I've been reading and hearing a lot about the labor struggles that orchestras are having lately. I have to admit that I'm a bit unsympathetic.
In most issues, I'm irritatingly liberal. But when it comes to the arts, I can get to sounding downright Republican. In the specific case of orchestras, I feel like the key fact is that attendance has been decreasing for decades. So the market has spoken. That means that salaries will have to go down and some orchestras will have to shut down. Welcome to the world.
Musicians are of course blaming management for not getting asses in seats (they say it differently), but I think that's like blaming the grocery store for a pork shortage. Management might have some influence in getting the pork in the seats (I think my metaphor is getting confused), but in the end they can't get what just isn't out there.
I don't think it's the fault of classical music or musicians that there are fewer fans these days. In fact, I'm sure it's better than ever. But music has changed so much in the last 100 years in particular that there are hundreds of genres and sub-genres. That means that people have so many choices that they will be able to find exactly what speaks to them best.
When the choice was either Brahms or John Phillip Sousa, of course Brahms will get lots of takers. But when the music-listening public is presented with Brahms, Sousa, Springsteen, Ice-T, Wynton Marsalis, Ladysmith Black Mambazo, Toad the Wet Sprocket, Shitty Shitty Band Band, etc., etc., then there will be a smaller piece of the pie for Brahms.
As I've stated in this space before, music is a matter of personal taste. Some artists are better than others, sure, but I don't ascribe to the notion that some genres are objectively better than others. But that is often the stance, implied or otherwise, of people arguing in favor of these orchestras. The say that it's such wonderful music and needs to be preserved.
Well, to me it's not. I'm not saying it's bad -- it's just not to my taste. Does that make me a philistine? If so, why? Why is classical given this elite status? Because it's old? Sea chanteys are old too, but no one gets upset when sea chantey bands (if those exist) have to shut down.
Of course, it's really because elites have always liked classical. They'll say it expresses sublime, ineffable feelings -- and maybe it does for them. But not for me, and not for increasing numbers of people. I get similar feelings listening to Beck and Iron and Wine and even some hip-hop. Yet if any of those get fewer fans and have to give up, no one cries foul.
I know that classical music has some historical value. Fair enough -- so do sea chanteys -- but fine, maybe that means that classical should get a little extra support. But for the most part, I don't feel a lot of obligation to prop up an art form that speaks to only a few people (a disproportionate percentage of whom are wealthy, by the way).
And I'm sympathetic to the fact that music programs are being cut in schools, which maybe results in fewer classical fans. But I've always felt music programs should teach all kinds of music anyway. There's no reason classical should get a priority in school programs. I think music programs should teach more guitar. They should teach sampling and record-scratching. People can be moved by all kinds of music, and imposing your personal musical tastes on children seems very wrong.
I could extend this argument to all of the fine arts, but I'll leave that for another time. Anyone got a counterargument that isn't based in the idea that classical is somehow objectively superior?
No comments:
Post a Comment