Like a lot of arts organizations, our community orchestra is struggling to pay the bills by putting butts in seats. So the question is - do we plan concerts that feature popular tunes & gimmicks, or do we play more difficult classical works that don’t draw as much of an audience?
Our Christmas concerts, featuring sing-a-longs and traditional favorites are very successful every year. So was the Halloween concert featuring The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and Peer Gynt. However, almost no one showed up to hear Mahler’s Fourth Symphony.
Even the Chicago Symphony Orchestra is struggling with this issue. I read that their John Williams concert was the best-attended of the season.
Do artists have a moral obligation to present work of the highest calibre, or should we just settle for what people want to hear?
And if nobody wants to hear it, is the work truly meritorious?
Artists have no distinct moral obligation, whatsoever, beyond those of all people. The idea that some works, merely because they are unpleasant and incomprehensible, are somehow innately “better” than what is popular, it ultimately absurd.
Ultimately, it depends upon what you think your orchestra is for. Is it to give the players pleasure (even if no one listens), is it to educate people’s tastes so they like something more complex, or is it to give the maximum pleasure to the largest number of people?
Each of these is valid viewpoint. Unfortunately many people involved in the arts don’t really believe that the purpose of the arts is to give pleasure to others. The reality is that if people don’t like what you do, they won’t buy it, and you end up exhibiting it to a small group of friends - whether it be a Mahler symphony, an abstract painting or obscure poetry. If your friends all have similar tastes to you, and praise what you produce, no one tells you that your product is unpalatable. Except by leaving the seats empty.
If you are happy to produce for a small educated audience, then go for it. It can be very fulfilling, but be careful that the group is not just an incestuous clique.
It can also be very fulfiling to play great music, even if no one is listening. Stuff them, you know it’s good.
But, if you really want a wider audience, then the real aim should be to educate people’s tastes, and to accept that most people know what they like and what they like is usually country and western. So you have to sell your product gently, and really listen to what the audience is telling you.
Ultimately, they have a constitutional right to refuse to listen to Mahler. It’s somewhere below the right to arm bears, as I recall it.
How about putting together programs of “popular” music mixed with classical?
Also, remember how much classical music was used in the early Warner Bros. cartoons? Use that sort of theme, cartoons/movies that used Beethoven/Mozart, etc. to promote concerts. If it brings people in, they might find they enjoy the music on it’s own merits.
Among some afficianados, Beethoven and Mozart are the “pop stuff”. Mahler is far less pleasant than any of the Romantic or Classical composers. I bet a Cage concert would also not sell too many tickets.
I don’t believe there is a moral obligation either way, so in my view it boils down to finding a happy mean between making music you really want to make, and earning sufficient money to do the former.
From my personal point of view, I actually like to hear some new music now and then, even if I have a hard time to appreciate it. I wouldn’t easily go to a concert where there is only avant garde music, but I like it if they do a mix: some classical pieces with a new piece somewhere in the program. A full classical program I find too predictable.
BTW, I do like Mahler. Maybe you could also work on advertising by playing a short extract of one of the ‘catchy’ bits (such as the slow movement from Mahler’s Fourth) as a teaser at one of your other programs, which might entice people to give it a try.
