Is music enough?

Over the last 2 months, I’ve had some specific conversations about the various ways we – myself, my musician friends and colleagues, and music organizations all across America – attempt to grow a broader interest and audience for classical music and opera.

There are many divergent perspectives on this issue, but one trend that has caused some controversy is the use of visual projection during music performances and as an educational tool.  The thinking behind this, it seems, is that musicians and music educators can relate to children who are growing up in the age of the all-powerful iPhone by enticing them with screen images. This should, in theory,  spark further interest and a desire to explore the world of classical music.

Though I am a supporter of multimedia artistic creation (having performed in numerous multimedia new operas), I have a deep, visceral reaction to this line of thinking. And, more importantly, the conflicting messages it sends to listeners.

One of the joys of music is that it isn’t chained down by the necessity of screen projection and visual accompaniment. Music is truly a gift to our minds and ears, freeing us from so many mundane distractions: flashing billboard ads, internet ads, TV commercials. We can close our eyes and listen to something unique, something special that exists within a specific space in a specific time with a specific set of tones.

So WHY then are we constantly trying to dress it up? Allow me to cite two fascinating examples.

A few years ago I attended an educational outreach concert at Carnegie Hall. The concert was part of the Weill Music Institute’s Link up series, a special music ed program designed for 3-5 graders . This particular concert was called “The Orchestra Rocks!.

The music on the program was quite good -Holst’s The Planets, a fantastic percussion excerpt from a Shostakovich opera called The Nose ( at that time it was running at the Met) as well as a piece for laptop and orchestra by Mason Bates. As soon as I walked into Stern auditorium, I saw the massive screen hanging from the ceiling. I thought to myself ” Oh no, projection……. Well, maybe it won’t  be a distraction -I’m sure it adds a necessary component that ultimately enhances the experience of the music for the kids. Keep an open mind, Celine ! “

But, my gut reaction proved to be right. In the end, all I noticed during the concert was the way the kids ignored the orchestra and stared at the projection screen. Even when the host was speaking, the kids mostly pointed up at the screen, talked amongst themselves, or played with iPods. A few different videos were played, one of which was so over-stimulating that I actually got dizzy listening to the music and watching the rave-like, neon radio wave image repetitively crossing the screen. When it finally ended, I felt like I could have thrown up. I couldn’t help but notice that EVERY time a new image popped on the screen, their attention was immediately pulled from the playing of the orchestra to the visual picture. In fact, when the orchestra started playing The Planets – accompanied by the obligatory images of outer space – some kids yelled “STAR WARS!!! YEEEEEES!”

The piece with the least stimulating visual projection was the Shostakovich; It was certainly the best fit of music vs. visual image as it let the genius of Shostakovich’s percussion writing shine through. It got the least applause or attention.

I left disheartened. For me, the concert was subliminally reinforcing the idea that music isn’t enough; that it is  background,  meant to go with something else. I think the goal of this Link up concert is to convey how rhythm in music is really cool, and how rhythm can make the orchestra rock- but that point may be falling on uninterested ears. In a world full of constant visual stimulation, how could they NOT be immediately pulled to the visual over the audio?

The idea that music must support SOMETHING is creeping into our general mindset.  Whenever I ask students about what kind of music they listen to, or what types of music they’ve heard, the typical answer is from television commercials, viral YouTube clips, or movies – NEVER from having heard an actual piece of music on its own. Ever. We are constantly bombarded with technology and screens, iPads and laptops, TV’s in restaurants, bars and stores…. it’s becoming an epidemic. Or, maybe it’s not becoming – it already is an epidemic in full force.

That said…..Is music enough? Can music stand on its own, or is it doomed to fall into the category of “sub” ?

Not if the Simon Bolivar Orchestra of Venezuela continues to exist.

For those who haven’t heard of the Simon Bolivar Orchestra , it’s part of a nationwide classical music program in Venezuela called El Sistema, founded by Jose Antonio Abreu. El Sistema supports underprivileged youth in Venezuela by providing music lessons and enrolling them in orchestras – a grand total of 102 so far. Their philosophy is that music is a right rather than a privilege. Simon Bolivar is the most prestigious of all the orchestras, with players ranging from age 18-28.

I arrived just before the concert was slated to begin, and hurriedly made my way to my seat. Thus began my reversal of the doomsday prophecy for classical music.

The level of energy in that hall was immediately palpable. As soon as they began to play the hall fell SILENT. Their playing was full of vibrancy and passion, with careful attention to subtle details that often are overlooked; details such as string bowing of an entire section (each player exactly identical, a feat that even major orchestras don’t tend to stick to these days) and volume shifts of dramatic intensity and control.

There were no projections. No screens. Everyone in the audience was listening. And responding. People began to move to the beat of the music; shyness gave way to  raucous fun. As the concert went on, the audience became more and more enamored with the orchestra; each new piece brought about a larger wave of yells and wild applause. Now, I should say that the music they played certainly added to the sense of fun; many of the pieces (mostly by obscure hispanic composers) were fast, rhythmic, and loud, full of big solos for brass and percussion. But this orchestra isn’t a one trick pony; A performance of Nimrod from the Enigma Variations by Elgar was sublime, full of expressivity and depth of emotion not often afforded to this great piece. It actually brought me to tears (me, and a person sitting a few boxes over from us).

The piece that followed, Leonard Bernstein’s “Mambo” from West Side Story, was even more incredible to witness; members of the orchestra standing up and dancing in their spots, bass players spinning their instruments, people dancing in the aisles…..and that’s not all: at the end of the concert the players of the orchestra took off their jackets (bearing the colors of the Venezuelan flag) and threw them out into the audience, causing an hysteric mob – à la a Justin Bieber concert -to run towards the stage in an attempt to catch one.

Did I miss something?  This is a CLASSICAL SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA ! Playing CLASSICAL MUSIC! Perhaps the type of music the orchestra played best exemplified their strengths, or maybe it simply hit the hearts of the audience in a more direct way. But I doubt it; It was clear to all present that the commitment, the passion, and the ability to put the quality of music making above all else- this was the true reason that the audience loved the concert so much.

Which leads me to my ultimate point ( after a LONG entry, for which I beg your forgiveness if you’ve patiently read this far)…..

If the music making is good enough, classical music will connect and resonate with listeners. In this day and age, it’s extremely hard to trust that the music, if in the hands of the right player or singer, will speak on its own. It’s also extremely hard not to give into the idea that preserving classical music means folding media-driven trends into classical music concerts. But the Simon Bolivar Orchestra proved to me that music can still be enough; and, more importantly, that we should give it a fighting chance.

Music and politics: Should government take an interest in supporting music in America?

I think after last week’s election results, we can easily say that America has become deeply partisan. Sad, but true. There are few issues that actually bring us together as a nation anymore, save for natural disasters- though some tried to politicize that as well.

Since I’m not an expert in matters of politics, I ask for your indulgence as I ponder some truths about our political system. :)

There are many things that motivate voters to be either a Republican or a Democrat, but one issue overall seems to define the distinction for me; smaller government versus larger government. These basic ideas have spawned policies that were argued about, twisted, manipulated and misrepresented over the last year ( Thank GOD it’s finally over !). In essence, the idea is that a smaller government can be more efficient and would allow the free market to rule America – “Get government out-of-the-way…. people can do it themselves !”. Larger government, in contrast, believes that the government can have a pivotal role in helping its citizens, therefore proposing social programs that improve the lives of all Americans – “We are here to help and support you… as you do it yourself”.

The idea of small government manifests itself in policies such as 1) Cutting government programs 2) lifting tax burdens/simplifying and decreasing tax code 3) reducing aid to citizens under all circumstances. The idea of large government manifests itself in policies and programs like 1) Social Security 2) Medicare and Medicaid 3) FEMA.

Being that this is not a debate about large vs. small government, I’m not going to go into more specifics about the long-term effects of these policies (which, I must admit, are mixed). But now that we’ve made a distinction…. where does music fall into all of this?

There are many countries, particularly in Europe, that believe in the necessity of supporting music. In fact, their stance demonstrates their opinion of music as part of a cultural value system, one that the government has a duty to uphold and preserve.  You might say they are of the “large government” ilk. As a result, they have continued to provide fertile ground for musicians to thrive over the course of time, and they continue to remain innovators and trend setters in the field of music.

In America, our  approach is “small government”. We have almost entirely de-funded the National Endowment for the arts, and state grants hang in a precarious balance after the past few years of massive cutbacks. What this leaves is a vacuum for the “free market” to ride in on a white stallion and save the day…….

Well, we all know how THAT story is ending.

They aren’t. In fact, private companies have given less and less to music organizations now than they ever have. Donations from individuals have also fallen drastically despite the fact that the markets have risen substantially from their 2007 levels and the economy is beginning to stabilize on an upward trajectory (albeit a painstakingly slow one). This downturn, by the way,  has barely affected so-called “high net worth individuals”- those whose fortunes remain impervious to the rise and fall of markets. Those individuals are primarily responsible for the philanthropy that keeps music organizations alive and moving forward, but they have taken the opportunity to give less, despite not having lost much over the last few years.

And… it makes perfect sense. Because we, as a country, do not see music as part of a larger cultural value system. I sometimes wonder IF we even have a larger cultural value system, but I’d say that is a question for another post. Neither individuals nor government are supporting music in a meaningful way and even though there are enormous benefits to having a strong music presence in a society, we seem to be uninterested.

Germany has supported its music field since it became a unified country, and as a result has allowed music to flourish as an industry where many individuals find good paying jobs, excellent healthcare and benefits, and a consistent pulse on the cultural, national, societal trends of our time. It is a field where incomes are not over inflated, many jobs are considered comfortable middle class incomes, and many people partake in the act of making, producing, or actively listening to music. It is a source of national pride; its presence helps to define who they are as people, and to bring them together in support of it. It instills a sense of greater humanity, greater human accountability and responsibility.

I think, as we look ahead to four more years of President Obama’s leadership,  we can find a way to re-balance the way we support music in America. Hopefully individual donations and the “free market” will increase their support for music organizations, now that we are stabilizing the economic waters. And- it looks as if the National Endowment for the Arts won’t be entirely dissolved. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to prove to lawmakers and Americans alike that musicians and music organizations are vital to national morale, help improve our abilities to be creative and to work together, and generate consistent revenue that stays IN AMERICA. My hope for the next few years is that someone will come along with the courage to re-expose the benefits of music to our larger society; someone who has the ability to articulate this to millions of Americans, to take a stand and support music in the public eye…..

Thanks, Alec Baldwin. If you ever get tired of 30 Rock ( as if….) – would you PLEASE run for office?

Do you listen to music at home?

I always enjoy meeting a new student and finding out why they chose to take music lessons. This past Tuesday I met a whole slew of new students, some of whom were taking their very first music lesson, others who were returning to piano or singing after a long break.

So, the first question I typically ask is “What made you want to take music lessons?”. The answers are wonderful, pretty standard, and usually don’t surprise me all that much.

But the next question STUNNED me this week. “Do you listen to music at home?”

“No”.

” (Silence… crickets…) Do you listen to anything at home? When you do your homework, or maybe on your ipod/iphone? “

“No”.

“What about on TV? or Youtube? Do you listen to anything on the Radio?”

“Not really. I mean, whatever is on TV I guess, like commercials. And the Radio in the car, I guess”.  ” OH, and the X Factor”.

WHAT???!?.

I’ve stopped saying that, since I don’t want a new student to feel embarrassed or alienated. Much to my disappointment, they are in the vast majority. Most Americans have stopped listening to music at home without it being background accompaniment to some other Media form. Their main music exposure comes from TV commercials, TV shows, Movies, Radio (which to be fair, isn’t all that bad) or the occasional viral Youtube clip.

It’s hard to imagine, but think about it; When was the last time that you listened to a piece of music or song at home for it’s own sake?

I’ll admit that I haven’t always been proud of my answer. But, on further thought, I realized that I listened to a lot of music at home growing up. I have clear memories of Sunday mornings with my Mom’s Joni Mitchell records or the “Bach for Breakfast” CD, the first time I heard Desperado in my Dad’s car ( not on the radio, but from the Eagles’ Hell Freezes Over album). And eventually, I began exploring other kinds of music on my own; A Tristan und Isolde CD that I bought off Ebay when I was 15, Dawn Upshaw’s White Moon CD with songs ranging from Thomas Morley to George Crumb…..  I can’t really quantify just how influential it was, but clearly listening to music at home made a huge impact on me.

While I appreciate the enormous benefits of listening to music, many people don’t realize how many positive things come from choosing to listen to a piece of music. And while I’m not an expert on the subject ( or at least not yet….), writers like Philip Ball and Oliver Sacks are. And, they’ve written about all this in books like Musicophilia and The Music Instinct which, if it piques your interest, you should definitely read.
So, even though I’m not one of those writers, I will make a humble attempt to relate a few of the benefits of listening to music at home.

1. It will improve your health -This is a big claim that has many sub-headings, including stress reduction, reduction in physical pain,  and improving mood associated with chronic depression or anxiety. Through the release of dopamine and endorphins (both are chemical neurotransmitters that create feelings of intense happiness and numb pain), listening to music helps us improve our overall ability to weather the ups and downs of life. This has been proven many times over by some reputable sources, including the Mayo clinic and the Journal of Advanced Nursing.

2. It will improve your physical coordination – Studies show that when you listen to music while doing some type of movement or exercise, your brain reacts to tempi and other musical gestures in sync with your body’s rhythm, thereby improving your coordination of movement. Philip Sheppard, composer, cellist and professor at the Royal Academy of Music in London talks about this in great depth in his book Music Makes Your Child Smarter. It’s a fabulous book, and all parents should read it.

3. It will make you smarter- Ok, so I alluded to this from the addition of Sheppard’s book, but listening to music REALLY does make you smarter. The sounds of a musical instrument stimulate areas of your brain that no other study or recreational activity can, thereby improving neuronal connections and increasing the potential for increased brain plasticity ( the brain’s ability to execute a new activity or acquire new skills). Listening to a large scale work, either for a single instrument or for an entire orchestra, has been proven to increase your attention span and memory building skills (I touched on the attention span issue in an earlier blog post…). It also helps your brain to recognize patterns and make contextual references within a piece of music, consequently affecting your ability to do this in life.  And of course, it stimulates creativity- which is a necessary skill to succeed in America. Make no mistake; Steve Jobs wasn’t successful because he was good at only math and science.

When you deprive yourself the opportunity to listen to music at home, you are robbing yourself of an activity that will make you happier, healthier, and more thoughtful. When we blindly put on the TV or the radio, we give up our choice of what to listen to; You are at the mercy of marketing and PR campaigns instead of your own judgment.

This may not seem like a big deal. But it’s long term affects will make us a country that’s less aware, focused, creative, and less engaged in our daily lives. So…. why not try listening to a piece of music at home tonight? Or maybe a couple of songs? You could listen to something by the Beatles or Brahms, alone or with your family. I guarantee you won’t need a TV show or a commercial to hear how great the music is.

Does this election mean anything to the future of Classical Music?

After a wonderfully long family vacation, I’ve returned back home and am now plugging back in to what’s happening in the world.

Let me tell you; I’m glad I took some time off to decompress, because there is a lot to be worried about when it comes to this election and, indeed, the next four years in classical music.

In the past year, New York City Opera has perilously survived its first year out of Lincoln Center, Opera Boston abruptly closed it’s doors, the Philadelphia Orchestra filed for bankruptcy, Seattle Opera has decided to ax their Young Artist Program for the 2013-2014 season, San Antonio Opera has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and owes over $200,000 to performers, administrators, as well as ticket holders ( among them is Placido Domingo, who is owed over $50,000). That is the tip of the iceberg- there’s so many examples of closings,  deep budget cuts and failed union negotiations that I can’t name them all.

This is not new; we’ve been hearing about struggling music organizations for years now, and frankly it’s starting to seem like routine. Kind of like the economic recovery in general; the incessant stream of “potential indicators” of whether or not things are getting better, and the shaky expectation of a better tomorrow- all of it has become commonplace.

So I wonder… does this election- these two candidates- mean anything for the future of Classical music in America? Let’s quickly look at their individual records in the arts and in charitable giving.

Mitt Romney- As I learned last night (yes, I stayed up all night and watched the convention………) Mitt has given a nice sum of money to the Mormon Church. As required by his religion. Also, he spent a significant amount of time as a pastor in Boston, where his fellowship work has touched the lives of many within his church. This is a good thing- it means that he actually thinks about something other than money. Also, Bain Capital started a charity for Children in 1997, and continues to be instrumental in it’s involvement with  it’s Children’s charity. Nice going, Mitt.

As for the arts, his record is an abomination. Deplorable. There is not a trace of interest in music or the arts anywhere in his Governorship in Massachusetts, nor anywhere on his website. The fact that he has vowed to destroy the National Endowment for the Arts is just one example of his noticeable disinterest;
“Reduce Subsidies For The National Endowments For The Arts And Humanities, The Corporation For Public Broadcasting, And The Legal Services Corporation — Savings: $600 Million. NEA, NEH, and CPB provide grants to supplement other sources of funding. LSC funds services mostly duplicative of those already offered by states, localities, bar associations and private organizations.”

This was taken from the Mitt Romney website. It is part of his “day one” plan. Let’s see; $600,000,000 (Million) out of $15,000,000,000,000 (trillion) is….  Less than a drop in the bucket. There is no symbolism in cutting Arts funding, it’s simply too small a sum- and not part of the real debt problem.

Although, apparently -Mitt likes Music, including this

Thanks to the Gregory Brothers for that.

Barack Obama – President Obama has given to charitable organizations proportionally to his gross income for most of his life- in the same percentage range as Mitt Romney, though he makes substantially less. In his yearly tax return statement it is evident to see just how much he spends on that charitable giving, and that he donated the entire amount of his Nobel Prize to charitable organizations.

When it comes to music and the arts, President Obama has a less than stellar record, with little or no budget increases for Arts funding.  But, interestingly enough, he believes in the societal importance of the arts:

“Equal to the impact you have on each of us every day as individuals is the impact you have on us as a society. And we are told we’re divided as a people, and then suddenly the arts have this power to bring us together and speak to our common condition.”

That comes from a speech given at the 2012 National Medal of Arts and National Humanities Ceremony.

He also spent time in 2008 extolling the virtues of Music Education in America:

Barack Obama on Music Education, 2008

I agree with this stance, and would love to see evidence of it-  perhaps a larger pushback from all the recent Republican proposals….

Though neither political candidate feels like music and the arts are a worthy stump issue, I think it’s pretty clear which candidate offers more to the cause overall. What we need now is a larger dialogue of how music and arts are woven into the fabric of our economy, our education, our individual values and moral responsibility to one another- a missed opportunity for politicians, and indeed for all of us.

Is Classical music really inaccessible?

I spend a lot of time thinking about ways to make classical music more accessible to more people. In fact, I know many people in the field of classical music and opera who spend a tremendous amount of time and effort to widen our audiences; they dedicate hours upon hours to convince potential audiences, companies and corporations, and government of the benefits, the beauty, the importance of classical music.

Based on my evening this past Monday, I wonder if we don’t have to work quite so hard.

I had the  pleasure of attending my first NY Philharmonic Parks Concert this past Monday night. I’m no stranger to outdoor Summer concerts; I’ve been performing in Summer festivals for years, and loved attending concerts of visiting orchestras and ensembles. But most of the work I’ve done in the Summer is not in a major city; in fact, most Summer music festivals are not in major metropolitan areas. So it was not a new experience to see a wonderful orchestral concert in the Summer, but it certainly was to see the audience that showed up for the Parks concert.

The entire great lawn in Central Park was packed. PACKED- It took me the entire Tchaikovsky 4th Violin concerto to reach my friends seated at the eastern border of the lawn ( I foolishly thought that, having taken the C train to 79th and Central Park West,  I wouldn’t have a problem getting across to my friends…….). I suppose I didn’t think about the fact that New York has over 8 million residents- but even if I had, I’m not sure I would have expected the concert to be as full as it was. As I attempted to walk through the crowd, I was amazed to see how many people were really enjoying the music- not just sitting around idly passing the time outdoors or dismissing the orchestra as background. I missed the first piece since I was coming late from teaching, but for the Tchaikovsky and Brahms’ 1st symphony, which they played on the second half, the lawn was remarkably quiet.

And they played beautifully. It was a wonderful experience to have shared with my friends, the little girls behind us ( who, between intermittent giggling and playing with glow sticks, were actually listening), and all the other people around us.

Now, the obvious conclusion you might draw is this: The concert was packed because it was FREE. And yes, that certainly reduces the obstacles to growing an audience for classical music. If everyone could hear the NYPhil for free, I’m sure concert attendance would certainly be higher. So, who helped to make this concert free? A combination of private donors, a corporation and the city of New York.

This was a cooperative effort, from three distinctly different groups of people- one small group, one large group, and one medium sized group ( pardon the Goldilocks’ reference). They all donated financial resources as well as time and effort to make this happen, and it has been enriching the lives of New Yorkers for many years- 14 million listeners so far.

But… why stop there? Sure, supporting a free outdoor concert series in the Summer is great; but the continued exposure, development and support of music in New York City and elsewhere will continue to enrich the lives of all Americans. Continued cooperative efforts from all of us- performers, administrators, audiences, corporations, and governments- can help give music it’s rightful place in society.

America and the case of the disappearing attention span…..

I teach at a small music school in Morris Park, a small neighborhood in the Bronx. I enjoy it tremendously, and am always fascinated by the effort it takes us to pay attention in a music lesson. Most of my students are young, so naturally there is less attention span to be found; and I spend a great deal of time thinking about how to support their interest and further engage them in their music.  But it’s not just my students that have rapidly disappearing attention spans; it’s most of America as well.

There is a lot of research on this- the decrease of the human attention span. Roger Ebert wrote a very compelling piece on it in his journal for the Chicago Sun Times :

blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/05/the_french_word_frisson_descri.html

In it, he describes how he has become swept up by the “frisson” or, the jolt of excitement, that he gets from quick tweets and internet surfing. He mentions that research is being conducted that shows our actual BRAINS are being rewired by this, capitalizing on our instinct to want to feel short lived excitement, or the “frisson”. ( That link is:  http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_nicholas_carr/all/1)

His discussion goes on to describe how he observed his own habits of attention span- and he noticed that amidst his tweeting and “Frisson” seeking, he had stopped activities that required longer term investment of attention, like reading Dickens. And ultimately, when he commits to reading literature more often and tweeting less, he finds a sense of deeper satisfaction, calm, focus. I certainly agree with him- and then I noticed the very end of his article.

A music  clip! I thought the irony had hit me in the face. He ended with a two minute clip of a man playing a guitar, saying it gave him that real frisson. I’m not sure if he was referring to the music itself, or the visual element of watching a person play guitar, but I couldn’t help but wonder- did this intelligent, wonderful writer not consider listening to music equal to reading classics? Or worse-  does a music clip go in the same category as the tweets, the short term thrills, the empty, non-substantive internet surfing? And if a person of Roger Ebert’s stature considered this non-substantive….. then clearly we are thinking about music in the wrong way.

Seeing as Mr. Ebert is in fact, a writer, it makes sense that his conduit for greater enjoyment, entertainment, soul-searching would be through reading. But the choice to listen to a piece of music without any distraction provides the same experience as reading a great novel.  Forms and characters in literature are similar to forms and musical ideas in classical music. A composer introduces ideas and then develops them-  he or she creates dialogue between two or more contrasting musical themes, developing them into something new and exciting, often times increasing the tension , and then resolving ( or, more interestingly, choosing not to resolve) them in a final movement that ties the meaning of the entire piece together.You can get wrapped up in Beethoven just as much as Great Expectations; It is as worthy of our attention as any great piece of writing.

This kind of engagement of our interest and attention is precisely what I think we should be supporting in our society- and music is a fantastic way of doing that. Studies from Stanford University provide some evidence to this point:

http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2007/july/music.html

As we move forward in 2012, I’m sure that Facebook and Twitter will continue to evolve and shape our habits- but perhaps we should consider sitting down with a piece of music more often and give ourselves a break from that unrelenting string of little “frissons”.