Concerned and disappointed

Aware of the declines in financial support and in ticket sales for "classical" music concerts, I am both concerned and disappointed in the outlook for orchestras, operas, chamber music, and music training in general. Indeed it is true that academic music training has not changed much for at least 50 years, and the system of creating young musicians for performance, teaching, church, and other music related professions has overall been effective. It works and works well with academia producing gifted musicians for the myriad of musical professions needed. But what if we are training musicians for a world that is diminishing, a world that may always be present but only minimally and only in pockets of metropolitan areas. If this is true, and the signs are pointing that direction, then there are only a few options: 1) the world needs to revert back to what it was and appreciate the type of music it once supported, or 2) academia should give up and no longer train musicians (an unimaginable option), or 3) academia should adapt to a changing world.

But it is difficult to change and rather disappointing in many ways due to the benefits and substantial meaning found in classical music. Most trained musicians of which I am familiar stand for the purity and depth found in music of the great composers from the past and consider their music to be foundational to the training needed for musicians as well as meaningful for audience members. Willing and certainly capable of performing popular or commercial music, academically trained musicians generally prefer opportunities to hear and perform music from the past, music that has withstood the test of time, and music considered to be highly respected by critics, historians, and theorists. If it is true that knowledge is power, then it stands to reason that as a musician gains knowledge about music, he/she becomes influential over others, assuming a position of leadership in music by virtue of her skill and her knowledge. Subsequently, a great violinist, for example, performs at a high level music that is befitting of her skill, her knowledge, and her preference, hoping to gain an audience for her art. She is well-trained, skilled, artistic, and if she prefers the music of Mozart or Bartok, to name two highly respected composers, and she has the ability to perform their music with great excellence, then her training, her ability, and her preference for their music ought to reach a vast audience, to be enjoyed by all.

Many musical sociologists, among others, are working to address why declines in audience attendance and support are occurring and are in the process of making certain recommendations for change, including but not limited to better marketing, varied programming, environments, invoking of technology, reduced personnel, seeking larger donor base, and less formality. All these and more are part of the story, but my concern remains in the area of training and education for the musician of the future. The 2004 article from the New York Times is even more applicable today as scores of highly skilled and qualified performers seek to make a living using their gifts and training: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/arts/music/12waki.html?pagewanted=all. The argument in favor of music training as a demanding discipline that is applicable to all fields is certainly valid but also a little questionable in light of the need to prepare during college for the chosen profession. The degrees and the ability do not guarantee employment, a serious concern for all those spending great time and resources in preparation for the field of music.

While I personally believe in the "eclectic" approach to music programming and for curriculum development in our colleges and universities, I am also well-aware of the decided attitudes and feelings that many academic musicians have toward excessive eclecticism both in study and in performance. Often during my time of performing with orchestras have I overheard disparaging comments by the players toward popular music. Comments from performers such as, "junk" or "garbage" or "waste of time" or "I suppose we do this to pay the bills" are common and revealing of attitudes. Yet, in spite of the preference by many performers and established audiences for classical music, I do believe the "canon" of excellent literature is changing rapidly and what was once considered mainstream for orchestral performance is now relegated to few performances mostly for historical interest. Unfortunately for those desiring a musical world of Western Art music from the past, time marches forward and with it are societal changes in preferences and taste. Such is especially true in the arts and music in particular.

A moment of negativity: it is a sad commentary on our world when people no longer value an orchestra playing Beethoven or Brahms or Mozart and it demonstrates a lack of refinement and dedication to the craft and skill of the great masters of composition. I already miss the great music of the past and sometimes feel as though only the "top ten" most popular classical works are getting performances. It is certainly a loss and one that will likely never return except for the occasional retro moment similar to watching a VHS tape or listening to a vinyl recording. Charming and ironically rich, those opportunities are rare and although somewhat special, not all that rewarding in the end at least for the general populous. Which brings me to the big question, does art really need to reach large amounts of people or can it be great with a small but appreciative audience? If so, then academic music training should continue on its narrow pathway of focusing on the classics for those who know and love great music.

Yet somehow all this smacks of elitism and snobbery in an era when those traits are not highly regarded. Can we in academia sustain our own definition of excellence at a time when excellence is being redefined through the invisible hand of market forces? I want to say yes absolutely but deep down I also know it is nearly impossible to stop the trend of declining audiences and support for classical music.

A moment of optimism: the declines in audiences and support actually present a golden opportunity for the academy to revitalize its approach to training musicians by letting go of certain tired practices, keeping some things, and trying new ways. It may be time to parlay the old successes into something new for today's musical world. This may include commercial music, world music, technology, overseas study opportunities, choice of emphases and courses, business, and acoustics. This does not mean abandonment of classical music at all but could mean a judicious invoking of many types of music.

Yes I remain concerned with the losses and have some trouble letting go of a system that has worked for so long, and yes I am disappointed in a world that continues moving toward excessive eclecticism while losing the essence of classical music, but I am also excited about the possibilities for the future. It is a future of hope, of musical joy, and of creation, or it may be a future of forgetting the rich heritage of great music (let it not be so), but whatever the future holds, it cannot be prevented. It remains up to the academy to find a way to remind the world of the beauty of the past while forging forward for tomorrow.