Classical music's graying and shrinking audience - a new answer

[Chaszz]

This makes sense to me.

- Chaszz

--------------------------
January 9, 2004
REVERBERATIONS
Turn-Ons: Classical Concerts. Turnoffs: Sticker-Shock Tickets.
By JOHN ROCKWELL

There is much fretting in the land of high culture about aging audiences. At
classical-music concerts and operas, or so the worry goes, you see nothing
but bent old people. Where is the surging vitality of youth? Where are the
audiences of tomorrow, in a nation with crippled arts education? Where (and
here the real fears lie, you suspect) are the donors of tomorrow?

The answer, my friend, is in Queens. But more on that in a minute.

We read so often these days that classical music (and the visual arts and
Broadway and dance) has lost its way, starving for great composers and great
performers. Worse yet, that it has been superseded by younger, groovier,
hipper art forms like film, television and pop music, not to speak of dining
and clubbing, and fashion and a fulminating youth culture in general.

Well, no, not exactly. Some of these older arts certainly do attract older
people, and why not? I'm reminded of a remark once made by Bruce Crawford,
the advertising executive who served as board president and general manager
of the Metropolitan Opera and is now chairman of Lincoln Center. Speaking of
the Met, Mr. Crawford argued that its audiences had always been old, and
what was wrong with that?

Now to Queens: I thought of all this on Saturday during a casual visit to
the temporary outpost of the Museum of Modern Art there, in Long Island
City. I was in the neighborhood and wanted to see the building, a
transformed staple factory. There was no blockbuster exhibition on display,
with all due respect to Kiki Smith and a nice assortment of contemporania
from the museum's collection as chosen by the artist Mona Hatoum. Otherwise,
there was a kind of compacted greatest-hits selection from the museum's
regular treasures.

Yet the place was packed and, more particularly, it was packed with young
people. By which I mean, nonscientifically tabulated, people from their late
teens to 30. A lot of foreigners, but a lot of Americans, too. Just the sort
of demographics that symphony orchestras and opera companies yearn for. And
this for inescapable, implacable high art.

You could argue that the visual arts, despite the Metropolitan Museum's El
Greco blockbuster, are more vital now than classical music in terms of
living creative artists. Or that milling about in a museum facilitates
flirting.

But for me the most obvious, immediate, glaring reason for the appeal of one
high art over another is the cost of tickets. Not counting student
discounts, MoMA QNS is not cheap by museum standards. No "suggested
donation" here: adult admission is $12, and most of the younger folk on
Saturday qualified as adults.

Compare that with $295 for a prime box seat for a matinee performance of "Il
Barbiere di Siviglia" at the Metropolitan Opera on the same Saturday. Or
even with the $25 for the cheapest seat in the house, which offers only a
partial view of the stage.

Let us dispense right now with the many reservations and objections that can
counter this stark landscape. Yes, there are discounted tickets and rush
seats for classical music and dance; even a free series at Town Hall. Yes,
there are inexpensive series and hip places (the Miller Theater at Columbia
University) that attract a youngish crowd. Yes, young people will lay out
top dollar for arena-rock concerts.

The incontrovertible fact remains: classical music, by and large, is
ludicrously overpriced. MoMA's $12 is barely more than the $10.25 to which
some movie theaters in Manhattan have recently ascended. Rock concerts may
be pricey, but songs can be downloaded for 99 cents or less, all the way
down to zero.

A decade ago Frank Castorf, a theater director who comes from the eastern
part of Berlin and is still imbued with its socialist values, was offered
the prestigious post of director of the municipally supported Volksbühne am
Rosa-Luxemburg-Platz, the "people's theater" named for a Communist martyr.
He accepted only when the city government accepted his demand that the top
ticket price would never be higher than that of a movie ticket. The
Volksbühne, for all its challenging fare, has been a hotbed of young
audiences ever since.

To meet Mr. Castorf's demands, the Berlin government had to shoulder more
than 90 percent of the annual costs of the theater. What can be done within
the stubbornly privatized American arts-subsidy system?

Robert W. Wilson, the New York arts philanthropist (especially of opera),
once advocated pricing prime seats far higher than they are even now to
justify far cheaper seats along the margins. In return for a hefty donation,
he imposed that policy on a Brooklyn Academy of Music booking of the Kirov
Opera in 1995, with mixed results. Well-off patrons resisted the top price,
and those less so had not become accustomed to, or aware of, the newly
affordable seats. Museums attract the young because people know they are a
good deal: low prices for everyone, and once you're in, you're equal to
everyone else.

When I was director of the Lincoln Center Festival at the same time, the
ticket-buying pattern used to frustrate me to no end. We were trying to do
innovative stuff, the kind that should have attracted a young or
intellectual audience, or both. And attract them we did, but only for the
less expensive seats. Our presentation of the Royal Opera's production of
Hans Pfitzner's gorgeous cult opera "Palestrina" in 1997 did well at tickets
costing $90 or less. For the more expensive seats, however, at the same
regular Met Opera prices that the company insisted we replicate, it was
pretty empty. Nicholas Payne, then the artistic director of the Royal Opera,
said that the same pattern had prevailed in London.

Had I stayed on at Lincoln Center, one of my agenda items was to try to
convince my bosses (and the always-nervous constituent companies of Lincoln
Center) that the entire pricing pattern, and hence the entire level of
subsidy for the festival, should be reconsidered. Instead of raising some $6
million each summer and counting on another $3 million-plus at the box
office (which were roughly the figures then), why not cut ticket prices
sharply and offer fewer events, but hope for a larger, more lively turnout?
Certainly lower ticket prices would still attract a healthy portion of
grateful older patrons, too, as attested to by the audiences at Chris
Williamson's Rock Hotel PianoFest.

There is a creative crisis in classical music these days (and a
choreographic crisis in dance and a brain-death problem on Broadway). Art
forms wax and wane in their creative potency, and at the moment film,
especially, is riding high.

But much of classical music's supposed lack of appeal is simply a matter of
ticket pricing. In our system, with the omnivorous need to balance budgets
and sustain high union salaries and keep theaters running year-round, a
sharp reduction of ticket prices may be difficult to achieve, particularly
at our showcase theaters and concert halls. But a beginning has been made
here and there, and the effort is well worth encouraging.

Karl Marx (and Cyndi Lauper) may well have been right: Money would indeed
change everything.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joy]

Very interesting article, Chaszz . I must agree with you about the ever ticket purchase price going up, up, up! Our symphony had some money problems last year and now seem to be doing lots better. They did raise the prices of their tickets for this season I noticed and they were already rather expensive to begin with in my humble opinion. I guess it was to be expected. Also other cities concert halls and venues nearby raised their prices as well. A sorry sign of the times I guess.

------------------
'Truth and beauty joined'

[Amalie]

Well, Rock Concerts are also very expensive by any standards, and yet the 'younger set' seem be able to afford the extortionate prices of tickets. Established Rock Stars want anything up to £200.
With no disrespect intended, there surely can be no comparison between the intellectual and spiritual benefits of going to a Mozart Opera compared with what ever one takes to be the greatest rock artists in the land.



[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited January 15, 2004).]

[Peter]

The expense issue can't be the sole reason - Classical cds are no more expensive than pop. When one considers the cost of staging an opera I suppose some justification can be found for the extortionate ticket prices at most opera houses (though ENO at the Colloseum manage it at an affordale price).

Classical music has always been a minority interest and I think more than ever now it comes down to education (or rather lack of it) image and peer pressure - CM is simply not perceived as cool (thank goodness!). By its very nature, its philosophy and spirituality CM is extremely demanding of the listener, and in an age of instant gratification people aren't prepared to search for answers and meaning in life, certainly not at a young age which is to be expected.

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Beyond Within]

Classical music cds are atleast half the price of 'rock' cds. The average rock cd is 15$ for maybe 40 mintues of music. I bought a cd of flute concertos by JS Bach for only 8$! Not only this, but it filled 77 minutes. Every classical disk I have bought is to the brim in music, unlike most rock.

As for concerts, I saw Tchiachovky's 5th for 25$ and really close seating. Recently I also saw Rossini's Barber for 35$, fairly close seating. Both these performances were the 45 + crowd.

Im 18 and no one within 25 years of my age listens to this music that I know of (in this area ofcourse).

The problem isnt solely peer pressure. Most teenagers, as a first, dont like music. The sound they listen to is merely so they can say they like music (peer pressure), backround noise for menial tasks, or because the lyrics are funny/hostile. Another huge set of kids my age just like the concert scene. They love the sanctioned brutality of a rock concert (moshing, crowd surfing). There is also a group which likes bands for their "intellectual" lyrics, such as Radiohead (which has bland, depressing music, accompanied with a whine for vocals). All of this doesnt involved focus on the music itself. The only group of none classical listeners which seem partially interested in actual music are either Jazz fans or true Heavy Metal fans. I know Heavy Metal has a lot of stereotypes to them (most of which are true), however there are bands out there which do display some ingenuity and virtuosity. These people are usually guitar players who are interested in creative use of technique/soloing. (check out Steve Vai) Actually a lot of metal listeners do listen to classical. But even so, most of them need the visceral punch of drumming and all-guns-blazing distortion in order to feel any drive from the music. Which is ironic, considering I find Beethoven piano sonatas more emotionally intense and heavy than any metal song.

Most of the enjoyment to be derived from Classical involves subtleties of beauty and form which most people are too impatient to look for. I personally do not care if no one listens to classical anymore. Its much better this way, because the people who do like it and appreciate it arent fakes. They are passionate music lovers, the only kind who should exist.

[beetlover]

Originally posted by Beyond Within:
[B
Im 18 and no one within 25 years of my age listens to this music that I know of (in this area ofcourse).

There is also a group which likes bands for their "intellectual" lyrics, such as Radiohead (which has bland, depressing music, accompanied with a whine for vocals).

Most of the enjoyment to be derived from Classical involves subtleties of beauty and form which most people are too impatient to look for. I personally do not care if no one listens to classical anymore. Its much better this way, because the people who do like it and appreciate it arent fakes. They are passionate music lovers, the only kind who should exist.[/B]

I'm 15 and hardly any people listen to classical music. Today in history, our teacher asked us who listened to classical music and very few hands were up. However, I was surprised at some people who did listen to classical music.

I can't stand Radiohead like bands and yes some people do find them "intellectual"

I definately agree that people are too impatient to listen to classical music...but I think it's a shame.

Another thing, I can't stand people who PRETEND to like classical just to sound "smart" does anyone know what I mean?

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, I can't entirely agree with all of the sentiments expressed;
1) I DO care if people like classical music, although it is at least partly for selfish reasons, the more people get involved, the more will become available to ME at a better price.
2) Price - True, there are economy lines of CM out there, and I take advantage when I can, but much of the time, there is no price break EVER on CM top shelf CDs. Ever. And unfortunately, my addiction is at the point where only high quality stuff will do anymore, I fear.

However, I disagree somewhat with the basic premise of the article. It may be older folks going to live shows, and it may be because they are the ones who care to spend their discretionary capital that way, but it is NOT only oldsters listening to CM. As Beetlover points out, he is 15, so are several others of our regular contributors, and on other boards that I attend, the proportion is even more skewed toward younger folks. I think on a per capita basis, there are as many CM lovers in this generation as there were in my age class (born 1951, BTW). And they are just as enthusiastic about it, if not more so since it is the nature of youth to be exuberant. But the overall sentiment, the more the merrier, I couldn't agree more. Also, it is up to us codgers to nurture the interest. Most do, others don't. Hopefully, this music we love will thrive long after we are dust.


------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited January 15, 2004).]

[beetlover]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
As Beetlover points out, he is 15, so are several others of our regular contributors

::clears throught:: SHE. LOL.

[Steppenwolf]

The high price of concert tickets is, IMO, a very minor peripheral problem. There is a practical way to test whether the young are interested in classical music - go to the classical music section of a large record store, and notice the average age group of those browsing. I normally find I am the only young person in the entire section. And as other posters have pointed out, classical music CDs are at least as cheap, and often cheaper, than pop-music recordings.

The problem is much more complex, and much deeper. Since around the mid-twentieth century, the growing consumerist pop culture of our modern world broke off into a new branch - youth culture. Youth culture is the center and focal point of post-modern pop culture. It is characterised by an emphasis on continual rebellion (a lower form of the genre of the 'avant guarde') from old norms and traditions, authority, discipline, etc. and on instant gratification, and hedonistic fun. Although it began as a 'counter culture', this counter culture is now, in many ways, the most influencial cultural influence in the western world. It is, like all pop culture, highly 'democratic' in that everything is dragged down to the lowest common demoninator, and elitism, refinement, nobility, spirituality and elegance are viewed with deep suspicion, at least, and at worst, with scorn and derision.

From the outset, this youth-counter-pop-culture has defined itself by music. The most influencial icons of this movement have emerged from the music industry - the rock stars and pop stars, from Elvis and Buddy Holly to Britney Spears and Eminem.

Through media marketing, and through peer pressure, young people have little choice but conform to this culture. And one of the rites of initiation into this world is through the music that defines it. Going to a rock concert is like a comming-of-age ceromony for many in early adolescence. Choosing a music genre is also a step that must be taken by the young upon entering the world of semi-adulthood, the thrilling world of puberty, of sex, drugs and rock and roll. "What sort of music do you like?" is one of the first questions that teenagers will ask one another when they meet and get to know each other. It is an extremely important question, because it defines what 'sector', what demonination, what branch of general youth-pop-culture one belongs to. Do you like hip-hop or R & B? Rock or Pop? Justin Timberlake or Limp Biskit? Nirvana or Metalica? Marilyn Manson or Eminem?

And in this world, in this culture, classical music is simply not an option. It exists in another world. This counter-youth-culture is essentially rebellious, essentially avant-guarde, and the generation gap must be continually renewed at each new generation, as if it never happened before. And this culture defines itself AGAINST the old world, against the old culture. Cool and progressive rock/pop music is cool and progressive by contrast with the old and the staid. Youth culture glorifies sex, drugs and rock and roll, NOT sex, drugs and MUSIC in general. To like classical music is to swear allegance to the old generation, to be a traitor to youth and freedom, to be old before ones years, to reject the solemn duty of every youth to conform to the culture of rebellion and the avant-guard.

Young people will go to art galleries, sure, because there is no such emphasis placed on the visual arts in youth-culture. There is not a new form of visual art which defines itself by contrast against the old, to which each youth must swear allegance if he is to gain respect from his peers. But music is another matter entirely.


In my experience, out of the other young people I have known, the ones who have shown the most interest in classical music (the ONLY ones who have shown any serious interest in classical music) are those who have been taught to play an instrument. At my school, the boys who took lessons in piano or violin would confess to liking Beethoven, to the bemusement and incomprehension of their peers. An education forces one to realise, close-up, the superiority of classical music and the inferiority of pop. Classical music, unlike simplistic pop-music, takes an effort to be understood. It takes education, training, initiation and patience - unlike turning on MTV to watch the latest pop video, which is purely passive and takes no effort to appreciate.

In my opinion, then, the only way that young people can be given an appreciation of classical music is by musical education. I am all in favour of some form of instruction in music - proper, classical instruction - being compulsory at schools. It is not uncommon for the young to like Shakespeare, because proper English literature is still taught in schools, but without such education, dumbed-down pop culture would fill the void and they would probably appreciate nothing beyond Big Brother.

Education in the high art of music has, as Greek philosophers such as Plato observed, enormous benefits - intellectual, emotional, psychological and spiritual - on a young mind. Of course, for this to happen we need to have some politicians with vision, and politicians with vision are, sadly, are dying breed, if not already extinct.


[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited January 16, 2004).]

[Beyond Within]

I mostly agree with the above post, however his sentiments are a little meldodramitic in some areas.

I dont think the peer-pressure issue is as bad as you think (although I may be over estimating my peers). The modern philosophy for teens is to have a good time, kick back and be passive. Its like a psuedo 1960s out there. The problem is that most people equate "good times" with turning your brain off. This philosophy is really a justification for a lazy, passive and unresponsible lifestyle. Most kids my age spend their time sitting around smoking pot and "chillin'" with friends. In such an atmosphere its utterly impossible to digest intellectual demanding art like Classical music. Therefore all the popular music is this mindset captured in sound.

Even though the above post seems to exaggerate the peer pressure element, it is there. Some of my really good friends make fun of me sometimes for listening to classical. They call me the 'elitist' and the 'victorian snob'. Although most of this is lighthearted and I never take offense. Maybe it is as bad as you say, but that never bothered me...

As for the education system, that is completely true. Until I learned the rudiments of music in the compositional/performance area I really didnt understand why classical music is considered so highly. Ofcourse I had to initiate this education all on my own time. Most people do not have the patience to learn all these things on their own, they need atleast some of it force fed in school. The school system in the united states only pushes the math/science area of everything. There isnt any philosophy, music, or literature discussion that much anymore. This is because those areas do not create products which increase power and stability to the united states economy. We need weapons and useless gadgets to make our country and ourselves richer. These can only be created with science/Math, not high art. In our schools, all these intelligence tests we take from elementary school all through high school are centered around Math ability. If some guy is in AP calculus hes considered smart, even if he listens to rap music.

Oh, and to the other response here...I do know people who have classical cds just to look more "intellectual". I got in a discussion with this one guy about Beethoven, and everything he said was just a recitation of critics cliches. Then when I got specific, he just ignored me and walked away!!

BTW, they were Flute Sonatas, not concertos.

[Chaszz]

Steppenwolf wrote:

"...Young people will go to art galleries, sure, because there is no such emphasis placed on the visual arts in youth-culture. There is not a new form of visual art which defines itself by contrast against the old, to which each youth must swear allegance is he is to gain respect from his peers. But music is another matter entirely..."

I think this was the only reply which spoke directly to the point made in the article (I may have missed a few others). There ARE continually new forms of visual art which define themselves in opposition to older forms, but Steppenwolf is right that young people don't have to worry about peer pressure with visual art because their friends don't care about it as much as they care about music.

But while he may be right about this, the fact remains, and should draw some attention, that galleries and museums are CROWDED. Not only new art, but the old masters, comparable to the classical composers, draw large crowds. I and my friends always avoid going to art museums in New York City on weekends, because there are so many bodies there that you often can't see the pictures.

A direct anology between classical music vs. pop music today, in the visual arts, would seem to me to be museums vs. movies. Yet the huge popularity of movies is not shrinking museum attendance, which is on the rise. So why is this?

I still think the article's suggestion about high concert and opera prices may be on the mark. Sure, pop concerts are expensive. But we're talking about hopefully getting people interested, not appealing to the already-converted. A starkly lower ticket price may get them in the door, just as the lower prices in museums do. Not every young person who goes to the muserum knows a Rembrandt from a Holbein or even cares, but is there because she's curious. Those are the people who should be curious about Beethoven also.

A significant difference may be that visual art hits you in the eyes right away while music takes time. But this should not be an insuperable obstacle.



[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited January 16, 2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
I still think the article's suggestion about high concert and opera prices may be on the mark. Sure, pop concerts are expensive. But we're talking about hopefully getting people interested, not appealing to the already-converted. A starkly lower ticket price may get them in the door, just as the lower prices in museums do. Not every young person who goes to the muserum knows a Rembrandt from a Holbein or even cares, but is there because she's curious. Those are the people who should be curious about Beethoven also.

A significant difference may be that visual art hits you in the eyes right away while music takes time. But this should not be an insuperable obstacle.

No I don't think the price is anything to do with it - there are plenty of recitals at very cheap prices indeed. In my hometown there is a series of lunchtime concerts by very talented student musicians for free and you are hard put to spot anyone (other than the performers) under 25! This is in a city that boasts 3 universities!
And as has already been pointed out classical cds are often cheaper than pop, yet the classical departments in most stores are diminishing rapidly. Young people today have more money than ever before, plenty for mobile phones, computers, etc...

In the Uk the main music examination board is getting extremely worried by the lack of take up on instruments such as oboe, bassoon, french horn and double bass - what hope for our orchestras in the future?
I fear that Steppenwolf is right and no amount of skirting round the issue and avoiding these facts as the article does will change things. Proper education would help.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[spaceray]

I don't go out to concerts(even though I am old and grey and adore classical music)because I am offended by the fragrance users and the non stop talkers.

I agree that all the young people playing and enjoying CM are at the music schools .We have two big music schools in my city ,and both are filled to capacity.You won't find young people buying classical music cd's at the pitifully small cm section of the HMV at the mall ,but they are packed in like sardines at the shop that sells scores, sheetmusic and instruments.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by beetlover:
::clears throught:: SHE. LOL.

Sorry, but who could know? I commend you for your fortitude then ;-))))


------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[urtextmeister]

This topic has generated some interesting (and long) responses. I agree with Steppenwolf that listening classical music is not even an option for young people. It would be like having a tea party or playing bridge. I also agree that education can be a powerful tool in the effort to stimulate an interest in classical music.
I played in the band in grade school and we played a theme from Beethoven's ninth symphony. I loved this tune so much that I went out and bought a recording of the symphony. After that I bought recordings at garage sales, used record stores, borrowed them...I become a classical music junky.

Ticket prices are a very tricky issue. I think the author of the article simplified things a bit. There are many factors that go into the price of admission. Classical music events tend to be very expensive, especially with unions in this country. Lowering the ticket price to attract "average" people might work, but traditionally, rich people go to the opera and the symphony. Why not keep trying to soak them?
A lot of it has to do with marketing. Classical music has become a product for the rich, like designer clothes or fine wine.

It is sad, but it seems like reality. As a person in the arts, I have often found myself in the domain of rich people who don't really care about music or the arts. I am there because they have money and they pay me. A lot.

Have things really changed that much since Beethoven's time?