I seek the perfect music program for concerts. Of course, there is no such thing, but the quest for perfection leads to knowledge and knowledge leads to success and success leads us back to perfection, except that the definition of successful programing is subjective and can only be determined through audience response which is an imperfect measurement at best. So the quest is probably hopeless. But it is definitely worth a try.
After attending countless concerts, studying programs, reading reviews, and eliciting response from audience members, I have come to the conclusion that a successful program is either theme related or contains a wide variety of styles and genres. A theme related concert seems to give the audience more ownership in the program and creates a two-way communication that bears fruit in positive audience response. Imaginative programming within the confines of a theme or a subject may seem to limit the choices, but in fact it tends to broaden them. This is similar to a painter who is limited to a particular canvas size, paint colors, type of brush, or even a subject matter. He then paints creatively and imaginatively within the parameters either self or externally imposed.
A good program seeks to garner an emotional response in some way. Since the gamut of human emotions is infinite, there is no limit to the style of music and the reactions to it. In addition, since each person is uniquely made, it is an inexact science at best to predict the emotional response to a particular music being presented. Because of this inability to know how people will react, it becomes advantageous to present a wide range of music styles, sounds, tempos, dynamics, and instrumentation. While it may not be possible to get everyone to react positively, it may not be impossible to get a positive reaction to the overall program from most people. In other words, the idea is to present a wide variety of music to a wide variety of people.
The wise musician picking a program finds music from various time periods, in various musical languages, in different keys, and containing a generous blend of tender sounds and unbridled energy. It has been said that people do not remember music objectively; instead they recall emotional associations to music. With that in mind, the musician wants to be remembered not forgotten and the composer seeks acknowledgment of the music. We, therefore, as musicians, need to avoid the mundane, the predictable, the bromidic, and any kind of continual expression of pablum without meaning. If we want music to make a difference, we must be multifarious in our presentation and eclectic in our musical desires. This discussion, however, leads to a need to address quality and standards. But that discussion is for another time.
2 comments:
I am concerned that your Aristotelian, eudamonistic philsophical worldview is compromising the choice that should be the prerogative of the individual musician or conductor in his or her attempt at programming. Indeed, your postulate of the 'mulifarious' as the greatest good borders on the 'nefarious.' Nevertheless, where is the euphony? Shouldn't the greatest good literally be that which is euphonistic? Indeed, you sound like a sophist, rhetorically imposing your epistemological and kalological grid upon all akoustikoi.
Ultimately it is important that you recognize that artistry in programming be part of the expression of the artist. What if they choose a narrow retrospective on a particular composer or type of music...can this also be creative and imaginative? Can this also be good?
Your language betrays your perspective as you connect terms such as "good" and "wise" to your own proposal. In reality, you are pummeling your readers into submission to your will through such use. Although one could posit that beauty is objective, "art" as a 21st century phenomenon tends towards the radically subjective. Nowhere is this better seen than in music.
Ultimately, your proposal is a good proposal. Perhaps my issue is with your criteria that leads to the proposal. Is the "quest for perfection" a universal one and if so, is that quest necessarily a musical one? What is success? This too can be evaluated in "shades." Finally, is the audience the final ajudicator in such an endeavor? Should they be? And if so, what is the "end" of art? To make money? Why does the audience attend any concert?
Ultimately, if a tree falls in the woods and there is no there to hear it, does it actually make a sound?
Dude - this guy is messed up. I could barely understand a word he said. I think variety is the spice of life and that you gotta expose people to the lit or they might not come back. Give 'em stuff to choose from, you know. Man Tucker, you rock!
Post a Comment