[contextly_auto_sidebar id=”rOuHe4NAWhrjDUWpIo2vJpahkzREkig2″]
Well, the title is a joke.
What the bad guys won — they were sharp, smart students from Oxford Univeristy — was a debate on the future of classical music, which I heard last weekend in Anchorage, Alaska. The debaters from the Oxford Union (a venerable debating group) were Matt Handley and Carin Hunt, and they were bad guys because they took what at first seemed to the audience like an anti-classical music stand:
This House believes classical music deserves no support beyond that which the market will provide.
Boo! Hanging classical music out to dry. They were opoposed by Matthieu Ostrander and Jonathon Taylor from the Seawolf Debate Program at the University of Alaska, Anchorage. A program that, in the world of intercollegiate debate, is ranked 17th in the world. Go Alaska! That’s impressive. Otrander and Taylor opposed the Oxford proposal, saying that classical music deserves all the support it can get.
And now two clarifications. First, this was a formal debate, meaning that the debaters don’t necessarily hold the positions they took. And shouldn’t be judged by whether you agree with what they say. The winning side should be the one that debates most effectively.
Second, the proposal didn’t quite mean what it seems to, or at least not what I thought it meant. Oxford didn’t say that classical music should only be supported by the commercial marketplace. They didn’t rule out private donations. They just meant that classical music shouldn’t get government support. While the Alaska team argued that it should.
I was there because my wife was one of three “celebrity judges,” the others being Hobo Jim Varsos, a beloved Alaskan singer-songwriter, and Zuill Bailey, the cellist, who’s dug deep roots in Alaska because he runs the Sitka Summer Music Festival there. Anne and I had never been in Alaska before. Thanks to the generosity of KLEF, the Alaska classical radio station, we both could come, and bring our son. We’d go back in a heartbeat. Alaska is unforgettable. We felt the sharp breath of wilderness everywhere, even in Anchorage.
Back to the debate
The audience was clearly for classical music. We know that, first from their applause at various points (almost always on the pro-classical side), and from a vote by text-message before the debate started. The audience opposed the proposition by a wide margin.
And then, at the end, was almost evenly split! Because their votes counted, and because the judges voted for Oxford two to one, Oxford was declared the winner. Which was fascinating. Classical music skeptics prevailed with a crowd overwhelmingly in favor of classical music. They won my wife’s vote, and she’s a classical music professional. Hobo Jim sided with them, too, even though, as a local, his heart was with the Alaska team. Only Zuill gave Oxford thumbs down.
So how did that happen?
Neither side went very deep into the debate’s difficult question. Clearly, the subject was new to them. They’d prepared as well as they could, but missed many subtleties, no surprise, since they were on unfamiliar ground, and the territory — if you read through what’s available online — isn’t very well mapped. I won’t nitpick, won’t point out things they seemed to get wrong. But Anne, my wife, noted an oddity. The Oxford debaters, coming from Britain, a country where the government supports classical music extensively, opposed that support. The Alaska team, from the U.S., where government support was minimal, wanted more of it.
Which is reasonable, on both sides, and would have been interesting for both sides to note, but neither mentioned it. Instead, both sides led with general points, neither one surprising. The Oxford team made fun of classical music’s old, white audience, and the Alaska team stressed classical music’s transcendent value.
Oxford, though, was faster on its feet when its points were challenged, and came up with something interesting, which may have impressed the audience. Both sides agreed that classical music was in trouble, but where the Alaskans said this meant it needed help, the Oxford team said that cutting its support would teach it to help itself. Not a bad thought, and it could well have been one reason they won. Even people in love with classical music might agree with it. For this alone, Oxford deserves to win.
Kudos to all
Overall, both sides were impressive — lively, fun, smart, and personable. I liked them both.
And special congratulations go to two people. Steve Johnson, who runs the Seawolf Debate Program, and Rick Goodfellow, who founded and runs KLEF. Together they conceived and produced the debate, as a way of getting attention for the program, for the station, and for classical music. They certainly succeeded.
Johnson is a dynamic presence. No, understatement. To judge from his opening presentation, before the debate began, he’s an irresistible force, making it hardly a surprise that the Seawolf Debate Program has done so fabulously well. When he’s coaching his teams, or recruiting likely debaters from Alaska high schools, who could say no to him?
Though he did, I thought, load the dice a little in his introduction. He said classical music was a search for truth and beauty, which is exactly the kind of point his team made when they said classical music deserved government help. The audience warmly applauded when he said this, which to me meant he’d curved space a little bit, so that for the audience it tilted even more toward the pro-classical music side.
Rick Goodfellow (and also see the station’s home page) is another force of nature. Anne and Rafa and I spent time with him, which was a pleasure. He’s in love with music, ideas, and getting the impossible done. He wanted us in Alaska, and he brought us there, giving us plenty of time to see things. Many thanks to him, and kudos again for everything he does. We couldn’t have been happier.
Just have to ask: Was the debate recorded? Would love to hear it! Also thinking, this would make for a killer “This American Life” segment.
Douglas — Here’s a video of the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ7dk-gdN8M
Dear Greg,
I would not normally respond this way (seeming to toot my own horn) but the coincidence of a “debate” and Anchorage was just too much for me to hold back.
I myself was in Anchorage last week, to play a recital at the University of Alaska Anchorage and judge the Alaska Piano Competition, open to all young Alaskan pianists.
My recital program was part of my Classical Smackdown, which is a tongue-in-cheek competition between two composers’ music, with the audience voting for their favorite, round by round and for the entire concert.
The matchup that the Anchorage audience heard was the first of a series that I have started to present: Debussy vs. Prokofiev. The outcome of that particular Smackdown was heavily in favor of one of these composers (results at http://www.classicalsmackdown.com) but that was not the real point of this program.
The idea behind Classical Smackdown is that by comparing side by side and being forced to choose, one starts to learn about taste and personality in music, both the composer’s and the listener’s. One also sees that others may have opposing views, and they may have perfectly legitimate reasons for voting completely differently than you. Or voting the same as you but for completely different reasons.
In the various pie charts that I post, I show the breakdown of the vote by round, by gender, by age and by pianist/non-pianist. Over the course of many dozens of concerts over many seasons, it is starting to become clear that there is a definite difference in gender and age – again, I will let the reader look at the results and interpret them as they see fit.
What is NOT evident in the pie charts is some information that I do not share except with the presenters. In Anchorage, for example, the audience was almost evenly split by age – 1/4 under 21, 1/4 from 20 to 40, 1/4 from 40-60 and 1/4 older than 60. That is a clear sign that this audience was not “old.” And if I had asked for race information, it would probably have turned out that a large portion would have been Asian, and certainly not “white.”
One of the most interesting parts of the Smackdown is the list of comments that the listeners contribute. Some people obviously know their music. But many are obviously not that familiar with either the pieces or the composers themselves. And yet the richness of their comments shows that they are not devoid of an opinion, and when asked to share it, they can be pretty expressive.
The most rewarding moment of the Smackdown always comes at the end, after the applause has died after the final round and my final instructions. Instead of people rushing to the door to get their car out of the parking lot first, people stay in their seats and debate the merits of Debussy vs. Prokofiev! When I come to the lobby to greet people and sign CDs, many people are still inside the hall, weighing their values and hesitating in filling out their ballots. My directive to everyone that “ties are not allowed” always seems to stump a lot of people.
While a debate about Classical Music sounds really interesting, a Classical Smackdown can really engage people with the music itself, which is what we are all trying to do in end.
Keep up the great writing.
Frederic
Awesome idea and results Frederic! This is giving new listeners some of what they want to step into the arts bubble for a while. Whether one views it as dumbing down or warming up is entirely a choice of interpretation, not a fact. When we consider how curious many non-attenders might be about classical, it is easier to accept their perspective and even ASK THEM what would draw them personally to a LIVE classical event.
I’ve always believed that public competition would be a sure way to build new fans for classical. And I proposed an orchestra “playoffs” several times at high-level meetings (inc. with Bruce Coppock). You have proven (for me) the concept is sound (pun intended). While perhaps not artistically authoritative to admit, musicians DO compete with each other in friendly ways: why not take it to the next level with judged competitions that include a PAID audience vote as with American Idol? Music-making IS enough LIKE a game or a sport: exaggerating those elements to WIN new fans is another way to serve the classical arts. What makes one composer, orchestra or performer a favorite?
Question: Bach barely beat Glass in Anchorage. You say the age demographic was even, but with those under 40 voting overwhelmingly for Glass, how did Bach win?
RIck, I think that a big part of the success of Classical Smackdown has been the fact that there is no one who benefits from winning or losing, i.e. the composers involved are part of the cannon, and people’s votes can’t change how they are viewed in the public sphere. If it was a competition between orchestras or performers, then the focus become personal and off the music itself.
We’ve expanded the Smackdown to other art forms in the Arts Immersion Salon events that I organize outside of my personal performances (see Beechwoodarts.org) but we take care not to make people compete against each other, which is pernicious in my opinion. Rather, we make the contest between 2 creations by the same person (a chef making two appetizers from the same ingredients, for example) or between two esthetics (all the art that different artists have chosen to express their view of Debussy, or their view of Prokofiev, for example).
A presenter stated it in a great way: A Classical music concert is usually a very scripted affair, with the repertoire and even performances falling within very narrow expectation guidelines. Adding this little element of a vote makes the event something that no one can predict all the way until the end. Regardless of how the vote turns out, your participation and the real-time element makes it something that you are involved in in a completely different way.
BTW, Bach and Glass did not compete in Anchorage, only Debussy and Prokofiev. I hope to take Bach vs. Glass there sometime soon though!
A fascinating way to get people involved actively with the music! Obviously, they have to be somewhat seriously interested in the field to want to participate in the first place, but it sure beats the old, hallowed practice of people sitting in their seats listening to some music prof’s droning “music appreciation” lecture.
Fascinating! I don’t feel quite so out of line/ marginalized anymore. Bravo, Oxford!
A principal reason classical music might not survive in our society (USA) is that, in order for it to succeed it would have to be incorporated in a child’s education, not just included; which would require a sea change in public opinion about participation in classical music classes and activities being essential (if not crucial) to a successful child’s education.
Classical music participation and education in schools would need to be compulsory, or, if not compulsory, significantly highly weighted in determining students’ academic performance, overall — for example, participation in classical music performance activities and one academic credit toward graduation for participating.
In order to accomplish that, funding would need to be provided by private, as well as public investment, and voluntary contributions, in addition. The amounts of money needed would be substantial, in the billions of dollars (or pounds).
There is no such will in our population to support music in education if government doesn’t at the minimum provide sufficient funds to make a running start at changing public opinion and the public’s support to tax fund a massive effort.
Short of something like what I’m arguing for, heroic and creative efforts to do it on “our” own will ultimately fail. As a free market capitalist system type economy classical music has no place in our society unless it can sell on its own merits and proven value. Getting to the proven part will need another massive experiment in building a constituency, not just a market, which supports the idea of classical music’s value to a child’s public and/or private education.
Great discussion. Ultimately we probably all agree that we would like to see music succeed through earned income-that society values it enough and has the wherewithal to provide its worth. Let’s keep trying to make that happen!