Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
I did mean to refer to the average ("classical") concert-going public, not the demographic which uses MTV as musical nourishment. I do think there's a gap between at least some contemporary aesthetics and what audiences like to hear - just look at all the Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc. occupying concert programmes nowadays. But people do also seem to be catching up in many ways, which is exciting. Realistically, I think it's unreasonable to expect "real-time" appreciation of the avant-garde. After all, that's why it's called the avant-garde.
And yes, I'd certainly write differently for my musically literate friends in contrast to what I'd produce for a commercial venture. I think that underlines my point about effective musical communication. It can help you earn money, and it can help you connect with people. I find both of these prospects rewarding.  |
I suspect a lot of people underestimate the "average" audience's ability to appreciate music that is more demanding of them.
Probably this attitude is brought about through people like Carter et al who treat the audience as a "necessary annoyance".
I've seen rapturous receptions given to new works, and this from the "ordinary" concert audience.
There is a fine line between blowing your audience off and at least TRYING to communicate with them.
I notice that many film-score afficionados are not particularly "musically trained", and yet, they are fully capable of appreciating the less lyrical moments of many of the great filmscores of the past years. For example,
Close Encounters of the Third Kind has a great many fans, yet it is one of those John Williams scores with the least "accessible" music.
I see nothing wrong with bridging gaps.
I do see something wrong with blowing off the audience and treating them like imbeciles.