Reader’s letter in the Wall Street Journal

I am glad Mr. Umlauf wrote his thoughtful letter. It gives me a chance to talk about some of the problems at the core of the issue and debate surrounding virtual orchestras and classical music in general:

“I believe that we’ll find that the “virtual orchestra” will only lead to a faster decline in concert attendance. … The accomplishments in engineering cannot, sadly, stem the general decline in listenership of classical music.”

This has always been a serious concern. But why has attendance been declining even before digital orchestras appeared? It has nothing to do with whether there is a prancing conductor on the stage (most of whom choose real orchestras to preen in front of) driving people away. Why would having digital orchestra concerts accelerate this decline? Mr. Umlauf offers no reason why this would happen.

The unspoken subtext underlying the decades-long declining audience discussion is that the audience is to blame. They are no longer educated the way we were; they simply don’t appreciate classical music; and the loss of music training in schools has shut off the stream of new people capable of enjoying classical music. No wonder many people think classical music is for snobs. The conventional wisdom says: Not just anyone can enjoy it. Classical music lovers are made, not born.

This arrogant attitude makes it harder to see where the core problem lies. Let’s imagine instead that people today are no different than earlier generations in their capacity to enjoy and seek out musical enjoyment. Perhaps a decline in audience interest could also be the result of the decline in the quality of experience being offered to them.

How many of us have heard people say something like, “classical music is just boring,” or “I don’t get classical music.” What if they’re right? What if the classical music that people now encounter actually is boring and that most of the time it falls well below its inherent potential to provide an experience that listeners might value? Well, if “boring” is in the mind of the hearer, then it would be hard to argue with this assessment.

The arrogant and typical reaction from self-styled classical music defenders, however, is to sling back-handed blame at the untutored listener for having too short an attention span and for not being educated in the “appreciation” of this art. If only they would take a class … attend the pre-concert lecture … have fewer tawdry distractions … then they might start to really enjoy classical music and go to concerts more and more.

Why insult and look down upon the poor listener? The problem is that listeners faced with this off-putting attitude in this day and age can simply turn to many other opportunities for satisfaction where they are welcomed “as is.” They don’t really bother feeling bad that classical music producers don’t think they’re worthy. In fact, they don’t even know that.

So, Instead of blaming listeners and their cultural circumstances, we classical musicians should assume more responsibility for the lack of audience interest. That doesn’t mean we should wear tattoos and hair gel and stylish clothes, perform in coffee shops and clubs, and try to imitate the trappings of popular music in other ways. Although classical music is complex, the greatest experiences it potentially offers require no specialized knowledge. Classical music can offer enormously satisfying aesthetic experiences on the same plane (or higher) than those offered by drugs and sex (and rock and roll). So, why don’t people then give up beer and ritalin and beat a path to the nearest concert hall?

The received wisdom says that the capacity for attentive listening is just not cultivated in people anymore, and so they would not be able to have such an experience even if it were offered up to them. This is a cop-out and is untrue. And the unspoken fear among classical music lovers is that, in fact, a musical high really is no match for a drug-induced high. However, the truth is that few concerts actually do offer the opportunity for the highest high — even to the most open, attentive and ardent classical music audience. Such experiences are elusive. They cannot be reliably mass-produced, nor even replicated. Even the greatest performers among us rarely bring forth an experience of that type.

In economic terms, demand is simply drying up. The producers’ solution focuses too much on manufacturing demand. But, what about the quality of the supply? Simply assuming the product being offered is valuable, doesn’t make it so. And offering more of the product may exacerbate the problem by futher confirming the image of classical music as boring and un-satisfying.

What listeners don’t know, though, is that if the product were better, they might actually be able to experience a “high” they would really like (to put it mildly), and which they would seek out again and again. If one could get a drug-like high from classical music, demand for it would increase instantly and, it being legal, would give harmful illegal substances real competition.

What keeps people away from classical music concerts? Is it the sad gullibility of adolescent culture that causes millions to be lured instead into (pseudo)exciting concerts by the promise of flash-pots, lights, loud sounds, fog, sweaty half-clothed bodies and words reflecting their deepest thoughts? Or is it that people have absolutely zero expectation for any sort of exciting, uplifting, rewarding, personally gratifying, life-changing experience coming from a classical music concert? Surely the answer must be yes to both. True, there is gullibility in our adolescent culture, and there is little a classical concert can do to compete with razzle-dazzle. But, what classical music can offer is the naked potential for exalted, sought-after experiences … a high without a drug. Finding ways to increase the likelihood of producing this kind of experience is the best way to approach the question of how to keep classical music alive.

Tito, you raise some interesting questions, and some uninteresting ones.

“Why congregate and spend money to listen to a bad recording? I certainly would rather spend my money on a great recording and listen to it at home.”

I went to a concert at Yale last January in which several recordings of orchestral music were played for (to?) the audience. The composer came out on stage and told us not to clap for the recordings. They ignored his instructions. This just goes to show that not everyone will behave the same way you yourself would in these situations.

Yes, people come to see live musicians. Of course. But maybe you don’t realize that a digital orchestra concert actually is a concert of live musicians. It’s not going to the concert hall and listening to a recording.

People pay to go see single performers on stage all the time (pianists, cellists, etc.). When you can wrap your head around the idea of the digital orchestra as a musical instrument you might begin to understand how a digital orchestra concert could be something other than listening to a recording.

I think the question we should raise here is how do you see your efforts as helping the situation? How do you see your efforts as legitimate?

Legitimate means what? Probably something like “meeting the approval of” some taste-maker. I’m not interested in that.

Helping the situation? That would be arrogant indeed to think that some sort of concert I could muster might help the dire situation facing classical music. Fortunately, I do not concern myself with that. I’m simply interested in making some great music.

It’s too bad you think it’s naive and idealistic to think that a great performance could move anyone. Sadly, that’s not an uncommon attitude to find among professional musicians. Many really do not believe in the magic any more. But, if you set aside your belief that that’s not possible and entertain for a moment the idea that it could happen, it’s not hard to comprehend the very simple economic argument that, if more “moving” performances were more common, the “situation” could improve.

And as for your uninteresting questions that you so kindly answer for me:

So how do you define a great classical music performance, Mr. Smith? How would you describe one of these life-changing-for-all concerts? Is it a performance of your Fauxharmonic “Orchestra”?

I don’t define it. No one can, and it’s a silly waste of time to try.

Oh, and let me just point out that I never said anything about “life-changing-for-all” concerts. You’re right that some people will never be moved by any musical experience whatsoever. Who cares about them? It would be naive to assume that merely presenting the opportunity for a great musical experience would be enough to change everyone present in the room.

But this discussion really has very little to do with digital orchestra. Irrespective of the musical instruments used, we’re talking about the possibility and need for great musical experiences. That’s something that we both know can happen. It’s most easily brought forth with a real orchestra, I believe. No question.

However, there is also no question that digital orchestra instruments played by good musicians will soon have the potential to deliver the same. Given the pace of development and advances in this realm, you’d have to be blind to think that’s not going to happen.

Tito, I know you are a real conductor. That’s great. Congratulations on your success in the face of ridiculous odds. However, I don’t go around publicly decrying what you do. Even if I did think it was bad, it would still be very rude for me to do that. You also aren’t likely to persuade anyone by calling me names. You merely come across as childish bully who is resentful of people doing something you don’t like.

I believe that musicians attacking other musicians for their choice of instrument and nomenclature is unnecessary in this world today. So, your comment saddens me. More musical opportunity, more voices and experiments and chances for creating great, fulfilling artistic experiences are all good things. Why would you, a musician, waste energy fighting against that?

Perhaps if you try to accept the fact that the palette of musical expression is continually expanding, and has been for thousands of years … and that humans will always pick up whatever technology they want and make music with it, you might begin to see this issue in its larger human context and understand it.

You still don’t understand apparently that musical instruments are any things that musicians use to play music. They are not limited to those on some pre-ordained list, blessed only by the musicians you like (your so-called “real” musicians).

Consider that as early as 1926 the Berlin Hochschule für Musik offered a course on using the phonograph as an instrument. And its use for that purpose now eclipses its use for passive listening. In the 1940s, nearly as soon as it became available, tape recording technology was used to create music. But was it an instrument? A tape recorder?!? Yes, of course it was. Musicians played it in concerts all over the world.

Synthesizers and computers have all been around as musical instruments longer than you’ve been alive. You can’t just claim they are not instruments because you wish they weren’t. Did you know that early trumpets and snare drums were also not considered musical instruments? They were military signaling devices. Some fool composer brought them into the orchestra! The list of instruments that started out as “not instruments” in someone else’s book goes on and on. People with actual knowledge of the history of our ever-evolving instrumentarium can understand the development of digital orchestra instruments in this context.

Are digital instruments superior to, or even as good as real orchestra instruments? Debatable, perhaps, but that’s not the point. This flowering of digital technology presents the expansion of expressive possibilities for musicians and for composers. Calling this an “insult to great art” is simply non-sensical. Music can’t be insulted. You’re insulted, Tito, not the music.

But that, I guess, is your real point. And it’s a point no one can argue with: “I don’t like it.” If you would just leave it at that, you wouldn’t have to appear ludicrous by arguing that digital instruments are not real, or the musicians using them are not “real,” “legitimate,” or “of note” (i.e., musicians you approve of).

So, thanks for clarifying your stand, which is ultimately your personal expression of dislike. If your psyche is one that requires you to get on your high horse and defend great art from things you don’t like, you could probably find actual anti-musical enemies out in the world that deserve your attention. I certainly wish you would go look for them.