Classical music is essentially a by-product of the European patronage system. The ‘public’ was those that were schooled in its intricacies and were of sufficient financial standing to enjoy and partake in its privileges.

As you say, I do believe the future of new music is not in classical music audiences, but in young people. But on the whole, young people don’t want to hear classical music (and its derivatives) anymore.

Some things to consider: 1. If your target audence is used to listen to the three B’s (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms), then why would they be interested in hardcore new music anyway, unless it is similiar to what they are used to?

1. Popularising a classical concert as “an edgy new concept in music events” or otherwise is a risky business. Traditional classical music was and never will be mainstream, and it is difficult to make classical music into something that it is not. Pandering to the public results in softcore to hardcore classical listeners, and kitsch to those with no idea.

2. Yes, I do believe the concert hall is unattractive to (most) young people. It’s stuffy, you have to be quiet, and it often lacks clever programming choices.

3. To Paul Stanhope: Webern, Stockhausen, Stravinsky and Varese were hardcore over 60 years ago.

4. And finally, to quote Leonard Bernstein, “There are no good pieces, only bad performances..” I am not trying to be mean, but more to highlight that highly committed new music performances are invaluable to the success of new music.

Why not get more new music concerts where the people are, and in the ‘funky venues’? Where are the distorted guitars?

Re. the emotional creativity angle, like yourself I do wonder what composers are thinking when they write their music. But in fact it’s the aspect of projecting one’s own personality into the music which separates one composer from another these days. There is no longer a single common tradition into which composers delve - in Australia at least we live in a very pluralistic society and it’s only to be expected that music composition would similarly exist.

Personally I’m not too sure that each composer doesn’t put their own “emotional creativity” into their music. It’s arrogant and purely speculative for us to say they wouldn’t. Some composers are better than it than others… or rather, the musical gestures generated by a composer may or may not align with that of an audience.

Some are of the opinion that this purpose should be the broadening of classical music’s boundaries to include pop music and other art forms. I disagree. I think that the classical tradition–set down by generations of artists before us–has the power to attract the ears of the modern generation. The problem, as I see it, is that musicians have forgotten the art of emotional creativity–people have gotten into the habit of projecting their own personalities onto the music. If relearned, this art could enliven the tradition already laid down and turn it into something worthy of an adolescent’s attention.

I liked a lot of the points you made. Sometimes when orchestras attempt at “repackaging” their shows to appeal to younger audiences they get critisized or accused of “dumbing down” the artform. I understand their concerns, but I think doing that allows for more people to get a taste of what a concert is like. And if there really is going to be a huge decline in audiences, then bringing in new fans in any way would be worth it.

Another event was when I conducted Vokál for a Musica Viva “Menage” concert which Matthew mentions. Here a young, funky audience of about 200 turned up to Trackdown Studios to hear a concert of choral music (talk about nerdy!!) stretching back to the C11th through to music composed only a few years ago. This concert will be broadcast on ABC Classic FM in December, so watch out for it!

I think in both these instances (and I hope I’m not being unduly immodest here), a combination of artistic vibrancy and a re-thinking of the concert mould had interesting results.

Thanks for your article, Matthew.

Paul Stanhope