Letters to the Editor

Musicians should express themselves without considering their listeners' tastes

I am writing to you to express a few thoughts on the March 28 column "On Musical — and Audience —Appreciation," in which Nathan Arrington '02 criticized the Philadelphia Orchestra's concert program for its inclusion of the Fourth Symphony by Michael Tippett. He criticized it not only because Tippett was an obscure name to him — who would "usually recognize the composers' names" — but he also suggested that the concert programs of all orchestras should be chiefly, if not entirely, decided by the audiences, who "are consumers who want their money's worth."

A musician by profession, I find this article deeply disturbing, if not outrageous. If the author's musical knowledge is solely built upon his arbitrary choice of what he wants (or could be bothered) to hear, it is not surprising that he has not heard of one of the most prominent British composers of the 20th century, whose musical creativity lasted over a span of more than 60 years and who is widely revered, ironically, for his sincere expressiveness and, very often, his bold 'accessibility.' The author's comments that the symphony sounded "neat" and "pleasantly funky" but lacked "any distinguishable melody" should belong to a first-time concert-goer rather than a serious column writer.

He then goes on to compare concert-going with grocery shopping, an argument which I find extraordinary to have come from someone who is studying art. If he has any superficial knowledge at all about Stravinsky, a composer of whom he seems to approve, he would have known that the now universally acclaimed masterpiece, "The Rite of Spring," was condemned by the audience at its premiere in Paris in 1913. Fortunately, Stravinsky did not have to reexamine his musical aesthetics and beliefs just because "the consumer did not like it," or this monumental work would not have survived at all.

Symphony orchestras, apart from being money-making enterprises (which is probably inevitable in the United States), should never forgo their mission as new music advocates. To play a relatively or completely unknown piece is not a "trick" to try to give the audience a "dose of foul-tasting medicine" but simply an attempt to give the work a justification that it deserves. The amount of new music in major American orchestras' programs is, compared with that in Europe, far too inadequate instead of excessive. Art never has been and never should be only for the sake of "mass enjoyment." It is an expression of the soul by the artist, in this case, the composer — whatever kind of style he or she chooses to work with. Art will never be, hopefully, just a monetary product at the wealthy consumer's disposal. The consumer might be "in control," as the author seems to hail in some cases that he is aware of, but thankfully, I do not think this is a universal phenomenon yet. If you want to buy a Snickers, go to the convenience store, not to a symphony orchestra.

By the way, I told a colleague of mine in the graduate composition program about the article. He totally agreed with my opinions but also suggested that I was the naive one. "What else did you expect to read?" he asked, "this is the status quo." Thinking about all the people in this country who are striving to produce original art everyday in all different ways, I sincerely hope that he was wrong. Sharon Zhu Graduate Fellow in Composition