Contemporary music requires new attitude on part of performers

On March 28, I published a column in the 'Prince,' "On Musical — and Audience — Appreciation," in which I argued that orchestras should not combine lesser-known works with crowd-pleasers in an attempt to force music on audiences. Since then the letters of Sharon Zhu GS and Alan Shockley GS have appeared, and they merit a reply.

My apologies that I was not clear on several issues and that I overestimated the ability of the public to read between the lines. And my apologies for not knowing a composer who, in Ms. Zhu's words, was "one of the most prominent British composers of the 20th century."

My column was not meant to be a critical judgement of contemporary music. In fact, I am a big fan of the new and different. I am a violist, so most of my solo repertoire was composed in the 20th century. I enjoy playing in senior thesis performances and the works of composition classes.

It is precisely because I enjoy and value contemporary music that I criticized the approach musical organizations take. Ms. Zhu wrote that orchestras "should never forgo their mission as new music advocates," and I heartily agree. She clearly failed to read my column until the end. Instead of manipulated programs with an unwelcome contemporary work, I propose that orchestras offer a certain number of contemporary-only concerts each year. Such an approach would address several issues. First, attempting to force a demand, as I stated earlier, is in principle a flawed idea and a formula for disaster. Second, I want to hear new music with others who enjoy it, not with those for whom it is a nuisance to be endured. Third, I want to see composers treated with respect (yes, even those who publicly compare me to Homer Simpson), and I find that putting a composer on a program where he or she takes second place is insulting. Those who think that no one would attend such a concert are wrong. When I was at Tanglewood, for instance, I witnessed a well-attended Contemporary Music Festival.

Mr. Shockley attempts to make a comparison between a concert and a museum. The analogy fails, though, since concert audiences are captive. If someone wants to avoid seeing Picasso, he can. Of course I don't think that he should. But I prefer that someone go to a museum, enjoy the experience and return frequently rather than be force-fed works he doesn't appreciate and ultimately be turned off from the artistic experience altogether.

Mr. Shockley wrote that "if Mr. Arrington or any other listener wants to hear an all-Beethoven concert . . . he or she will not have to look very far; there are whole ensembles dedicated to being just that sort of museum." He fails, though, to draw the parallel to contemporary music. As ensembles exist which satisfy a demand for period music or for standard repertoire, there are other groups that specifically premiere new works. The American Composers Orchestra is such a group, and someone who attends its concerts knows what to expect. The economics are sound, the listener is pleased, the performer-audience relationship is harmonious and new music is performed. Mr. Shockley's outrageous suggestion that CDs and MP3s are substitutes for a live performance and that the Philadelphia Orchestra should perform certain works because they are difficult to find online is wholly inaccurate. Likewise is the view that contemporary music draws young people to classical music concerts. I can guarantee you that there are no more young people at a New York Philharmonic concert when it plays Beethoven than when it performs Tan Dun.

The letters point to the dangerous rift developing in the artistic world between academics and the general public. The composer is alienating himself from society as he creates music solely for himself and a small educated elite. It is precisely such an attitude, and not the one I expressed in my column, which endangers the future of contemporary music.

True appreciation of contemporary music will not come from force-feeding an audience and manipulating orchestra programs; the solution is unfortunately not that simple. Composers must change their attitudes toward the audience and treat it as a willing friend rather than an ignorant fiend, and orchestras and academics must seriously engage in educating the public in musicology and music theory. Only with such mutual understanding can contemporary music survive. Nathan Arrington is an art and archaeology major from Westport, Conn. He can be reached at arington@princeton.edu.