American Orchestras' Dismal Future

[Fronder]

Huh... 
Here in Moscow, we now have nine (!) big orchestras (thus excluding all radio, television and theater orchestras as well as all chamber orchestras), of which four I consider as first rate and the other five are good as well, just somewhat inconsistent in their performances. All orchestras as far as I know are state funded, although some probably receiving additional funds from private sponsors as well. The symphonic concerts (not counting all solo and chamber music concerts) are going practically every day and usually there are two or sometimes even three concerts a day. The tickets for good seats cost from as low as 5$ to about 30$ - it depends mostly on venue and soloist. Only Bolshoy Theater charges more than that. The attendance is about 80-90% for most of the concerts.
For once I am actually glad to live in Moscow...

[Gareth Vaughan]

Very encouraging indeed. That is good to hear. Russia has resisted the Western rot!

[Alan Howe]

But would you want to live under Putin, sucking up to him as a member of the artistic elite? That's a pretty high price to pay for the maintenance of high culture, especially Russian high culture in whose reflected glory Putin likes to bask. Under Putin high culture is an arm of his far-reaching propaganda machine...

[Gareth Vaughan]

Oh yes, I agree entirely, Alan. But I suspect the Russian mentality is essentially different, Putin or no Putin. Though whether under a more liberal regime they would succumb to the forces which in the West have worked to produce the decline in "high culture" is moot.

[Double-A]

I think we all should read Buddenbrooks again, specifically the chapters towards the end with the satirical teacher portraits.  And then we should do what we can to avoid looking like those portraits.  Lets face it, Thomas Mann was questioning the very value of those Greek and Latin lessons that none of Gareth's school mates appears to have questioned.  (What sort of teenagers were you anyway?  We all questioned the value of learning Latin [I still question it*] when we were learning it as well as the value of reading Shakespeare or Simplicissimus, studying calculus, listening to Beethoven, discussing impressionistic painting or anything they tried to teach us, partly genuinely and partly just to provoke.)

I really do think that this sort of cultural pessimism is not achieving anything and overstates the case it is making by a mile anyway.

*We started Latin when we were 13 at eight lessons a week for two years, than 5 and later 4 a week for another 4 1/2 years and all we could do after that was translate it into German one sentence at a time by painstakingly and pedantically analyzing the syntax, maybe a paragraph or two per hour if it was of any difficulty (say Cicero or Vergil).  So really, what is the point?  Thank God I decided (without knowing anything about this yet) not to learn Greek to the same level (or even lower).

[adriano]

Fronder, don't forget that most official Moscow Orchestras are sposnsored by the mafia (in collaboration with Putin, his "family" and Maestro Gergiev) or by some oligarchs.

[Alan Howe]

We all questioned the value of learning Latin [I still question it*] when we were learning it

Really? I found it hard, but extremely profitable...

So really, what is the point? 

The point for me was to give me a thorough grounding in the way Indo-European languages work, enabling me (for example) to master German much more quickly than otherwise would have been the case. It also enabled me to understand the workings of language in general so that I could write properly in English. Frankly, one only has to look at the generally poor standard of written English in schools and universities to realise how much has been lost because subjects like Latin have disappeared.

[Fronder]

Very encouraging indeed. That is good to hear. Russia has resisted the Western rot!

The problem here is that classical music is the only form of art that did not significantly deteriorate since the dissolution of the Union. The cinema is dead, the literature is no more, the theaters, although all are up and running (there are AFAIK more than 20 theaters in Moscow alone), are all in my opinion giving rather mediocre performances with bad acting and bad production etc., etc. So, the fairly good state of classical music is, I think, more to the credit of musicians then to anybody else.

And, gentlemen, I think you are highly exaggerating the involvement of russian government into the culture affairs. They do get involved into the affairs of Bolshoy and Mariinsky Theaters, but thats pretty much it. After all, the cost of maintenance of all the orchestras, theaters, museums etc. is nothing but a fraction of state's expenditure (it's like a 0,01% of a yearly budget), so I am actually surprised that it is not a common practice worldwide.

[MartinH]

Something also must be said about the Russian people who obviously love and nurture their immense musical heritage. I recall reading that at the premiere of the Shostakovich 5th there were audience members in tears during the third movement. The composer was sending a message in music and the audience received it and reacted emotionally. I can't ever imagine anything like that happening in the US. Most people would be bored wanting to get to the noisy, exciting finale. I would like to think that citizens of many countries take pride in their compatriot composers. But that's probably wishful thinking. The average English teenager likely knows no more of Elgar than a typical American teen knows of Copland. Or a Russian teen of Tchaikovsky.

[adriano]

@Fronder: there are, for example, also the Russian National and (Fedoseyev's) Radio Orchestra - many insiders know that they are supported by the mafia. I don't think the musicians, who told me this, were liars. And I was there; I regularly visited Moscow during over 20 years to work with (splendid) Russian musicians, so I could follow some developments quite closely.

@MartinH: music can also have non-Russian audiences burst into tears :-) But I know that the Russians are more easier weepers (like the Italians) - and that is why I like them both - and that they do not necessarily need something like Shostakovich's Largo.
As far as "messages in music" are concerned, DSCH's 5th Symphony is, anyway, a rather ambivalent affair; that's why the heroic outer movements did not impress (they were mistaken for propaganda music) and that the Scherzo was found by specialists a ridiculous imitation of Mahler.
"Messages in music" would deserve a separate thread in UC!

[eschiss1]

... well, anecdotally, I remember a few instances speaking briefly with people (now) here from Russia and elsewhere in what used to be the Soviet Union, who I at least don't know to be music experts, to whom mention of Nikolai Myaskovsky or Evgeny Kirillovich Golubev turned up expressions of recognition (also, information; I seem to recall that's how I learned that the latter died in 1988...)

(It -is- possible that my mention of "Myaskovsky" was misheard as "Mayakovsky", the poet, of course- it was awhile ago and I'm not positive at this point.)

[sdtom]

I'm confident in saying that the Mafia has little to do with classical music in the US. I can only hope that there will be a turn around one day.
Tom

[musiclover]

All the orchestras, and that includes major European ones, used to have their own identifiable sounds. I remember hearing Chicago in Solti and being totally blown away by the sound of the orchestra and then New York under Bernstein and being amazed by the polish and shine and then Berlin under Karajan etc etc....in the UK the LSO under Previn had a shiny brilliant sound that was different from the LPO and the RPO and especially the Philharmonia under Muti which was brilliant and burnished. Now they all sound the same. Is it because the orchestras are now populated by brilliant players from all over the world more than they used to be? Is it because the music directors do not spend more time than about 8 weeks a year with their orchestras....and then they have several other orchestras as well? is it also that a whole new breed of people have invented themselves called orchestral management? Many of them born not out of music or sometimes even the arts, but they did go to college or university to gain a degree in arts management. Doesn't give them imagination though, and couple that with the other points I made above and you are on a rocky road to making everything the same from one city to the next. Interestingly I was in the Swedish city of Gothenberg a few years ago and their newspaper ran an article, the nub of which was that as many people knew about their symphony orchestra as they did about their football teams. One of the things mentioned with that was the publication affection for Neeme Jarvi. His commitment to the orchestra and his work for over 20 years was admired by the public, who felt they knew him and were in turn loyal, even when he scheduled music that many other orchestras didn't.
I believe that the local orchestra should start by being responsible to the community that they are in and stop looking out to be better or as good as another famous orchestra.
In Bournemouth the orchestra is for the south east. They will never really compete with Berlin, New York, London et al and neither should they need to. In the UK conductors like John Pritchard, Charles Groves and Alexander Gibson knew this. Forget hiring some averagely good conductor because if you don't get him someone else will. The public respond to good and imaginative programming given by their orchestra for the locals. In my opinion that is where we should start. If we don't the audiences interest will continue to fade away and then so will the orchestras.

[Gareth Vaughan]

All the orchestras, and that includes major European ones, used to have their own identifiable sounds. I remember hearing Chicago in Solti and being totally blown away by the sound of the orchestra and then New York under Bernstein and being amazed by the polish and shine and then Berlin under Karajan etc etc....in the UK the LSO under Previn had a shiny brilliant sound that was different from the LPO and the RPO and especially the Philharmonia under Muti which was brilliant and burnished. Now they all sound the same.

I have long thought the same. And I do so agree with everything else you have written in your post. Spot on - build local community support and you will have a good chance of survival (and of retaining a distinctive sound, perhaps).

[MartinH]

I agree that distinctive sounds have largely gone. International players, conductors, teaching methods, etc. I do miss that special sound of french bassoons and horns. The Russian horns with their vibrato. But there is one American orchestra that I think still has a distinctive sound - maybe I'm wrong and it's wishful thinking. It's Pittsburgh - that brass section! Just fabulous. And deep, rich strings. Their recent released on Reference Recordings (a superb Beethoven 5/7 for example) and some of the finest Mahler available (on Exton) are thrilling and remind you of just how great that orchestra is. They made many dazzling recordings with Previn and Maazel, too. Cincinnati is another orchestra that has a remarkably different, old-world sound.