tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4200147945040702557.post4321101219813719019..comments2023-08-20T10:48:55.697-04:00Comments on Sustainable Music: Classical music as an endangered ecosystemJeff Todd Titonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10384565652765905576noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4200147945040702557.post-62816977294863941332013-01-15T21:03:47.863-05:002013-01-15T21:03:47.863-05:00A blogger I follow who has a lot to say about the ...A blogger I follow who has a lot to say about the evolution of the social role of classical music is Greg Sandow. Here's a recent post; there are years more in the archives.<br /><br />http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/2012/12/we-personalize-what-music-is.htmlDuncan Vinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01121294491280099262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4200147945040702557.post-34685097774445610472013-01-15T19:57:30.884-05:002013-01-15T19:57:30.884-05:00Duncan, you’re perceptively pointing to the import...Duncan, you’re perceptively pointing to the importance of amateur music-making, whether town bands, amateur choral groups of the sort you’ve studied and participated in, or pickup groups of musicians who get together—over many different kinds of music, not just classical—for the love of it. That book (FOR THE LOVE OF IT, by Wayne Booth) is the title of one person’s paean for amateur music-making. Booth, who taught for decades at the University of Chicago, and whose scholarly books were assigned regularly in graduate courses in English, had a secret passion for playing the cello and devoted many hours a day to it even though he knew he would never become nearly as competent a musician as he was a literary critic. Hopelessly in love with music, in that book he tried to explain how, why, and what the consequences were.<br /><br />It’s not the amateurs who sound the periodic death-knells for classical music; it’s the professional music critics and historians, the promoters and musicians and others with a financial stake in the professional institutions. The business ecosystem model for classical music does best at describing the professional institutions where money supports the activities, where people are paid a living wage or better to be involved with music full-time, and where there is a clear separation between professional music-makers and customers (listeners) who consume the musical product. The economic activity is characterized by commodity, not gift, exchanges. Talent, competition, virtuosity, and connoisseurship are prized. Amateur musical institutions, particularly as ideal types, do not conform to this model. Amateurs involved with music aren’t paid very well, if at all. As you point out, the customers (consumers) include the music-makers, who love to rehearse. Given sufficient musical competence, then talent, competition, virtuosity and connoisseurship are not so important. Indeed, the gentleman amateur’s modesty prevents putting too much weight on the first three, while connoisseurship moderates to good taste.<br /> <br />I acknowledge efforts by professional classical music institutions to innovate, cooperate, and co-evolve and would like to see case studies of lasting, successful examples. When I was a youngster, it was common for symphony orchestras to invite public school groups to rehearsals. How popular is this today? Public radio used to devote considerable time to playing classical music recordings; not anymore. Customers have made their preferences known; they want news and talk shows. But what is the impact of public radio programs such as FROM THE TOP? Do these kinds of innovation make a difference? What Moore is pointing out is that innovation, cooperation, and co-evolution are characteristic of successfully adapting institutions that create their own ecosystems. The business ecosystem isn’t a suitable metaphor for all institutions, of course. When we get to the ideal type of amateur musical institution, it is not a business at all. Jeff Todd Titonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10384565652765905576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4200147945040702557.post-78364165340246957232013-01-15T11:02:09.848-05:002013-01-15T11:02:09.848-05:00Thank you for a thought-provoking post, Jeff. When...Thank you for a thought-provoking post, Jeff. When I think about classical music institutions along these lines, I ask: What is the product, and who are the customers? I don't think the answer is the same in every case. There are two ideal types to consider: <br /><br /> - Professional institutions where the product is a ticketed performance, and the customers are the audience members who buy the tickets, as well as the businesses and foundations that advertise in the program and underwrite the deficit<br /><br />- Amateur institutions where the product is the experience of making music, and the customers are all of those who share in the act of creation<br /><br />Actual institutions really combine these models. My impression is that the amateur organizations tend to become more professionalized over time, while the more prescient professional organizations have learned to give their stakeholders ways of contributing besides just buying tickets or donating money. Others do maintain the top-down attitude that you criticize, but I think many in the arts management world realize that this posture is not sustainable for the future.<br /><br />Let me give a specific example. In my fieldwork with amateur choral singers, a number of singers told me that rehearsals were more rewarding than concerts, which they regarded as a necessary chore. Among professionals, the reverse attitude tends to be true. Put bluntly, amateurs perform so that they can afford to rehearse, while professionals rehearse so that they can perform. Each attitude implies a different concept of "product" and "customer."<br /><br />Duncan Vinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01121294491280099262noreply@blogger.com