[A thoughtful piece by a local critic I'm usually not too fond of.  The
Plaza Art Fair mentioned in the piece is a Kansas City art fair that caters
to Hallmark-type art.  - S.  Morrison]

   Music and dance notes:
      Classical at the crossroads

   By PAUL HORSLEY
   The Kansas City Star
   Published: Sunday, Dec 23, 2001

   The corporatization of classical music has forced a schism between
   those who think music should be accessible to everyone and those who
   believe it's OK to be challenging.

   Populism is a cherished tradition in American life, but when art is
   involved we have to tread gingerly; if the classical music industry
   isn't careful, our search for the next Beethoven might yield someone
   whose music sounds like James Horner's movie scores.

   Does concert music have to give up complexity to be accessible and,
   thus, fundable?

   It's an old question.  Palestrina, the Renaissance church composer,
   was part of a movement to "simplify" music that had become too dense
   and complicated for the average Roman Catholic -- or more precisely
   stated, for the Vatican powers-that-be who functioned at that time
   as a sort of a corporate funding source.

   Political and social strife, too, have a way of making art complicated
   for a time -- after which an "era of good feelings" smoothes things
   out again.  In the wake of Sept.  11, we might be on the verge of a
   new period of angst in art, and it's just what we need right now.

   New music in the last 20 years has grown flabby.  When the 1980s
   brought its "greed is good" prosperity, classical music that had
   received large governmental subsidies pre-Reagan suddenly became
   "feel good" music.  Why? Some believe it was because composers now
   had to pander to wealthy patrons and foundations, neither of whom
   were especially discerning.

   So we got the "New Romanticism," which brought us a whole slew of
   works written on the notion that "it's OK to be schmaltzy again."

   This trend has gone way too far and has got to stop.  History has
   shown us that if a piece of music is too "easy on the ear" the first
   time through -- think of Dittersdorf, Raff and other forgotten
   crowd-pleasers -- chances are it has limited lasting value.  The
   pieces from previous centuries that we still want to hear are the
   ones by Beethoven and Stravinsky that contemporary audiences struggled
   with -- and against.

   The classical performance world needs a bit of muscle and sinew.
   Predictable renderings of Tchaikovsky concertos will not catapult
   this art form into the 21st century.

   A classical performance, if it just wafts over you like a Celine
   Dion song, is probably not challenging you at the level that serious
   music should.  When Arcadi Volodos played Schubert's big G-major
   Piano Sonata two years ago on the Harriman series, it was a titanic
   struggle.  I hated it, but I'll never forget the impression it left
   -- of Schubert's music being reinterpreted for a hopelessly decadent
   modern era.  Now that's meaning.

   Call this yearning for "difficulty" a form of snobbism if you will
   -- I call it optimism.  We who believe in art's ability to cut against
   the grain will continue to hold out the hope that such art can and
   should still exist.  We are the ultimate optimists.

   Recently I attended the world premiere of a new work by Michael
   Daugherty, the composer best known for injecting pop-music influences
   into his music.  He wrote a highly inventive symphony based on the
   Superman characters, for example, and he also has to his credit a
   host of pieces on Elvis, Jackie O.  and the like.

   But this piece, "Philadelphia Stories," was so shallow and insignificant
   that it made me aware that the Era of Accessibility was drawing to
   a close.  Not only did this three-movement tone poem sound like
   something out of Hollywood, it didn't even strike me as being a very
   good movie score.

   Sure it was accessible.  But when the performance was over, some
   2,000 audience members -- whose reaction to the piece can only
   be described as politely detached -- walked out the door onto
   Philadelphia's busy streets and promptly forgot all about it.

   The Philadelphia Orchestra had paid some $30,000 for this trifle --
   which was beautifully played by this magnificent orchestra.  But the
   piece lacked anything that challenged us.  We don't go to hear a
   major orchestra to be entertained, as if it were some sort of sandlot
   softball game.  We pay 45 bucks a ticket to hear something that
   seethes and simmers, that grabs us by the collar and pulls us out
   of our seats.  Maybe even makes us angry.

   If such music is being composed today, it's keeping a low profile.
   For the most part, American music has given in to the Lowell Liebermanns
   and the Aaron Kernises, the Plaza Art Fair composers of the classical
   world.

   So much for the era of the Berios and the Boulezes, half-deranged
   artists who made enemies so ferocious they were willing to telephone
   in bomb threats to defend them.  (This actually happened to a Swiss
   music critic who had written disparagingly of a work by Boulez; the
   composer was, however, cleared of involvement.)

   Am I suggesting that music should inspire violence? Well, no.  But
   I am suggesting that music should stir you up enough that you might
   want to blow something up -- or at least throw a rotten tomato or
   two.

   And 20 years from now, who knows? You might just find that you like
   the piece after all.

Scott Morrison,
Prairie Village, KS
[log in to unmask]