The gulf between the concert hall and recorded music

[Maestro267]

Major concert programmes generally tend to stick to the popular favourites, because bums on seats = money, and the masses in general are scared of music they're not familiar with, even though there is absolutely nothing to be scared of. They just like the familiarity of constant Beethoven and Mahler cycles. Whereas the recording studio is far more interesting, providing us with opportunities to hear out-of-repertoire composers and give us a chance to hear and judge for ourselves. If it wasn't for the likes of Naxos, Chandos, Hyperion, Dutton, Lyrita and others, our musical horizons would be far narrower than they are, and we would not get the opportunity to hear so much music that is just as enjoyable and deserving of our attention as any of the standard works.

[Karl Henning]

Major concert programmes generally tend to stick to the popular favourites, because bums on seats = money, and the masses in general are scared of music they're not familiar with, even though there is absolutely nothing to be scared of. They just like the familiarity of constant Beethoven and Mahler cycles.

That, in turn, puts off lifelong concertgoers who feel that the cost of a season's subscription is part wastage, if they're just going to get more Beethoven, Brahms, & Mahler.  It is a double-edged sword, and I don't buy the "necessity" of Beethoven, year in, year out.

[(poco) Sforzando]

That, in turn, puts off lifelong concertgoers who feel that the cost of a season's subscription is part wastage, if they're just going to get more Beethoven, Brahms, & Mahler.  It is a double-edged sword, and I don't buy the "necessity" of Beethoven, year in, year out.

And yet these are the composers who most sell tickets. The problem remains that concert promoters have to sell seats, performers have to learn the works (which often seems to be forgotten when concert repertoire is being criticized), and audiences too must contend with the cost of tickets and the effort of transportation to the nearest venue. And then one must hope for a stimulating performance, and seatmates who are considerate, attentive, and not too tall / wide / smelly / noisy / or otherwise distracting (as in the case of the Carnegie Hall seatmate who insisted on "helping" Pierre Boulez along one afternoon by also conducting the Mahler 3rd).

As I've often maintained, most of us get much of our music from these days from recordings. If a single so-called "neglected" piece is available on disc, it is ipso facto no longer "neglected," since anyone can hear it - and for far less money than it would take to hear a live performance. Still, one keeps hearing the complaint that this or that composer's music is not being performed live - even though most of us can't possibly get to hear a particular performance. There still however seems to be something peculiarly satisfying in the knowledge that the work is being played live somewhere.

Given the expense and difficulty of hearing live music, I go to fewer concerts and operas these days. I heard and saw the intermittently interesting Sarriaho "L'Amour de Loin" at the movies last weekend, and that was enough for me. Only $25 for a ticket, in the comfort of a movie house rather than the $80 even a cheap ticket would have cost live, not to mention travel and a meal.

What is lost with recordings, however, is the actual acoustic presence of voices and instruments, which I don't believe still can be captured with the same fidelity as in a live experience. As well as the occasional, magical, perfect performance that makes you believe that you are experiencing the music in a way for which no recording can substitute.

[CRCulver]

Whereas the recording studio is far more interesting, providing us with opportunities to hear out-of-repertoire composers...

Studio recordings are becoming rare, and are an expensive luxury in today's market. Those recordings of unusual repertoire are often taken from rehearsals in the ensemble's usual space or even from the concert performance itself.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

I spend much more money on live music than CDs, but that is because I tend to go to many performances of works by living composers and often see world premieres. This is where my own interest lies: the music of the present. If we were to believe that the only performances of classical music consist of the 'bums on seats' repertoire then we are only really taking a handful of major orchestras into consideration. It is interesting to examine the type of repertoire that the New York Philharmonic has played over the years and you can see digitised programs for concerts going all the way back to when the orchestra was founded. It was always much rarer for them to perform the music of living composers, ever since their first concert. The International Contemporary Ensemble is also based in NYC (and also Chicago where it was founded) and has an entirely different repertoire of music, most of which would rarely find its way onto the music stands of musicians in the New York Phil.

Both of these ensemble have an audience. The audience may consist of people who see concerts from both ensembles as well. The point is that people can choose the kind of repertoire they enjoy seeing live. I, for one, enjoy seeing my local ensembles for new music here in Melbourne, Australia, and I try not to miss a world premiere. New music is designed to be performed live, even acousmatic music which often features in installations which are again desgined to be experienced live. There are always fascinating live performances happening of curious repertoire, I think we just have to look for them rather than expect the information to be handed to us on a silver platter.

EDIT: Ok I just read on Grove that acousmatic music since the late 90s 'was often concieved with private listening in mind' so that is the only exception I can think of when it comes to my argument that music is written with performance in mind, not simply just recording

[Andante]

The concerts that I go to will occasionally squeeze in a modern work even the odd premier, but I am like the majority of concert goers and prefer the well known and accepted composers.
Regarding recordings I do prefer a live recording warts and all.

[Todd]

I'm somewhat lucky with orchestral fare in that the Oregon Symphony is somewhat adventurous in its programming under Carlos Kalmar, who includes lesser known fare and even some new works regularly.  When it comes to solo piano recitals, chamber music performances, and opera in local markets (basically Portland and Seattle), the programming is even more conservative.  With opera it's easy to understand why, as it is with solo piano recitals, but with chamber music, in particular, I'd like to see more exploration of non-core rep.  Alas, I don't see it happening.

[Karl Henning]

And yet these are the composers who most sell tickets. The problem remains that concert promoters have to sell seats, performers have to learn the works (which often seems to be forgotten when concert repertoire is being criticized), and audiences too must contend with the cost of tickets and the effort of transportation to the nearest venue. And then one must hope for a stimulating performance, and seatmates who are considerate, attentive, and not too tall / wide / smelly / noisy / or otherwise distracting (as in the case of the Carnegie Hall seatmate who insisted on "helping" Pierre Boulez along one afternoon by also conducting the Mahler 3rd).

As I've often maintained, most of us get much of our music from these days from recordings. If a single so-called "neglected" piece is available on disc, it is ipso facto no longer "neglected," since anyone can hear it - and for far less money than it would take to hear a live performance. Still, one keeps hearing the complaint that this or that composer's music is not being performed live - even though most of us can't possibly get to hear a particular performance. There still however seems to be something peculiarly satisfying in the knowledge that the work is being played live somewhere.

Given the expense and difficulty of hearing live music, I go to fewer concerts and operas these days. I heard and saw the intermittently interesting Sarriaho "L'Amour de Loin" at the movies last weekend, and that was enough for me. Only $25 for a ticket, in the comfort of a movie house rather than the $80 even a cheap ticket would have cost live, not to mention travel and a meal.

What is lost with recordings, however, is the actual acoustic presence of voices and instruments, which I don't believe still can be captured with the same fidelity as in a live experience. As well as the occasional, magical, perfect performance that makes you believe that you are experiencing the music in a way for which no recording can substitute.

All very well taken.

[Maestro267]

Studio recordings are becoming rare, and are an expensive luxury in today's market. Those recordings of unusual repertoire are often taken from rehearsals in the ensemble's usual space or even from the concert performance itself.

If (part of) a concert is being recorded, the concert hall/rehearsal space/wherever else they play becomes the recording studio. So the term still applies.

[MN Dave]

More Beethoven.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Given the expense and difficulty of hearing live music, I go to fewer concerts and operas these days. I heard and saw the intermittently interesting Sarriaho "L'Amour de Loin" at the movies last weekend, and that was enough for me. Only $25 for a ticket, in the comfort of a movie house rather than the $80 even a cheap ticket would have cost live, not to mention travel and a meal.

My current concert-going principles are: fewer concerts, better seats, more interesting / unusual repertoire. Much as I love Brahms, I can't justify paying c. $70 plus the trip downtown just to watch Muti conduct him.

I'm somewhat lucky with orchestral fare in that the Oregon Symphony is somewhat adventurous in its programming under Carlos Kalmar, who includes lesser known fare and even some new works regularly. 

I'm somewhat lucky with orchestral fare in that the Grant Park Symphony is somewhat adventurous in its programming under Carlos Kalmar, who includes lesser known fare and even some new works regularly.

All that said: the interesting stuff is there if you look hard enough. In the last 4 years I've heard in concert works by Carter, Adams, Ligeti, Messiaen, Lindberg, Webern, Berg, Schuman, Ives, Martinu and a few others, not to mention the usual "traditionalist" 20th c. composers (Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Walton, Vaughan Williams, Bartok, Nielsen). I've also missed performances of major works by Stockhausen, Berio and a number of others.

[some guy]

The assumption is that concerts are in concert halls. Well, the "new" music that you're likely to get in a concert hall is not all that "new."*

If you're going to new music concerts, you're going to abandoned factories, to art museums, to coffee shops, even to rooms in private homes, a la Herr Schubert.

In those venues, you'll get music that's as new and edgy as you could wish for. There, there's no gap, musically/aesthetically between concerts and recordings.

*I asked Kalmar once, a few years ago, if the Oregon Symphony would play some Lachenmann--I had just heard them playing Nielsen's sixth, and they did it perfectly, so this query was partly a compliment to their skill. Carlos' response? "The Oregon Symphony will NEVER play Lachenmann!"

Well, OK then....

[Andante]

*I asked Kalmar once, a few years ago, if the Oregon Symphony would play some Lachenmann--I had just heard them playing Nielsen's sixth, and they did it perfectly, so this query was partly a compliment to their skill. Carlos' response? "The Oregon Symphony will NEVER play Lachenmann!"

Well, OK then....

Unbelievable!  did you ask him why?