I’ve never been one to crack a beer and settle into the sofa for an afternoon of sports on T.V., but I’ve been doing some late-night Olympic viewing. Turns out a colleague of mine at NewMusicBox has been doing a little spectating himself, and he has drawn an interesting parallel between the audience for new music and the audience for the 50 km speed walk. By the end of his post, his basic question is this: Why does the new music community remain so fixated on how to attract a bigger/broader audience? In their off hours, are the speed walkers strategizing how to attract an NFL-sized (or at least Michael Phelps-sized) crowd next season? Randy suspects not; I would tend to agree. I wonder if that’s true, or if we’re just too far removed from the field. Anyone here involved in an obscure sporting activity with a violently active audience-development branch?
It actually brings me around to another audience-building move that has a lot of currency: attaching the music to some other genre. Classical, indie rock, jazz. Sometimes the relationship is true (and therefore also often successful) but in other cases the association feels like an ill-considered move to grab hold of a life raft filled with someone else’s artistic personality and attendant fan base.
True, the music under this poorly-named “new music” umbrella has splintered into quite a few strains in the course of things, and it’s time to celebrate that fully–for each to find their own name, their own place. But there’s no point in breaking up with new music and then crashing someone else’s party. It may be comforting to hang with folks who are already popular. It probably feels great to play for a larger-than-expected fan base. But it’s also awful easy to get lost in a strange land and get drowned out in the crowd.
Why does the new music community remain so fixated on how to attract a bigger/broader audience?
I think pretty much all emerging artists in all fields of artistic endeavor are (necessarily) fixated on how to attract a bigger and broader audience. The utitlity calculus isn’t that hard to figure. But if you believe in your work, and you have a desire to communicate, it’s not selfish to want your art to reach more people. It’s not selfish to want to be able to do your art full time so you can make more of it.
Also:
Anyone here involved in an obscure sporting activity with a violently active audience-development branch?
People who participate in obscure sports evangelize for greater participation in their sport all the time.
Molly replies: I’ve never been approached to go watch competitive ice fishing, but good to know that kind of thing happens. On next-day read, the ideas in this post may be a bit over-shooting things, but I guess I’m reacting to this vibe I get in industry-wide discussion about audience outreach efforts focused on the idea that many more people “should” be listening without much discussion of how we can make the product more interesting to people so that they actually would want to. The focus seems external instead of internal.
I’ve never been approached to go watch competitive ice fishing
Not watch. Participate. If you were close to someone who loved ice fishing, they would totally try to get you to try it.
Molly adds: Ah, well that’s another bucket o’ fish. People who ice fish and the people who love them/get invited to tag along are a select group of people, just like new music folks and the people who love them. But I’m talking about taking it to the next level from there. Should we expect it and, if so, have we figured out the healthiest way to get it?
Should we expect it
Yes. (If not, the music withers on the vine.)
and, if so, have we figured out the healthiest way to get it?
No. (Clearly.)
MS: Ok, then. Anyone? Anyone?
I think they need to call it something else and advertise it differently, it’s all about branding. Take target, for example. It is the same type of store as K-mart, but because of their hip advertising and store presentation, it gives an impression of quality and trendiness. When it comes to new music (or classical music in general) we tend to think about the depth of the music and get carried away with that, so it gets assumed that only the classical/new music audience would be into this stuff. I think it would also help to target an audience (electronica fans, for example) that would more likely be into new music. At least at first.
…like an ill-considered move to grab hold of a life raft filled with someone else’s artistic personality and attendant fan base.
This kind of cultural opportunism is as old as the avant garde hills. Naming names, Paul D. Miller has been used time and time again to infuse “turntable intellectualism” into institutional settings. I think Spooky’s thing can be interesting at times, but he gets a lot of attention for ostensibly the wrong reasons. INMHO, the same vibe also emanates from everyone (and I mean everyone) who assigns the dreaded and meaningless “boundary-crossing” locution to their bio and/or mission statement. This irritating PR pablum is typically applied by those who either can’t remember or completely missed the actual boundary crossing to which they lay claim, mainly because said crossing has receded so far into the ahistory of aesthetic wars from a bygone era. To those I’ve just offended, forgive me, but really: there are no more aesthetic or even political boundaries left to cross in “new music.” This empty stance to me smacks of the life raft Molly smartly identifies.
Many artists are torn between wanting to make more money (If we have Michael Phelps-type ratings, think about how much we’ll get for our next contract!) and wanting to stay “true” to their art.
Some obscure sports handle these seemingly competitive impulses by making sparse audiences seem “exclusive”. Think about polo as an example – true, the audiences aren’t large but they’re paying a lot each. If ticket prices were lowered, surely more people would come to a polo event, but the core demographic would likely be put off.
Arts need to make the same calculus – big and broad vs. small and elite. Both are valid.
I used to not care about the tiny audiences for classical music, but in the last few years, it’s something I really wish I could change. If there was a larger audience, vocal scores for Britten’s operas would be affordable (can you believe a vocal score of ‘The Turn of the Screw’ costs almost $100? I know Britten isn’t mass-popular, but he’s definitely NOT obscure.)And all those telecasts that I would love to buy (a few years ago I e-mailed the copyright holder of concerts shown on PBS, concerning a possible future release of those concerts on DVD…but the answer was ‘NO’ because “there’s no market for them.” ARGH!) It’s very sad. The things that are available are so expensive, and the televised concerts I yearn to see will never be released.
Why do we try to get bigger audiences? Because we believe in the music and its worth. Maybe contemporary classical/avante-garde is not everyone’s cup of tea, but maybe more people would like it if they: gave it a chance, were presented with informative and energetic performances, and knew it was going on.
We do it because it is our lives, and ours to live and promote, if we believe in the value.
Audience is a tricky topic in this little world of capital N New Music. I definitely land on the side of simply doing ones best to create compelling programming, which is then duly backed up with clear, articulate release copy and contextualizing media. If it’s good, and sustains that quality level over several events and seasons, press and people will follow. Even in New York, where there are umpteen quality performing arts events occurring each and every night. “Catering” aesthetics and public presentation to what one perceives from the inside (outside?) as press or audience expectation is when Molly’s life raft’s start inflating. Call me an idealist, or someone who inherently needs a day job, but I’m not comfortable with the alternative one bit.
“To those I’ve just offended, forgive me, but really: there are no more aesthetic or even political boundaries left to cross in “new music.”
Musically speaking I completely agree. But when it comes to programming, presentation of musical history, and audience make up, all I see (personally speaking from the point of view of an active NYC based composer and producer) are boundaries that need to be crossed.
If there was a larger audience, vocal scores for Britten’s operas would be affordable…
I’m not sure that’s quite the case. Boosey and Hawkes has exclusive publication rights to Britten’s music, and as long as they’re the only game in town, they can charge whatever rental or purchasing fees they want. Britten could be as popular as Mozart or Vivaldi, but you’d still end up forking over a nice chunk of change that Turn of the Screw score, simply because there’s no competition. In fact, B&H could argue that increased popularity only serves to justify that high price tag, since the music is now even more desirable as a commodity.
I’d also add that as far as B&H are concerned, high rental and purchasing fees for works by composers like Britten help offset the costs associated with the publication and promotion of works by lesser known composers.
Bob, thanks for the clarification. I did think it was perhaps due to B&H’s exclusive rights, but then I thought maybe it was like the same experience I had shopping for Poulenc’s music. His very popular ‘Mouvements perpétuels’ has more than one publisher, so it wasn’t too expensive. But his less universally popular Nocturnes were very expensive — there’s only one edition/publisher. I was looking at the situation too simplistically, I guess, seeing it only in terms of popularity.
I’m just frustrated. It will take me many many years to decently fill up my musical library.