I’m going to admit something while I’m laying on this pillowy expanse of interweb and not having to look in the eye any of my esteemed colleagues from all corners of the music world: I
myself have argued both sides of every state-of-the-industry debate I
can think of, at one time or another, and I suspect that many others
have done the same. For me, the need to do this arises from how
quickly I find myself zooming in and out while looking at “the picture”
in front of me–
-pondering one moment the effectiveness of a single
piece on a single program by a single artist; then the ability of that
program by that artist to grab the attention of an audience in a
certain city;
-then the ability of that program by that artist to grab
the attention of a group of audiences in a group of cities over the
course of a concert season;
-then how that program by that artist in
that season plays into the live performance career of that artist over
several seasons, as it is experienced by both people within the
industry and those outside of it;
-then how the live performance career
of that artist fits into their career as a whole, including whatever
other parts of it are relevant at that time or may be in the future;
-then, for me the most interesting and most daunting vantage point, how
that artist’s career as discussed and planned and worked at all of
these levels interacts with other artists’ careers, audiences,
perceptions of music, and the art form itself, which loops me
infuriatingly back to the beginning and the attempts to understand a
concert experience piece by piece. I think that this surveying is done by
everyone who is involved in the process of making music happen,
although the angles may be different.
From each of these positions, I
feel the push ‘n pull. This artist is fantastic, and therefore must do what feels right and inspires him or her, and all else will fall into place. This artist is fantastic, and must be experienced by more people, and we need to decide how to make that happen.
One thing that stops me from drinking myself to death in this self-made
spiral is the fact that there seems to be room for both ends of the
push ‘n pull to co-exist at all times for all artists, as long as no
one is getting caught up in framing it as traditional vs progressive or
old vs new, or, more importantly, thinking too narrowly about what this
idea of “career” is. This may be more true now than it has been in the
past; it feels more true to me now than it did even in the dark ages of
the mid 2000s when I first started pondering such questions. If, as
Amanda proposes, we take it as a given here that Artist under
discussion is indeed fantastic (and Artist definitely is, trust me, I’m
a manager, which is why I’m talking about Artist as if this were a
contract), then Artist can decide that for a certain period of time,
Artist will apply Artistself wholly to playing music that has been
around for hundreds of years in formats that are familiar to everyone
(recital, concerto, chamber), and Artist will be able to make a career
out of this in the sense that there will be some people (concert
presenters, record labels) who will pay Artist to do so because some
other people (audiences) will pay those people to see and hear it. It
may not be as many people as Artist envisions in wildest Artist-dreams,
or maybe it will. It depends on the Artist-dreams. And when the
period of time governed by this application of Artist’s abilities is
up, Artist can decide to do it some more. Or Artist can decide to play
the same music but try to talk more about why and how Artist does
so, or to play music that will be written just for Artistself and
doesn’t yet exist, or to play music with someone who has no relation to
or experience with the familiar formats in which Artist has recently
been found, or to write a book about Mozart and give a particular
perspective on him, or to start a foundation and raise money for
aspiring Artists, or any combination of these, or anything else.
None
of these decisions in themselves will guarantee a change in how many
people will experience Artist, for better or worse. Nor will these
decisions make Artist “special” in an abstract sense, because anyone
could be making the same decisions, and many are. To me, the
responsibility that artists have is not to make any particular decision
about their work in this regard, but to make any decision with
the understanding of why they are making it and what will be involved
in an attempt by all of us who have a stake to turn that decision into
action. And by probably needlessly-stated extension, the
responsibility that we all have, anyone who works with the artist in
any way, is to create that action as best we can. Sometimes we will be pushed along
by the way the resulting music-making fits into existing systems of
dispersion into the world, whether booking dates or planning a season
of concerts in a venue or publicizing performances; and other times we
will need to pull the system apart and find the bits that are relevant
and helpful. Sometimes both at once. Sometimes on multiple zoom
levels or every level. Sometimes it will not work, or not right away.
It’s not algebra, and though I occasionally want to cut off my limbs to
make things more linear, in the end I’m grateful for that.
The pull to this push about push-‘n-pulls is a lingering feeling that
everything is a compromise, or that everything has to be deflated to be
“realistic”. I hope we collectively can find a way not to get caught
up in this. It may be that we will always feel like things could be
going better, and that there is more to do. I have never had a day
when I have not felt so as I lie in bed in a Groundhog Day-like sequence, lit by the glow of an improving series of handheld email-checking devices. But the ability to actively and genuinely choose our own music adventure and work towards enacting it, as long as we realize that’s what we’re doing, ensures that “special” does not have to be kidnapped and co-opted into a two-sided argument.