Alan Gilberts plans for the NY Philharmonic next season

[Iago]

Mr. Gilbert said, "Over all, the programs tilt more toward 20th-century and contemporary music than they have in recent years"

If that's the case. Mr. Gilberts tenure with the Philharmonic will be short, and unfulfilling. Similar in length to Eschenbach with the Philadelphia and in lack of audience enthusiasm to Boulez with the New York Philharmonic.
The NY audience will not take kindly to a reduction in the appearances of the "old warhorses". They want Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner, Schubert and Tschaikovsky in addition to Mahler. If the Philharmonic is suffering in these taut economic times, just wait for the pain they will endure next year

Mr Gilbert= Wrong man, wrong place, wrong time.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Mr. Gilbert said, "Over all, the programs tilt more toward 20th-century and contemporary music than they have in recent years"

Good for Gilbert. That's the way to build the new audience, Alan! 

The NY audience will not take kindly to a reduction in the appearances of the "old warhorses".

That particular segment of the NY audience doesn't have much of a future, as it is getting older all the time.

[Superhorn]

   Iago, our orchestras can't just go on playing nothing but the same old warhorses. They've  GOT to give new music a chance to be heard, and to revive neglected but worthwhile works from the past too. Otherwise, classical music will stagnate.
  I looked over the programs, and there are still a fair number of familiar standbys of the orchestral repertoire. I think it's too early to predict how long Gilbert will last with the Philharmonic. Let's give him a chance.
  Unfortunately, there are SOME concertgoers who are set in their ways and justwant to hear the same old warhorses, but fortunately, not all of them.
  Why don't concertgoers just keep an open mind ?  People are curious to see the latest movies, read the latest books,fiction and non-fiction, and try restaurants they haven't visited before etc. So why shouldn't they be willing to give new orchestral music a chance? 
  Part of the problem is that it's often difficult to judge a new work from just one hearing. With recordings, repeated hearings can make a work one doesn't grasp at first make much more sense.
   The New York Philharmonic has already been offering varied and interesting programming for many years. In fact, many other orchestras are much more conservative and play far less new music. Fortunately, this will continue under Alan Gilbert. I wish him nothing but the best.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Why don't concertgoers just keep an open mind ?  People are curious to see the latest movies, read the latest books,fiction and non-fiction, and try restaurants they haven't visited before etc. So why shouldn't they be willing to give new orchestral music a chance? 

But how much longer do we have to wait ?

Being deeply moved on an emotional level is what I want from music and I practically never experience that with any modernist music.

After Rienzi, Wagner was able to produce one superb opera after another... Today's musical world seems so barren.

(That's my answer to your question)

[some guy]

Being deeply moved on an emotional level is what I want from music and I practically never experience that with any modernist music.

That's because you have made sure that you cannot be moved by any but a very narrow band of music. You have done that, not the music. "Modernist" music is something that moves a lot of people deeply, at an emotional level.

The barrenness is in your ears, in the assumptions and expectations that determine how your ears hear. I'm afraid that the fact that the music that doesn't move you does move other people, intelligent people, people with broad and sophisticated tastes, means that it's not the music's fault.

I'm afraid that "modernist" music will never move you, because you've closed your mind down on it. Which is neither here nor there, really. Whatever floats your boat, eh? At least have the grace, the intellectual honesty, not to damn the music for your personal failings. I think that that's all anyone here has ever asked of you.

[Iago]

I'm afraid that the fact that the music that doesn't move you does move other people, intelligent people, people with broad and sophisticated tastes, means that it's not the music's fault.

Are you therefore inferring that those people who exclusively prefer melodic, emotional, often tuneful, "old warhorses" are NOT intelligent and have limited and unsophisticated tastes? If you are, then you can KMA.

[Wanderer]

Part of the problem is that it's often difficult to judge a new work from just one hearing. With recordings, repeated hearings can make a work one doesn't grasp at first make much more sense.

...not to mention allowing proper familiarization and assessment even of non-baffling yet new and unknown works. I wouldn't encourage a heavy tilt towards unknown (and almost certainly unrecorded) works in concerts (nor the other way around, performing the same ten works over and over again); a balanced mix would probably be the most sensible approach.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Some guy,

That's because you have made sure that you cannot be moved by any but a very narrow band of music. You have done that, not the music.

I'm afraid that "modernist" music will never move you, because you've closed your mind down on it.

Excuse me but don't you think I want to love every composer?  Who in his right mind does not wish there to be as much great music in the world as possible ?

The fact is that I find the great works of the 19th century and early 20th really, really beautiful and.... inexhaustible.

With the music of contemporary composers or of the last 90 years I just don't get that experience.

[Homo Aestheticus]

I have the 3 Boulez sonatas on a Naxos disc with Idel Biret... Thanks anyway for your suggestions.   

[some guy]

I'm afraid that the fact that the music that doesn't move you does move other people, intelligent people, people with broad and sophisticated tastes, means that it's not the music's fault.

Are you therefore inferring that those people who exclusively prefer melodic, emotional, often tuneful, "old warhorses" are NOT intelligent and have limited and unsophisticated tastes? If you are, then you can KMA.

Wow. Simply pointing out that people in one group are intelligent and have broad and sophisticated tastes says nothing about people in any other group.

The point was only about music, Iago. About how some music can move these intelligent people over here. (The point being that the one of the people over there, in a group whose intelligence and sophistication was not and is not in question, had suggested that music that he doesn't like is also in and of itself impoverished. I'm thinking maybe it's not me who has to put his kissin' face on. Yep. )

[CRCulver]

With the music of contemporary composers or of the last 90 years I just don't get that experience.

There are works of the 20th century that have impressed normal conservative audiences as much as any 19th century warhorse. A good example is Per Norgard's Symphony No. 3, which the conservative Danish government put on its official canon of cultural masterpieces. It has wowed every concertgoer regardless of their interest in modernism. Similarly, Shostakovich wrote his music within the last 90 years, and at least with some of it the average Soviet listener was moved.

If you can't find anything from the 20th century to love, even outright tonal repertoire, the problem likely lies with you and not the music.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

If you can't find anything from the 20th century to love, even outright tonal repertoire, the problem likely lies with you and not the music.

It's a shame that my thread "The Psychology of Anti-Modernism" from a few years back has gone down the memory hole. It describes and analyzes the attitudes of such listeners in detail.

For some strange reason, a lot of people seemingly want to believe that 20th century music consists of nothing but screeching dissonance and extreme gestures, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[karlhenning]

I have the 3 Boulez sonatas on a Naxos disc with Idel Biret... Thanks anyway for your suggestions.   

No doubt the horse has been brought to the water . . . .

[Homo Aestheticus]

Spitvalve,

Good for Gilbert. That's the way to build the new audience, Alan! 

That particular segment of the NY audience doesn't have much of a future, as it is getting older all the time.

I have to say that this issue has always puzzled me... What I don't understand is why the younger audiences don't already gravitate toward the romantic repertory or why administrators have to make  any  effort to do so. There is just so much awesomely beautiful music composed between 1800 and 1920.

Are you really saying that the world of classical music and opera can't survive by focusing mostly on this repertory along with a sprinkling of 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th century masterworks ?

This notion that the only way to keep the whole scene vibrant is to provide a heavy dose of contemporary and later 20th I find bizarre. 

[karlhenning]

I have to say that this issue has always puzzled me... What I don't understand is why the younger audiences don't already gravitate toward the romantic repertory or why administrators have to make  any  effort to do so. There is just so much awesomely beautiful music composed between 1800 and 1920.

The answer is simplicity itself!  It's because there is so much awesomely beautiful music that has been written since 1920.

[hornteacher]

Don't forget also that to a young person who is getting into Classical Music for the first time, its ALL new to them.  It took me years to "discover" pieces that are considered "old warhorses" or "standard rep".  Just because WE'VE heard it a thousand times doesn't mean everyone else has.

[ChamberNut]

Don't forget also that to a young person who is getting into Classical Music for the first time, its ALL new to them.  It took me years to "discover" pieces that are considered "old warhorses" or "standard rep".  Just because WE'VE heard it a thousand times doesn't mean everyone else has.

Post of the day.     Thank you Hornteacher.

[Bunny]

Good for Gilbert. That's the way to build the new audience, Alan! 

That particular segment of the NY audience doesn't have much of a future, as it is getting older all the time.

I for one would love to hear more 20th century music, but not to the exclusion of older music.  I also would love to hear more of the tonal 20th century music, which is also neglected.  However, right now the NYPO needs to concentrate on keeping the paying audience it already has.  That audience may be aging, but the new audience doesn't seem to be able to afford tickets except at discounted prices. 

Let's face facts: While new repertoire is always a good thing, it's the warhorses that do the heavy pulling of the orchestra chariot.

[karlhenning]

I for one would love to hear more 20th century music, but not to the exclusion of older music.

No major orchestra does any such thing (exclude older music), of course.

[ChamberNut]

Nothing puzzling or bizarre about that at all. It's called reality. You can't live in some vacuum far removed from the times we live in. A LOT has happened in the world of music (and the world at large) since those older times (duh). And there are seriously creative people out there today who are passionately composing & playing fresh superb music keeping the artform form alive and current. This is a natural, necessary and a good thing. To turn your back to all of this is just silly of course. And of course, no one really does that. Except maybe you?

Does this rule apply to all genres of music, not just "Classical"?  ie. Pop, Country, Rap, Hip Hop.  Ie. Immediately trashing it out once it falls out of the Top 40 billboards?