidence of your snobby, lima-bean-breath elitism.

Why can’t I turn on any radio station in Cleveland without being bombarded with helicopter string quartets or Manzoni’s cans of shit? Shouldn’t there be other composers…other music…aside from the harrowing atonal noise that you’ve piped into my studio from your surveillance satellite? How much longer am I going to have to stalk you…from website to website…before you leave me in peace?

[Stlukesguild]

Balthazar... you seriously need help.

[eves]

Originally Posted by haydnguy

Check this link out. How many fans do you think "contemporary/modern" classical really have?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012904193.html

In my think tank, the obvious solution would be that of giving away classical music (which maybe isn't selling as much), in order to promote the genre. When more people began listening, because they were invited to, they would also buy more classical recordings (as they came to appreciate the artists). It's plainly evident that pop music is mostly popular for being well known. So the same should hold true for classical music, where talent certainly isn't lacking by comparison.

But if you were to give away classical music, as a promotion of the genre, what recordings would you choose to represent it?