Here’s My Program—Where Do I Fit?
by Edna Landau
To ask a question please write Ask Edna.
Dear Edna:
So wonderful of you to take questions!
I run an ensemble called “Ljova and the Kontraband” which primarily performs its own original music. Its sound is informed by the classical, folk, jazz and world music traditions.
Whenever I hear an artist speak about music they’d like to perform or compose, the conversation often touches upon the concept of “genre” in music, and borders between musical genres (classical/jazz/opera/musical theatre, etc.). Artists feel confined and want to tear down these borders to create music that draws on a variety of influences and backgrounds. It seems that presenters have a similar mind. They just want to present that which is good and hope that the audiences will follow. How important is genre to an audience?—Lev Zhurbin
Dear Lev:
Thanks for your insightful and very interesting question.
One of the reasons that artists are so fortunate to be concertizing at this time is that boundaries separating various genres of music are, in fact, less defined than ever before. Presenters know more about their audiences than they did in the past and are more willing to take chances in order to grow those audiences. They are also communicating more personally and directly with them and, consequently, building greater trust that everything they are presenting is compelling and worth hearing, regardless of genre. The icing on the cake is that journalists who have spent a large part of their careers reviewing traditional classical music concerts seem ecstatic about reviewing programs that draw from various musical genres.
That said, I did a rather hasty, informal survey of some long-time concert presenters’ season offerings and found that they still divide their performances into series with the traditional titles you would expect, such as Chamber Series, Jazz Series, Orchestra Series, and the like. I smiled broadly when I saw the University of California Santa Barbara’s “Out of the Box Series”, which offered, among others, Kayhan Kalhor with Brooklyn Rider, and the Ornette Coleman Quartet. Many presenters put such groups on a “Special Events” series. What this underscores for me is that artists can be as adventurous as they like in their performances, “drawing on a variety of influences” (as you have written), but if their music can’t be easily classified and if it doesn’t fall into one of the usual categories, they may be competing with others for very limited spots. Presenters may be eager to widen the spectrum of their offerings but they don’t want to take their audience by surprise if they are expecting traditional fare. (This means that it may take a while before you see your group included on a Chamber Music Series alongside the Pacifica Quartet!). One solution that some have embraced is to list all presentations as single events and give ticket buyers the opportunity to create their own series.
It is inevitable that some concertgoers will not be interested in buying tickets for music with which they are unfamiliar. They might prefer to hear excellent performances of music they already know or which has been written by composers they recognize. To those people, genre is all-important. For the others, what matters most is the promise of a fresh, entertaining, enlightening (you choose the adjective) experience. If a group or its programming is new to a city, it is probably beneficial for the presenter and the artists (or their manager) to speak in advance about how to advertise the event and communicate directly about it to subscribers, perhaps in the artists’ own words. If they receive such a letter in the months or weeks prior to an event, they are likely to enter the concert hall already feeling a bond with the artists and anticipating how their words will come alive on stage. It might also be beneficial for the artists to offer their own program notes or to consider giving brief introductions to at least some of the works on the program, in lieu of program notes.
In the end, what matters most is the quality of the artists’ performance and their ability to communicate their excitement over the chosen program in an irresistible way. Once that happens, it ensures that audience and presenter alike will share news of their happy and stimulating experience with their friends and colleagues so that, eventually, substantial word of mouth has built up about your group and it hardly matters what genre describes you, or where you fit.
To ask a question please write Ask Edna.
© Edna Landau 2011
March 25th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Both the question and the answer contain wise counsel for us all. I identify with Lev’s frustration, and I deeply appreciate Edna’s positive assessment of circumstances that could easily be exegeted otherwise. I prefer to take Edna’s positive reading of the situation and embrace the excitement and innovation that is being summoned forth by artists, presenters and audience alike. I think Ben Cameron is right to quote Adrienne Rich, “where we are the maps are behind by years.” We are now re-drawing the maps, but this is not for the faint of heart. In the mean time, Lev, make music in all the ways you can, at every time that you can, for all the people that you can.
March 31st, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Thanks so much, Tony, for taking the time to write and for your encouragement of both my efforts and Lev’s wonderful musicmaking. We hope that other presenters will take your comments to heart.
April 4th, 2011 at 11:52 am
the recent exchange about genre was interesting to me, vis a vis presenter programs, and i wanted to weigh in. stanford lively arts (of which i am artistic and executive director)– both before i arrived here and certainly since then — has avoided the ‘series’ approach, as we’ve found that our audiences have a more independent ‘do it yourself’ investment in the cultural choices they make. while we do definitely have devoted chamber music listeners/buyers, i find people routinely cross-pollinating their selections when they subscribe. from my many years managing composers (and especially so when i worked at Boosey & Hawkes) i also, by instinct, resist ‘categorizing’ groups, but rather try to embrace the fullness of their imaginations and programs. for example, the calder quartet and gloria cheng came to our series the other day and performed works by shostakovich, rouse, and schnitke. chamber music, contemporary music — both. they’re darn great chamber musicians, and the program was dark and rigorous and deeply affecting. certainly on our website we can cut across genres and have a group, like calder, represented in several categories when searched. in our printed materials, we go chronologically, and have other ways for people to drill down to the featured contemporary work or chamber music. we’ve held this line in part because many of our artists use a wide palette for their work and — frankly — if they’re trying to break boundaries or simply just harness the tools they need (genres cast to the wind!), then we should support that by resisting choosing one category or the other. dave douglas and bill morrison created a work for us last year — was it ‘new music’, was in jazz, was it film?…yes. all of the above. i’d rather challenge ‘us’ to talk about the work. not easy…but a good discipline, i think. and thankfully we have a marketing department that flexes to the needs at hand!