Michael Cooper wrote:

>Karl Miller:
>
>>I will do some reading, but I would guess, that when New York had perhaps
>>a population of a million they had how many orchestras...and with how
>>many million now, how many orchestras do they have...
>
>I take exception to this line of reasoning.  Two trends being concurrent
>does not indicate that they are related, and if there is a causal effect,
>there is no way to tell which causes the other without more information.

I would agree, but I do wonder about it some.  I know that the Rockefeller
(sp?) Foundation study from the the 60s had one set of interesting
statistics many of which differ significantly from the information found
in the recent Knight Foundation study.

It is difficult making comparisons and analogies...should one predicate
such a comparison on the potential size of an audience for classical
music.  What about the economic considerations.  Then, I wonder about
how many educational institutions that offer large ensemble music.  Our
University orchestra is, at least from my perspective, a good orchestra,
they did a great job with the Ives Second not too long ago and a very
fine Mahler First.  Similarly, I am amazed at what I hear from the student
orchestra out at Round Top every summer.  In the last few seasons I have
heard them play works like the Lutoslawski Concerto for Orchestra at a
level one would associate with the Dallas Symphony.

>I think that recording is GOOD for concerts.  People who attend concerts
>anyway and would have in a previous century, generally mix their recorded
>and listening experiences.  Other people who do not have the inclination
>attend or readiness to spend on attending a concert, can still learn to
>appreciate music through recordings, which opens them up to future
>concertgoing.

I can only speak for myself, I listen a great deal, but rarely attend
concerts.  When I was growing up in the New York area, I would frequently
attend concerts as there was a wide variety of repertoire offered, I
could hear Ginastera's Don Rodrigo at the City Opera and Milhaud conducting
Milhaud with the Philharmonic.

I would agree that people do mix their listening experiences, however,
I wonder, but have not seen, any statistical information which tries to
determine if classical CD buyers are concert goers or radio listeners.
Then, for me, there is the question of what is being offered in the
various venues.  For me, most classical radio is being done as background
music, unfortunately a trend which has infected our own classical station
here in Austin...and then, most of our performing organizations, are
looking for large audiences, hence, that means programming the standards.
For me, what is being offered in the various ways to audition classical
music differs to the extent that it is not valid to make comparisons.

On the other hand...as has been suggested by some writers, the recording
has transformed music into something disposable and perhaps less valued
due to its increased availability.

>Personally, I am more likely to attend a concert where piece I know (from
>recordings) will be played.

And I am looking for something I can't hear on records.

>At any rate, neither the advent of recording technology nor the population
>growth of NYC and their concurrence with trends in numbers of orchestras
>there, necessarily leads to a causal link.

I would agree that there are too many variables to make any concrete
comparisons, but I do believe the recording has indeed changed how we
consume and value music.  I believe there both good and bad, but I do
believe that our relationship with music has changed.

Karl