What the average (classical) listener wants
May 21st, 2008, 1:09 am · 30 Comments · posted by Tim Mangan
The average classical music listener – that is, the majority of those who attend concerts and opera performances and listen to the radio – is a simple soul. Looking into it, one finds that he prizes melody above all else. But not just any melody. The melodies of Hindemith, Stravinsky or Schoenberg, Lutoslawski, Glass or Adams, to name a few, will not do at all, and the average listener, in so far as he is able to define what a melody is, would not recognize these composers’ efforts as such. No, by melody, the average listener means something narrower in scope, a tune, really, a song.
His definition of melody, though he doesn’t realize it, also includes a type of phrasing, regular and foursquare, and a question-and-answer design to the harmony. It’s this whole melody package that he enjoys most, which limits his aesthetic scope to the music from roughly 1750-1900. Beyond that he can find himself in rough waters.
Even within these narrow confines, he shows certain preferences. Mozart and Haydn are wonderful composers of course, but they seldom raise his blood pressure. He hears them as kind of antipasto artists, lovely for what they are, but lacking in the rich calories of the main course. They rarely show up these days at the end of a program. (Mozart may regularly figure on listeners’ surveys as a favorite, but that is because, in the average ear, he is soothing, not stimulating.)
Beethoven is more hearty; he always tells you exactly what’s on his mind, gets it across. He’s serious, too, and has that tone of importance that the average listener recognizes as uniquely belonging to the masterpiece. He values this “masterpiece tone” (to borrow Virgil Thomson’s term) because it signals its own significance clearly to him and takes the worry of assessment, which he is ill-equipped for, out of the listening experience.
He doesn’t like doubt, which would require the engagement of his intellect, to enter into listening. That is why the average listener enjoys the Romantics above all. The Romantics wrote a kind of sensational poetry in tones, easy to grasp, easy to feel.
“From Beethoven to Wagner music was primarily concerned with expressing personal feelings,” wrote Ortega y Gasset in his essay The Dehumanization of Art. “The composer wrote great structures of sound in which to accommodate his autobiography. Art was, more or less, confession. There existed no way of aesthetic enjoyment except by contagion. ‘In music,’ Nietzsche declared, ‘the passions enjoy themselves.’ Wagner poured into Tristan and Isolde his adultery with Mathilde Wesendock, and if we want to enjoy this work we must, for a few hours, turn vaguely adulterous ourselves. That darkly stirring music makes us weep and tremble and melt away voluptuously. From Beethoven to Wagner all music is melodrama.”
With the Romantics, from Beethoven to Wagner, the expression is always on the surface, there’s no guessing. With Mahler and Richard Strauss, admittedly, that expression can get a little too long-winded or confusing for him. (I once had to explain to a pair of average listeners that “Ein Heldenleben” had a storyline. They had already heard it several times without knowing this key bit of information. How they managed to follow the piece I cannot fathom.)
Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Verdi and Puccini are better. Concertos are good, too, especially Romantic ones, where virtuoso display is a crucial element. The average listener can relate to what’s going on: a human contest.
The truth is, the average listener has a narrow conception of what real music is (“real music” being one of the average listener’s favorite terms to describe what he likes). It has to be beautiful in a traditional sense; and his definition of beautiful runs along the lines of verdant landscapes, sentimental love, eloquent tragedy and heart-on-sleeve passion. The same person who willingly accepts graphic violence in movies (which is film’s equivalence of dissonance) or outlandish special effects, or treasures a bleak desert vista or a novel by Stephen King or who samples exotic cuisines will not allow that music can express analogous emotions and concepts and use similar techniques and still be called music. Euphoniousness in music is a prerequisite, an imperative, to his enjoyment.
It is a prerequisite because the average listener does not listen below the surface. In fact, he does not know that anything below the surface exists. He does not recognize any complexity in Bach; just his smoothness and harmoniousness. Mozart is prized for his tunes, not his sophistication or subtext. Beethoven’s radical formal innovations are totally lost on the average listener. It is Beethoven the brooding dramatist and joyful victor only that he hears. Ditto with the Romantics. As said, their expression is on the surface – the average listener need go no further.
The Moderns are a problem, of course, and will ever remain so, because they require a musical ear and curious mind that the average listener doesn’t have now nor ever will. The Moderns require the engagement of the mind as much as the heart. Schoenberg’s claim that his time would come is nonsense. Whether you make a case for the human brain being hardwired this way or just that the average listener is aurally dim, it amounts to the same thing. Much of the great music of the 20th century is lost on him and always will be.
But then, a great deal of 20th century music, including Schoenberg’s, was written for the elite ear, not the average one, so we shouldn’t be surprised, nor blame the average listener all that much. But to the extent that the average listener limits the repertoire – dictates concert programming by his taste – he has a lot to answer for. And that, in sum, is just what he does. Thus the endless rehashing of Brahms and Tchaikovsky on our concert programs, and of Puccini in the opera house.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:31 am
An irrefutable critique. I would mention that Schoenberg titled one of his essays, “Brahms, the Progressive,” but your point is not that Brahms wasn’t progressive, just that it isn’t his progressiveness that the average listener values, right?
May 21st, 2008 at 11:58 am
Right. I think an even more striking example may be Mozart. His sophistication is completely lost on the average listener, who thinks his piano concertos are great background music for brunch. In fact, anyone who can use any classical music for background reveals the shallowness of ear that I’m getting at. It demands complete attention. On the other hand, I think the sensitive, knowledgable listener listens to all music — Mozart, Brahms, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, The Beatles, Frank Sinatra — in the same way, with his mind and ears fully involved, decoding, probing, discovering, looking under the hood of a piece and trying to see what makes it work.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:13 am
It’s true that SOME concertgoers have very cautious and conservative tastes, and are reluctant to hear new music
or revivals of long-neglected works. But fortunately not all. Those conservative concertgoers are probably curious to read new books, movies and TV programs etc. So why shouldn’t they be willing to try unfamiliar classical music ?
One problem is that it is often difficult to grasp an unfamiliar work on first hearing . That’s why recordings are so valuable. A work you don’t quite get the first time will often make much more sense with repeated hearings.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 am
Yes, but the average listener doesn’t recognize that there’s any work at all involved in listening. He isn’t an “active” listener, taking part in a musical performance. He is passive, and doesn’t understand why he should have to do any legwork (or earwork) to understand a piece of music, especially one he doesn’t like. Music is entertainment to him, a way to pass the time pleasantly.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I hope these comments are apposite of the Blogotopic.
For some time I have been mulling over an idea for musical programmers. Why not group your audience into groups based upon their levels of musical experience and taste?
You could have Beginner/novice; Intermediate; Advanced; etc. Then you could program your concerts/repertoires into groupings that would accomodate the variety of listening categories. Of course you could plan the numbers of each category of event to fit your probable ticket-selling potentials. But at least your audiences would have a chance to hear entire musical events at a level meeting their interests and capacities.
Obviously, some of us would be in different categories for different forms. For Opera, I’d be an Advanced, for ballet a Novice, for the Phil, an Intermediate. But at each category of event, I would be assured of attending a program that would match my level of interest. And I would’t have to sit through stuff that would be either pap or incomprehensible for one at my level. And Seasons could be planned perhaps a bit more rationally. (I think the LAPhil does this in a de facto kind of way already.)
At any rate, I’ll keep mulling. Thanks for stimulating this discussion. You are even more cynical about SoCal audiences than I am. Is it too much OC exposure?
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Yes, the LA Philharmonic is already doing this to a certain extent. Their Green Umbrella series, dedicated to new music, draws big crowds of sophisticated listeners (or people who think they are). Their Casual Fridays are more for beginners, people who need a little learning with their concerts, and who don’t want to dress up. The Pacific Symphony actually has a Classical Connections series, very popular, in which pieces are discussed and performed.
And then of course there’s the summer outdoor events. These offer lots of pops and classical basics, but I think they too often miss the opportunity of lifting the masses that they attract. Summer seasons these days are too often comprised of worthless pop pap or mimic the winter indoor season.
I think it’s tough, though, to educate listeners merely through programming. Much more is needed. Like music in schools. But also, so many people seem to lack curiosity. How do you teach that?
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
One of the happiest moments I’ve had discussing music was when a friend told me that Mozart didn’t relax her at all, and always made her jumpy and anxious. She seemed puzzled about that. I thought, “There is the beginning of wisdom.”
May 24th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Note: I own more recordings of La Marteau sans Maitre (9) than I do of anything written ca. before Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun (3-2 Mozart operas and Beethoven’s 9th), so I’m not typical by any means.
I recently discovered the music of the young German composer Matthias PIntscher. How? By reading a review of a Cleveland Orchestra concert where they’d done his awesome 5 Orchestral Pieces that noted the crowd barely applauded at the conclusion. “Hmmm..got to hear that!” I thought and when I did, I fell in love immediately. So, I’m looking at concert listings and I see this:
Pintscher: Towards Osiris
Schumann: Piano Concerto
Brahms: Symphony #1
London Philharmonic
Now, if I were in London, I’d go and leave while they dragged the piano onstage for the Schumann. But I *loathe* this type of programming! It’s a way to say “See! We’re not just a dead museum! We play new stuff” but they do it in (as is typical) a 7 minute chunk with other standard rep pieces to draw the people in. It’s insulting to fans of modernism and it’s not fair to the Brahmsians, 99.8% of whom, I’m sure, could gladly have gone through life without hearing Matthias Pintscher’s music. Why not program it with something from the early 20th century like The Miraculous Mandarin and the Prokofiev 2nd piano concerto if you MUST keep the beyond tired overture > concerto > big piece format? Or why not just bite the bullet and program all non-tonal stuff and accept the hall is going to be half full that night but you’d make it up with all-Mozart evenings?
I mean, just like someone who thinks Brahms is great most likely doesn’t want to hear Matthias Pintscher, I don’t want to have to hear the mind-numbing repetitions of I6-ii7-V7-I cadences of Mozart to get to something I really want to hear. I just wish orchestras would admit defeat and accept that modernism is a small niche that needs to be catered to, instead of the way they do it now, which is dishonest and almost reeks of guilt.
Great piece, Mr. Mangan, your fan Opera Chic posted it and it’s gotten some comments.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Thanks, Henry Holland, I’m with you. Let’s have some consisitent programming and then let the audiences find their own levels. If only we were in charge! But having to sit through a lot of pap to hear one thing of interest doesn’t cut it for me either.
May 27th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Hi, Tim, I came across the above blog while looking for your review of
Indiana Jones, and I do have a comment. Your article and most of the
comments had the odor of elitism, but I hasten to add that there is nothing
wrong with elitism. The article and the comments reminded me, curiously,
of square dancing. The beginning square dancers begin enter a category
called “Mainstream,” and, after a time, most of them graduate to “Plus.”
Beyond that the elitists take over with A1, A2, C, etc., each category posing
greater concentration and challenges for the dancers. At this point, many
basic dancers, who just love to square dance, come to feel like second
class dancers, and many simply quit.
There is that type of elitism in sports, mainly in tennis, and I was guilty.
I would not deign to walk onto the court with players below a certailn skill
level.
I thus defend your elitism, but at the same time wonder if Mozart really
wrote most of his music for such elite sophisticates. And did he con-
sciously include melody, the bane of 1900 onward?
Leonard Bernstein recorded several lectures on Mozart and in one
he marveled that the composer required a ninth when everyone expected
a sixth. Wonderful sophisticated stuff. I wish I understood it like you do.
Best, Simple Sid A Off to find Indiana Jones
May 27th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Sid, I plead guilty to a certain amount of elitism, but of course it’s a very much misunderstood word. The reason that anyone listens to Mozart, Brahms and Tchaikovsky anymore is, after all, because of elitism (I do not use the word pejoratively). Audiences choose the best music, and only that survives. That’s elitism.
I happen to like Mozart, Brahms and Tchaikovsky, and do not think that the Moderns are better, or more worthy. I do think that the Moderns have something valuable to offer, however, and the thing that keeps the average listener from enjoying them is the WAY he listens — in other words, his listening technique, which is undeveloped, even in the repertoire that he enjoys. The real beauty of Mozart escapes him and, for the same reason, Stravinsky is too hard.
May 27th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Melody, the bane of 1900 onward?
*SIGH* I’ll ignore the absurdity of that statement –Korngold or Barber or Britten didn’t write tunes?!?!– and say: I simply don’t get how a catchy melody is seemingly prized above everything else in classical music. What a limited, stunted way to look at it! All the other wonderful aspects of the style (orchestration, harmony, form) get glossed over in favor of something that’s worthy of a car commercial.
I think that’s a great phrase, “listening technique”. It took me a good amount of years, but I can listen to a piece of music, no matter how complicated, and tease out the basic details in one listen. I’ve no training, apart from a semester of harmony classes and knowing how to read music, it’s just something I worked on because I knew I was interested in more complex stuff and that it would save me time and effort if I became a sophisticated listener.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Henry, Sid is one of those listeners who prefers traditional melody, but is curious enough to want to learn about contemporary music. I know that he has recently purchased CDs by Lutoslawski and Adams. Certainly, that’s all I ask. The willingness to listen, not necessarily to like. But then, perhaps Sid did enjoy the Lutoslawski and Adams, I’m not sure.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Audiences choose the best music, and only that survives.
That’s nonsense, Tim, it really is.
There’s a lot of complicated factors that go in to why a piece survives; changing tastes: Antonio Salieri anyone? Sometimes the performing forces work against a piece: maybe it needs a big choir or special instruments or it’s simply written for 250 people (i.e. $$$$ to do). Sometimes a composer or a piece needs a champion: would Mahler be the orchestral staple he is today without the advocacy of Leonard Bernstein and a few others after WWII?
Look at the operas of Handel as the perfect example. Some of those pieces were unperformed for over 200 years (!!), but are now part of the standard operatic repertory. It wasn’t until the Handel revival in Germany in the 1920’s that some of those operas got an airing after their initial run of performances back before the United States of America even existed.
If “the audience” had their way, it would be the same 100 pieces played over and over and over and….well, it practically *is* like that, so, no I don’t share your faith in the mass audience’s tastes as arbiter at all. In fact, it’s the unadventurousness and timidity of “the audience” that makes it so freakin’ hard to hear anything fresh and interesting (no matter when it was written, 1690 or 1990) for 98% of the time. Okay, maybe 97.5%!
May 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Yes, my statement was oversimplistic. I should have said “over time” audiences choose what pieces make the repertoire, but of course there are other factors. But then, as you say, even then, audiences do end up choosing most of the time — that’s why we get the repeat performances of the same 100 pieces you abhor.
Hey, Henry, are you going to Ojai? You would love that festival.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Well. goody for Henry Holland. He has no musical training, but he
took a class in harmony, has the born ability to “tease out the basic
details (of music) with one listen,” and can “read music.” I envy him
that background and ability even though he can’t tell “absurdity” from
a momentary hyperbole.
How sweet it must be to wallow in elitism. Sid A
May 27th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
One of your readers wonders if Mozart wrote his music for “elite sophisticates.” From what I have read, he preferred to write it for people who could pay for it. Now there is a traditional form of elitism that a good Orange County blogger should understand and appreciate. In the meantime I’ll just cling to my Green Umbrella and think a lot about square dancing????????? Blog on, Sweet Prince.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:53 am
I’m here, Mr. Mangan. Came and read the whole article, as you suggested, and it does make much more sense taken in context. I don’t have any quarrel with being considered an average listener and am certainly interested in the opinions of those more educated than myself (that’s why I hang out on Opera Chic, after all). However, I do see a tendency among the cognoscenti to dismiss average listeners with scorn as a bunch of passive illiterates. The image is of a concert hall full of lumpen boors, snoozing, picking their noses and coughing, while they demand lullabies to send them back into their accustomed stupor. Since no average listener with any sense of self-preservation would pipe up in these circumstances, no one contradicts this. As a result, those in the know congratulate themselves for their insight, and the average listener slinks away, convinced more than ever that the summits of musical experience are no place for ordinary people.
May 28th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Thanks for reading, Sandy. It’s ironic that you should feel persecuted, because that’s just how us so-called cognescenti often feel when we go to concerts. Your side (if you’ll allow me to put it that way, just for the sake of a cleanly drawn argument) is calling the shots in terms of repertoire, at least most of the time.
I don’t happen to think average listeners are boors, btw. After all, they do have the brains and taste to enjoy classical music. There is a certain segment of any audience, however, that moans and groans when anything contemporary is performed, and I have even seen them disrupt concerts in doing so. One time last year, it was even for something as innocuous as Steve Reich’s Music for Pieces of Wood.
May 28th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
<>
Except at Segerstrom Hall you have the infernal, eternal clacking of the metal railings to keep the “lumpen boors” awake!
RIMSHOT!
May 28th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
** Pintscher: Towards Osiris
Schumann: Piano Concerto
Brahms: Symphony #1 **
Seems like a perfectly splendid program to me. Who the heck cares what “period” the music is from, as long as it is excellent music, and well played.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
David, You bring up a point I’ve been thinking about. It’s a problem with programming contemporary works. You can either do them on an all-contemporary program (which creates a kind of ghetto effect), or you can include them in more-or-less standard programs, which I prefer philosophically, but which often results in a large amount of displeased patrons, who feel duped by the bait-and-switch approach.
What to do? I haven’t the answer. But I think new music is best heard in context with older music. Also, as a frequent attender of new music concerts, I find many of them a bit overwhelming, in an information overload kind of way.
Still, programming avant-garde music with traditional standards doesn’t usually work. I would say, for the older music on the program, it would be best to go for a little more unusual fare, some earlier 20th century works, perhaps, or maybe some Renaissance and Medieval music. (I’d love to hear some Josquin and Monteverdi beside some Stravinsky and a world premiere.) One needs to attract the right audience, and the Brahmsians and Schumannites aren’t likely to appreciate the avant-garde or contemporary, except in special cases.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“Ghetto effect”???????? Like an all Mozart or all Beethoven or all Brahms or all Schumann or all whatever program. This is getting way over my head. It’s beginning to be like trying to follow the elevated colloquys of our Presidential candidates. Anyway, I was really happy to be in the Ades Ghetto at Disney last night, and while I may have been on “information overload”, it was a nice place to be.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:32 am
It does seem silly for both “average” and “avant-garde” listeners to be intimidated by each other
At least the levels of passion aroused prove that classical music in all its incarnations is alive and kicking. I’d be interested in learning more about new music, if I knew where to start. I’m leery of trotting off to a live performance unprepared, but would love to find some “annotated” references on the web. Sort of a “young person’s guide” for the not-so-young. And perhaps I’m not the only average listener interested in expanding their range, but with no idea how to begin, short of total immersion.
Disruption of concerts is inexcusable on whatever grounds–period. For pity’s sake, this is not La Scala, people.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Bill,
An all new music program is a ghetto in the sense that it becomes a kind of segregated event. I suppose they have their place, and I have enjoyed plenty of them, but they can also be too much of a good thing. I often long for some leavening, a break from the onslaught.
I’ve gone on record saying that I feel EVERY concert should have at least one piece of new music. Also, generally speaking, I don’t think one-composer programs work that well.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I second what Bruce A says. I prepare for all concerts by learning the music beforehand through recordings, which greatly enhances one’s ability to follow, understand and hear new things in any kind of music. But I have had no luck using this approach with atonal music - in preparation for the US premiere a few years ago of St. Francois d’Assise here in SF, I listened to a recording no fewer than 15 times! At the end I had made virtually no progress in hearing it as “music” and not “noise”. Is it hopeless for people like me? Should we just give up trying?
June 1st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Bruce and MVetrano,
You bring up some interesting points, and it would take nothing less than a book to fully answer them. Bruce, I’d say you’re on the right path with the Beethoven symphonies — though Tovey and Steinberg can be difficult at times. Try looking into the essays on the symphonies by George Grove or Berlioz. I wrote a guide myself to the Beethoven symphonies in 1999, aimed at the general reader (it appeared in the Register). I hope to get them all up on the blog sometime this summer.
The music of the 20th century is really no harder than Beethoven, if you’re willing to make the effort (and it sounds like you are). A good general guide is Alex Ross’s new history of 20th century music, ‘The Rest is Noise.’ The other thing I would suggest is for you to pick a 20th century work, and listen to it 15 times, just as MVetrano did with the Messiaen. Your brain will make more and more sense of it each time you listen. If you’d like to talk a little more, give me a call at work at 714-796-6811. I’d be glad to help.
MVetrano, bravo to you. You are truly doing the legwork (or earwork). Don’t be too hard on yourself. You can’t like everything, or even understand everything. Some of this 20th century stuff is just plain difficult, even for little old me.
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
You are calling him an “average classical music listener” and then proceed to describe someone who should clearly be near the bottom among those in the classical music audience. If people thus described by you are “average”, then who would be below average? Those who don’t enjoy any classical music at all? But they would never even be a part of that audience. So, i think “average” is in this case a misnomer. A more appropriate designation would be “most common” or something like that.
As for programming, separating “easy” music from “difficult” is all fine and dandy as far as it goes, but what about those of us who prefer wide variety of musical stimulation that can only be achieved by listening to “mixed” programs? Ideally, everyone should have a substantial number of programs they can relate to to choose from.
In case of the LA Phil, there are all of the Green Umbrella concerts and occasional specialized symphonic festivals for hardcore devotees of contemporary music, Hollywood Bowl weeknights for the masses that prefer turning their brains off while hearing amplified versions of popular classics, and most of the winter season programs for those of us with more eclectic musical tastes.
This, i think, is a fairly reasonable model that should not give anybody sufficient grounds for any kind of serious complaining. Personally, i would probably prefer being in Tim’s camp - good and interesting music has been written throughout the last four centuries and varied programs are usually the most satisfying for me.
By the way, i believe that bragging about detesting Haydn and Brahms, not to mention proudly admitting of being bored by Mozart piano concertos, is at least as narrow-minded and unsophisticated as stubbornly refusing to give modern music a chance.