Campbell Vertesi

A question came up in my paper-writing efforts: Does per-track pricing and sale mean the end of the multi-movement piece? Does it damage the integrity of a work if people only buy one movement? For instance, I'm sure the last movement of Beethoven's ninth symphony outsells the others. Is this wrecking the experience of that symphony? Is it a crime to make a "mix CD" of all your favorite movements mashed together?

Discuss.

I had a very interesting discussion with a director friend recently, about the future of opera.  His position was that contemporary opera will never catch on with a younger crowd until it accesses contemporary styles and genres.  "The pacing, rhythm and feel of a rock concert or a movie, in an opera" was (more or less) the way he put it.

Not a bad idea, says I.  A rock concert is hard to connect to a musical event with plot, but I think that many of the attitudes we bring make that connection possible.  After all, bel canto operas are all about showing off the prowess of the singer, with entirely free form cadenze throughout.  How different is this from a guitar solo?  I can't imagine an adrenaline pumping opera the way a rock concert is adrenaline pumping, but i do see the direction my friend is pointing.

More interesting to me, is the idea (brought up by the same friend) that opera should borrow more from contemporary culture.  Operas can be funny, but the humor tends to target audiences from 1900.  Where is the comic opera of Naked Gun style comedy?  I can hear the aria already, for the "I love it!" scene.  What about in other genres: romantic comedy, drama, suspense? Why is no one composing operas in these idioms?

Some images that flit through my mind at this thought: the coloratura aria from the famous When Harry Met Sally "diner scene".  Philadelphia, the opera (writes itself).  Seven. 

If I were more of a composer, I'd set to work on one of these.  If i were more of a writer, I'd at least write a libretto.  But I'm only a blogger, so all I can do is implore the real composers and writers out there.  Give it a shot.  And make sure to include a good bass role. 

Yesterday, I posted about an electronic orchestra, poised to play the Beethoven symphonies. I was pleasantly surprised to get a comment from the conductor of the orchestra, Mr. Paul Henry Smith. I think his response merits front page mention, so here it is, reprinted in full. Discuss.

Thanks for writing about my work.

I just want to clarify that the test to try to determine "real" or "fake" was not supposed to have been the point of providing sound examples to the WSJ. The purpose of the audio clips was so listeners could hear that the interpretation the Fauxharmonic Orchestra has was new. It actually allows the main melody to be heard without being obscured by other winds, while all of the other clips let the melody sink below the sustained notes. That, apparently, was too nuanced a pointfor the "general" reader to grasp. So, a parlour game was made of it.

You can hear more about this passage from Beethoven's seventh and read an interesting discussion of the musical choices involved (and nothing at all about the technology).

Also, I just want to clarify that the digital orchestra IS performed by a live musician. It's not an "intelligent" machine attempting to follow a performer. It's a dumb box that has been "rehearsed" up to a point, with certain aspects of the music left un-specified (like, tempo, loudness, phrasing, balance) so that these can be finessed according to the live acoustics of the performance space, in real time.

I'ts interesting to note that technological advances in musical instruments have always lead to greater expressive possibilities and opportunities. This has been going on for at least 400 years with the orchestra and will continue well beyond our lifetimes. As long as there are people, they will exploit technology to make music. I want to direct the current technologies toward creating the best possible musical experiences, not the least expensive ones.

Next, the reason I am bringing the digital orchestra to the concert hall is precisely because that's where music of the highest quality happens. The digital orchestra is a musical instrument played by musicians. It offers new opportunities for composers whose music is not currently being played. And soloists who are not being paid to play concertos or sing arias will have that opportunity with the digital orchestra.

It would be wrong to assume that the composers, musicians and soloists who would appear with a digital orchestra must be inferior wannabes. While that may be true for many of them, that is not the only reason many of them lack opportunity. The economics of orchestras make it difficult even for the best musicians and composers ever to get a chance to be heard. It is simply too expensive to pay all the musicians to accompany the soloist or to premiere the new symphony; the ticket sales would not support it. So, that musical opportunity is now closed.

With the digital orchestra we can "expand the pie" of musical opportunity. We can play "unplayable" pieces. We can accompany young un-heard soloists graduating by the hundreds each year from top music schools worldwide (don't they deserve a chance, if a major conservatory deems them worthy of a degree?).

We can explore old masterworks. Interestingly, many of the potential soloists are themselves working in orchestras now. A chance to perform with a digital orchestra is a new artistic and economic opportunity, even for them. Not necessarily a threat. Some orchestral musicians might actually jump at the chance to play the concertos they have been practicing for years with little hope of ever getting to play them in a concert.

Today, Ask a Ninja posted about a Net Neutrality issue with MySpace, which highlights exactly why we as artists should be concerned with this issue.

"Net Neutrality" usually refers to the practice of Internet providers not restricting what websites you can connect to, or what services you can use over your internet connection.  Imagine if AT&T blocked you from accessing Google, or Youtube, in order to force you into using the AT&T owned competitor products instead. 

MySpace has started violating the neutrality of their site, by deleting links to competitors.  If you post a link on your myspace site to a competing video site (revver.com for instance), Myspace will delete that link. Poof, gone.  This is to force you into using MySpace's own video hosting service... sound familiar?  Perhaps exactly like the example above?

 What they did is perfectly in accordance with the legal stuff you agree to when you sign up for MySpace.  Technically, anything you put up there belongs to MySpace, and they can do whatever they want with that content.  But that doesn't mean that MySpace users should be happy about it.

There are people who believe that we need legislation to prevent this sort of thing - laws that protect "Net Neutrality".  I'm against the whole idea.  This is exactly the sort of thing that capitalism is so good at dealing with!  If you're not happy with what MySpace does with your content, don't use their service!  Complain, post on your blog about it, tell you friends... but fundamentally, your right as a consumer is to decide to use a different service. Make MySpace pay the price for their unpopular policy, and don't give them your content.

Remember that we arrive at the table with a bargaining chip, too!  MySpace wants your content (be it videos, audio clips, or whatever), and the web traffic that will bring.  You want someone to host your content.  If you can't come to an agreement as to what MySpace will give you in exchange for your content, you can (and should) walk away from the table, to seek further.  Part of MySpace's offer is that they will restrict what sites you link to.  If it bothers you, seek further! 

 As artists, this is worth paying attention to.  Particularly for small-time artists, our marketing and livelihoods are increasingly based on online services like MySpace, YouTube, and Revver - and correspondingly, on people's ability to access our content from anywhere.  Net Neutrality is critical to any future for us in the online marketplace, and the best way to support Neutrality-friendly policies is to vote with your wallet. 

In the last 25 years, the function of music has changed greatly.  With the advent of portable, personal music – starting with radio, but accellerated greatly with walkmen and headphones – music has been relegated to the status of background noise.  We listen in the car (while we’re driving), at the gym (while we’re working out), at work (while we’re working), and in the kitchen (while we’re cooking).  Remember how music was made before the advent of the radio?  When you listened to music, you were at a concert; ie focusing on nothing else (opera’s social function aside).  Over the last century in general but particularly in the last 25 years, the setting where we listen to music has changed drastically, and accordingly, the way we listen to music has changed.   Gone is the time to listen while doing nothing else. 

Does anyone remember the time when you would sit at home with your sound system, put on a recording and just listen?  Listen, as if there were something deep or important buried in the music?  Audiophiles know what this means – they are the odd minority who still put a recording on and focus all their energies on the sound.  But for the rest of us: remember being a teenager, and finding incredibly deep, personal meaning in a mix tape your girlfriend made for you?  You would sit in your room for an hour and a half, to listen to it straight through.  For the older generation: what happened to buying Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon, putting it on and just listening to what the artist was saying?  Even for the millions who only listened this way with a joint in their hand, this created a substantially different kind of musical experience compared to the "background listening" experience of listening to your music on your commute to work.

Modern listening habits make the content and structure of the music incidental to whatever else you’re doing at the moment.  Who has enough brain space left to notice Beethoven screwing with your expectation of a recapitulation, or the surprise of an avoided cadence, when they’re on the road?  Do the heart-wrenching piani in Shostakovich’s quartets have anything like their full effect while you’re out jogging?

Let me ask a corollary question – what music can you think of that might be better suited to this purpose?  Can you think of a genre that is relatively simple in structure, message and intent – in other words, that is designed for absorption through background listening?

In this blogger’s humble opinion, the majority of classical music is poorly suited to this kind of “incidental listening”. In a background environment, a classical radio station comes off as broadly “relaxing”, and not much more.

There is music however, that is designed quite intentionally for this kind of listening habit.  We call it “popular music".  I say this not to disparage the pop or rock genres relative to classical. Rather, I am emphasizing that modern popular music is geared towards a different kind of listening.  Background listening has no use for complexity of structure, layers of subtlety or heart-stopping silences.  It has great use, on the other hand, for prominent rhythms, repeating "hook" segments, and a simple (ie strophic) structure.  Compare if we dare, Arcangelo Corelli’s “da camera” violin sonatas – composed as background music for parties – with his “da chiesa” work which was written to receive more direct attention.  Compare the best of Pink Floyd with N’Sync.  One of these is designed to be actively listened to, the other passively.

I call this change in listening habits and the consequent change in composition “iPod Listening”, because it is largely the outgrowth of the increasing portability and ubiquity of our music, symbolized by the omnipresent iPod.  It is by no means limited to the one device, or even to this generation.

 As background music, classical compositions can be little more than “relaxing”.  Personally, I cringe whenever I hear that adjective used to describe the panopoly of our genre.  The way I listen to it, classical music is exciting, energized, dramatic, expressive, elemental, full of life and color.  It is “edge of your seat” music.  It is only rarely “relaxing”.  But then, when I listen to classical music, I really sit and listen.  When I go to the gym, I listen to pop rock.

So do me a favor when you have a moment.  Have a seat in your room (or wherever you keep your sound system), pick out your favorite piece of classical music, and actively listen to it.  Resist the urge to fidget, or to otherwise distract yourself.  Really pay attention to the piece, how it’s played, how it’s interpreted, and how you respond to it.  Focus your entire brain on every aspect of this piece – feel free to hum along if the spirit moves you. If you do this right, you should practically fall out of your seat listening to a pianissimo high note, or want to yell at the conductor for the way he’s playing the piece.  Active listening is an experience that demands your full mental resources, and the self-confidence to feel OK about really "getting into it".  Give it a try with a piece you love of any genre. When you’re done, try and tell me that the piece was “long”, “boring”, or – god forbid – simply “relaxing”.  And then try to go back to "iPod Listening" to see if it's the same effect.