![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Modern classical set-to
Jul. 9th, 2008 10:17 pmToday's Guardian plays host to a fun slug-fest on the subject of modern classical music.
In the anti corner, Joe Queenan, on typically trenchant form, lays into modern music, which he takes to be almost everything post-Schoenberg. His basic points seem to be that audiences don't really like modern compositions and only endure them in order to get to the Romantic warhorse further down the bill; that most modern compositions seem to be written to annoy the audience; and that he, Joe Queenan, doesn't really like them and would much rather be listening to Haydn.
Tom Service, comes out in favour, pointing out that many of Queenan's points don't really hold up to scrutiny. He notes that the set of compositions held up as being loathed by audiences have almost nothing in common other than being post-Rite of Spring and that Queenan has failed to notice the predominance of 20th century music in the concert hall. Naturally, Service gives Queenan's argument from personal experience very short shrift indeed.
While I think that Queenan gets some things right — the sense of smug, superior, ignorance that pervades certain classical music audiences, for example — I think he's wrong to write off all classical music written after 1913. And while Service may be right that the Barbican is packed out for modern stuff, I suspect that the situation outside London is rather different. For example, Warwick Arts Centre used to run a pretty good classical program — this year's seemed to me to be a bit thin, but that might be because Butterworth Hall is being refurbished — but with a heavy emphasis on Mozart operas, Haydn symphonies and Romantic concerti.
So, as ever, valid points on both sides...
In the anti corner, Joe Queenan, on typically trenchant form, lays into modern music, which he takes to be almost everything post-Schoenberg. His basic points seem to be that audiences don't really like modern compositions and only endure them in order to get to the Romantic warhorse further down the bill; that most modern compositions seem to be written to annoy the audience; and that he, Joe Queenan, doesn't really like them and would much rather be listening to Haydn.
Tom Service, comes out in favour, pointing out that many of Queenan's points don't really hold up to scrutiny. He notes that the set of compositions held up as being loathed by audiences have almost nothing in common other than being post-Rite of Spring and that Queenan has failed to notice the predominance of 20th century music in the concert hall. Naturally, Service gives Queenan's argument from personal experience very short shrift indeed.
While I think that Queenan gets some things right — the sense of smug, superior, ignorance that pervades certain classical music audiences, for example — I think he's wrong to write off all classical music written after 1913. And while Service may be right that the Barbican is packed out for modern stuff, I suspect that the situation outside London is rather different. For example, Warwick Arts Centre used to run a pretty good classical program — this year's seemed to me to be a bit thin, but that might be because Butterworth Hall is being refurbished — but with a heavy emphasis on Mozart operas, Haydn symphonies and Romantic concerti.
So, as ever, valid points on both sides...
