The Fat Lady Sings?

The industry of recording and selling classical music will die in 2004, predicts Norman Lebrecht.

[Link via LewRockwell.com]

Comments

[dhex]

i always wondered who was buying that stuff.

[dude]

Yeah, it's all been recorded, multiple times at this point. It's a niche market with no nostalgia value, and thus can't be recycled endlessly on the radio and TV, so this shouldn't be too unexpected.

[Lonewacko Has Some Suggestions]

- Bring back Deep Purple to record an album with the London Phil.

- Bring back ELO

That'll get those young people interested in the classics again.

[dude]

I actually saw some promo on pay-per-view. For a mere $25.95 you could see KISS in concert with some philharmonic. Don't recall where. Maybe Australia? Anyway, not only was KISS made up like usual, but the orchestra all had KISS makeup on too.

[dude]

I actually saw some promo on pay-per-view. For a mere $25.95 you could see KISS in concert with some philharmonic. Don't recall where. Maybe Australia? Anyway, not only was KISS made up like usual, but the orchestra all had KISS makeup on too.

[ed]

The people have spoken. Further evidence of our cultural decline. But it isn't necessarily the end. There could be another renaissance, once the masses finally tire of angry jungle rhythms and sappy, jingoistic entreaties to Jee-sus.

Dude, it IS recycled endlessly, in a vandalized form, especially in the cinema. But it's usually considered ineffective unless punctuated with explosions and breaking bones.

Not to worry, though. Cultures always get what they deserve...

[dhex]

heh. that's fucking silly, man. are you saying there's no cultural value in a hot beat?

this man needs 30ccs of digital dancehall, stat!

[StMack]

I still remember how I cried

the day

the music died.

[Brian]

Hmm...chicken or the egg, here?

Not that I'm a musical historian or anything, but I did spend enough years playing in bands and wind ensembles growing up and through college that I developed a pretty good appreciation for "classical" music. I have a hard time thinking of any composers in the medium much later than Stravinsky or maybe Bartok that have done anything really compelling. It kind of seems that around the mid-20th century, people started either writing film scores or doing really experimental stuff that most folks find unlistenable. (John Cage or Phillip Glass the first time...kind of interesting. The 100th time, not so much. Beethoven, on the other hand, just gets better and better...IMHO, of course...)

This isn't to say that good composers aren't out there anymore, but they certainly aren't as widely acclaimed (or played) as they were a hundred years ago or so. Maybe it's simply because of competetion from other media, but the (apparent) lack of quality additions to the classical cannon certainly isn't going to do much to attract new listeners as old ones die.

[B.P.]

Oh goody, ed is back to mingle with the rubes and dullards. He's wearing his "Repent sinners! The End is near!" sandwich board again, too.

[ed]

dhex:
There's cultural value in a Bach beat. But it requires listening, not just hearing. But that's ok. The pre-postmodern-anti-current-retro stuff I write and record has been known to repel its share of victims. To each his own.
We're fortunate to have a choice.

[Trollumination]

Classical deserves to die. It's a bloated mess.

There is nothing wrong with Beethoven or Bach or Haydn, or any of the other famous classical composers. Nor is there anything wrong with the musicians who play this music, nor the technology used for the recordings. This is why the industry needs to die. All the good classical has already been recorded by a competant orchestra. They've been at this for over 50 years - what else can the recording industry do? They did the job. It was a big job, but they're done.

For sure there will be new composers who create orchestral pieces, and recordings may be desirable - but this will happen one way or another, with or without the big record companies. Little niche labels will spring up to handle the trickle of new classical compositions, or various music conservatories and public institutions will handle it. Anyway, that's not what I'm hearing in this article.

What I'm hearing in the article is that - oh no - however will anybody do yet another "interpretation" of Beethoven's Fifth! Well, I got some news for you people - they all sound the same. Yeah, one conductor may have his orchestra play 3 BPM faster in the fourth movement, and he'll get lots of blowjobs and newspaper art critics gushing about his "vision", but get real, he's not doing jack for the music and we all know it. Or yes, one first violinist may have a sweeter and more subtle vibrato than another - but he's playing the same notes with the same rhythm as any other competant violinist. He does not improvise hardly at all - not a grace note or rest added - everything is played off the ancient score.

Classical music is all a big circle-jerk. Maybe this will kill the mythology of the superior sound of worn-out old fiddles that cost as much as a suburban home - little status-seeking lies that ignore the plain fact that people know perfectly well how to build musical instruments. Maybe self-important fools will stop pretending to appreciate infinitesimally small differences between different conductors, that the conductor is somehow the greatest musician of all despite all appearances. Maybe we'll all stop pretending that Aphex Twin is "popular" and therefore deserving of little respect for his electronic works, while Pierre Boulez's cheesy electronica is "classical" because he knows famous people and has conducted orchestras playing Beethoven's Fifth for the 3,000,000,000th time. Oh yeah, Boulez's electronica sounds horrible and is no fun to listen to at all - this makes it good, because modern classical music is all about tritones and dissonance and playing melodies backwards and upside down and pretending that some of us are just smart enough to enjoy this noisemaking. Maybe we'll see that "classical" is an arbitrary distinction propagated by people who like to pretend they're smart.

And new works will find a way onto record - recording is cheaper then ever. In the meantime, all this is is everybody - the record company executives as well - finally deciding to stop saying "nice pants, Emperor"

[Douglas Fletcher]

I read Clive Davis's book about his career, which he published back in the mid-70s. According to him, even then almost all the classical recordings on Columbia records, with the exception of Christmas albums, were selling little more than 10,000 copies worldwide. Basically, the record companies were subsidizing the classical music field, in effect buying prestige -- something like the way William Paley viewed his CBS news division, a money loser but good for the company image.

Looks to me like the classical musicians are just going to have to learn to do what so many other musicians have done vis-a-vis recording, which is, DIY. Why each orchestra couldn't just market their recordings themselves is beyond me, they're already huge and well-known organizations. They could probably even find volunteers to lick the stamps.

[Russ D]

Not that it means anything, but the most avid record collectors I know are collectors of classical recordings. Classical afficianados are also the bulk of the audiophile market.

Still, the article does point out that this is a declining market, which results in a drop in record sales. It's kind of disingenuous to claim that record sales overall are down because of piracy when record companies (or buyers) are pretty much shutting down one end of the record business anyway.

I suspect the real reason for this "decline" has more to do with the fact that being a niche market, classical recordings can't possibly help in recovering the massive debts brought about by the operations in the bulk of the record industry. Good thing, too. Classical recordings will become the domain of independent labels which have more passion for the music, which will probably be better for the avid classical fan anyway. Orchestras will just put out their own records rather than contract with a big label.

[Sandy]

Just in case you're still wondering, dhex, who buys that stuff: I, for one.

[Ken]

As someone with a casual interest in classical music, I find myself overwhelmed by the choices available... the same works by the same composers performed by a dozen orchestras, or even the same orchestra but with different conductors. To someone who knows that he likes Johann Strauss or J.S. Bach, but is totally clueless in selecting the best recordings representing these composers' music, this could be considered a "barrier to entry" into the classical music world. I suspect that classical purists might consider me to be best served by a Time-Life collection, and maybe that's the case.

Good thing I have digital music from my cable TV company (although I tend to stick with jazz and blues these days).

[J. Alexander Lowman]

People who are making electronica, dance music, etc are all composers in their own right. Instead of combining a string section, wood section, etc you have to combine a number of samples and loops in a way that sounds good. I started off years ago as a classical musician, so I have an appreciation for classical music, but now I'm a dj and I love a lot of the house, breakbeat, drum and base, and other forms of electronic music. They both take a good ear and musical talent to create.

[Warren]

What a More-une.

Classical music must deal with the changing times same as any other music. But classical music has been going strong for hundreds of years. It has seen other genres born, rise to dizzying heights of popularity, and disappear altogether. There is a reason for that. And that same reason will continue to compel musicians to play it and patrons to support it. Classical music will continue to be recorded even if the recording industry collapses all together.

[ed]

It doesn't have to be either-or.

Trollumination's rant is the literary equivalent of a seventies-era "Disco Sucks!" banner. When it comes to art appreciation, the perceiver's reaction is proportional to his ability to comprehend the work of art. In his critique, he bares his soul no less than the artist himself, perhaps even more.

The relative merits of, say, classical music vs. hip-hop may be addressed intellectually or emotionally, and in the end it's all about personal preference and taste. But only a criminally dishonest mind would consider the two forms as equals.

As Warren stated above, classical music has thrived for centuries, and most of that time it existed only as a "live" medium. There were no recordings, no radio, no file sharing, and yet it survived. I think it's a wee bit early to write the obituary.

[Dan]

All the good classical has already been recorded by a competant orchestra.

And that basically sums it up.

Businesses that survive by selling products need one of three things: (a) products that wear out and need to be replaced, or which otherwise get permanently "consumed, (b) constant innovation to release "better" products people will upgrade to, or (c) reoccuring revenue -- "renting" the product instead of selling it.

CDs last basically forever, unlike vinyl albums that sounded worse every time you played them. So (a) is largely out. Tactic (c) is covered by symphonies, which sell tickets or charge for membership, but doesn't work for CDs because they're too easy to duplicate. That leaves (b).

Most of the music industry achieves (b) by hiring new bands that record new music. Unfortunately for classical music, there have been very few memorable composers during the last few generations. So the classical music industry is stuck with, basically, "cover bands" endlessly re-recording the great music of the past. Which doesn't work, long-term, because most people aren't audiophiles and can't really appreciate the difference enough to be willing to shell out $12 apiece for ten different versions of the same symphony.

The relative merits of, say, classical music vs. hip-hop may be addressed intellectually or emotionally, and in the end it's all about personal preference and taste. But only a criminally dishonest mind would consider the two forms as equals.

It's all a matter of personal preference and taste... but only a criminally dishonest mind would disagree with you? What a fascinating insight into the Ed persona. 🙂

[ed]

There are standards, Dan. Objective standards. Anyone can loop a beat and complain about "the man," but it takes genuine intellect to create a symphony. Or as someone else put it:

"It's one thing to put a man on the moon, and quite another to put a bone in your nose."

[Mo]

Dan,
I think ed is saying, "Wait until the 24th century before you call OutKast or Snoop the equivalent of Bach." That's a fair point. In their day the Temple of Artemis and the Pyramids of Giza could be called equally amazing examples of archtecture. In today's world, the Pyramids win out because they stood the test of time.

Of course, mixing hip hop and classical works quite well.

Cyprus Hill: "Can you guys play Insane in the Brain?"
London Symphony Orchestra: "We mostly know classical pieces, but we could give it a shot."
(Is there nothing that can't inspire a Simpsons reference)

[ed]

How dreary - to be - Somebody!
How public - like a Frog -
To tell one's name - the livelong June -
To an admiring Bog!
(Dickinson)

Good night, fellow frogs.

[AJMB]

Troll commented about the silliness of prizing instuments built long ago, as if people have forgotten how to build them. My response is that there has to be a reason why Itzhak Perlmann (I know that isn't right, sorry) breaks into a sweat when handed a Stradivarius. Or why Eric Clapton likes a Fender Telecaster from the sixties. I am content to leave it to the artists to decide. If Perlmann says a Strad has a sound unmatched by today's instrumentts, that's good enough for me.

[Russ D]

Goddamn Kazaa...

[Andy]

Just how many times can Beethoven's 5th be recorded?

[J. Alexander Lowman]

I like your tone, Dan, but I still disagree that it is absolutely harder to make a symphony than create a skilled electronica album (for instance). Just because you have to get a bunch of folks to work in unison does not make the actual _composition_ more difficult, you just have to have more folks competent to play their parts perfectly instead of letting the "machine" do it. That still doesn't mean that the composition to be played was any harder or easier to create.

[Trollumination]

> Troll commented about the silliness of prizing
> instuments built long ago, as if people have
> forgotten how to build them. My response is
> that there has to be a reason why Itzhak
> Perlmann (I know that isn't right, sorry)
> breaks into a sweat when handed a Stradivarius.
> Or why Eric Clapton likes a Fender Telecaster
> from the sixties. I am content to leave it to
> the artists to decide. If Perlmann says a Strad
> has a sound unmatched by today's instrumentts,
> that's good enough for me.

Certainly there's a bit of that. I can see why Clapton likes that old Tele or Perlmann likes to hold the Strad. However, classical has a different attitude about these antique instruments than rock music has.

While a well-to-do famous musician might well buy an antique guitar, there is no social norm which compells him to do so. Nobody blinks an eye when a rock musician - be he/she contemporary or "classic" from the Baby Boom generation - shows up onstage with a shiny new guitar and amplifier. Nobody considered Eddie Van Halen unprofessional simply because he played a beat-up guitar he'd extensively rebuilt and decorated himself instead of some classic 60s Strat - when his music started, that guitar became cool. Kurt Cobain's trashy guitars started a minor fad among aspiring players, while making no real impression at all on the majority of his fans.

But let the first violinist at a major orchestra show up with a violin that was built less than a century ago, the fans will start to wonder why. If he plays a newly made instrument, this is seen as rather odd.

When reputable guitar teachers make a habit of telling their young students "You've got talent, plenty of it, but you'll never get anywhere without a fine concert guitar" and then take them off to an antique shop to buy a moldy old remnant of the dwindling supply of 1960's Telecasters with the proceeds of their parent's second mortgage, then the situations will be comparable.

Moderation in everything! Clapton likes those old guitars because they're the guitars he grew up playing. He probably still has some from his youth that he's kept all this time. Besides, if he does have a thing for old guitars - he certainly is a man who can appreciate them, and who has the disposable income to pursue this interest. Perfectly healthy. It's just that if it ever got to the point where a promising guitarist just HAD to have a 1960's Telecaster to play bluesrock, or nobody would even want to hear him, this would be a sad obsession sucking the vitality out of the music (not to mention the economic and psychological effects on the guitar manufacturers and a general shortage of quality guitars) - and this is something the classical music establishment should consider a problem themselves.

[AJMB]

Troll: Then why did I see an article on 'The New Music' recently about a guitar dealer whose stock in trade is rare and vintage guitars? These guys play them for their (the guitars) sound quality was one of the answers that sticks in my head. If there is no stigma to a rock star using a new axe, why do the guitar 'gods' seem to continually seek out the classics?

[Trollumination]

> Troll: Then why did I see an article on 'The
> New Music' recently about a guitar dealer whose
> stock in trade is rare and vintage guitars?

You saw an article because it was unusual and newsworthy. An article about a dealer who sells new guitars or old guitars that aren't really worth a lot of money, isn't nearly as interesting.

In classical, the interesting and newsworthy articles are on the occasional musician who uses a new violin, and on the luthier who made it.

[Russ D]

Slightly off topic, are classical records subject to mechanical royalties?

[Douglas Fletcher]

They would only have to pay royalties to the composer if he or his heirs (defined by copyright law) are still living.

There are other kinds of royalties involved but I don't know enough to elaborate on them.

[dhex]

>>

amen. it is all ice cream flavors.

>>

this sorta contradicts the first part, eh?

i'm the first to admit i like a lot of really fucked up stuff of unlikely permanence, but there have been classical composers as controversial and condemned as vehemently as any beat-looping marxist. wasn't it stravinsky who started riots? (or rather, his narrowminded audience was compelled to break shit, perhaps fast forwarding to some future imagined limp bisquik concert and wigging out?)

someone should, btw, make a nice mixtape set of hiphop for reason readers. pete rock instrumentals for everyone!

[dhex]

AJMD: same reason people pay 850USD on ebay for roland 303s or 909s or 808s. or even shitty modded 505s and the sad 525 "latin kit."

they like the sound and are willing to spend the cash. same thing applies to guitars, except the market is larger and the cash amounts are much higher.

[Dan]

There are standards, Dan. Objective standards. Anyone can loop a beat and complain about "the man," but it takes genuine intellect to create a symphony.

No, it doesn't. Any fool can create a symphony; all you have to do is learn how to write sheet music, which doesn't take any longer than it takes to master sampling/dubbing software.

What takes genuine talent (but not intellect; Beethoven was a tool) is making a symphony, or a hip-hop song, or a children's TV jingle, that will be aesthetically pleasing to listeners. That's a lot harder than scribbling sheet music, or "looping a beat and bitching about the man". Most people can't do it at all, which is why most wanna-be hip-hop artists and most wanna-be classical musicians fall on their asses and fail to gain a following.

Now, is it HARDER to create a symphony? Hell yes. Unless you're a devout Marxist and advocate of the Labor Theory of Value, however, that just doesn't matter at all. A 142-legged pair of pants is much, much harder to create than a two-legged pair, but that doesn't make it better or more stylish. 🙂

[Watkins Dan]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 04:55:16
Newness is relative.