© Terry Teachout on CommentaryMagazine.com April 2008

It is now widely acknowledged that classical music in America is in dire, even desperate straits. Critics, commentators, and managers have noted with alarm that concert audiences are aging steadily and that people under fifty seem disinclined either to attend classical-music events or to support the organizations that present them. Some presenters and performers have responded by seeking to change the time-honored institution of the solo recital in ways meant to make it less formal and more contemporary. Classical artists, for example, are now being advised to speak to their audiences from the stage, to play a fresher and wider-ranging mix of repertoire, even to employ up-to-date staging techniques.

Yet as anyone who keeps up with the programs in America’s major concert halls is well aware, very few artists are taking this advice. Far more often than not, classical performers continue to come before the public dressed in more or less formal attire and to play two-hour-long programs consisting of three or four groups of pieces drawn from the standard repertoire and arranged in chronological order, never speaking a word out loud save to announce their encores.

Nor is this reluctance to break with tradition a function of age. The thirty-eight-year-old Norwegian pianist Leif Ove Andsnes, one of the most highly acclaimed classical performers of his generation, played a recital last month at Carnegie Hall that could have been given in 1968, or 1928: a Bach toccata, a Schubert sonata, Grieg’s G Minor Ballade, and a group of Debussy preludes.

What few of today’s concertgoers know is that there was once a time when classical recitals were very different—less straitlaced, more improvisational, and, above all, more populist in tone. But just as the playing styles of classical performers changed with the coming of modernism, so did the way in which performers learned to present themselves to the public. These changes are the subject of an important new book by Kenneth Hamilton called After the Golden Age: Romantic Pianism and Modern Performance.1

After the Golden Age is based on extensive research into the performance practices of the pianists of the 19th and early 20th centuries, a period known to record collectors as the “golden age” of classical pianism. Hamilton, a concert pianist and teacher at the University of Birmingham in the UK, offers the fruits of his labors in the hope that they will inspire performers to break with “the fusty rituals of modern concert-giving, in which the music is served up with the superciliousness of a sneering sommelier offering overpriced wine at a too-long-established restaurant.” His style is dryly witty, his scholarship immaculate—and his conclusions challenging.

_____________



At the turn of the 20th century, a handful of classical instrumentalists began to make commercial recordings of their playing, and within a decade or two the practice had become commonplace among well-known performers. Several famous pianists born in the mid-19th century, including Josef Hofmann, Vladimir de Pachmann, Ignace Jan Paderewski, and Moriz Rosenthal, recorded fairly extensively, and many others, like Ferruccio Busoni, cut just enough 78’s to give us a reasonably clear idea of what their playing sounded like.

Taken together, these recordings leave no possible doubt that golden-age pianism bore little resemblance to most of the playing heard in concert halls today. The main differences, all of which are discussed in detail by Hamilton, are these:

• Golden-age pianists generally treated the written score as a guide to interpretation rather than a definitive set of instructions. Many of them added unwritten embellishments of various kinds to the pieces they played. Vladimir Horowitz, the last major classical pianist to play with such textual freedom, recorded versions of works like Liszt’s Hungarian Rhapsody No. 15 that deviated so dramatically from the score as to amount to substantially original compositions.2

• Even when these pianists stuck to the notes on the page, they played them with a rhythmic elasticity that is unknown today. Not only did they employ a wide and unusually flexible rubato, but many of them also indulged in what Hamilton calls “asynchronous” playing, in which the individual notes in a melodic phrase are struck slightly before or after the bass notes accompanying them. The purpose of this custom (which was popularly known as “breaking hands”) was to make the melody stand out in higher relief and give it a “singing” quality, in much the same way that a soprano might sing the melody of an aria in a freely improvisatory manner while the orchestra in the pit accompanies her with rhythmic strictness.

• Golden-age pianists put a higher premium on bravura and spontaneity than on precise execution, and as a result many of them played far more wrong notes than would now be considered acceptable by critics and audiences. Nineteenth-century listeners had other priorities. When the British composer Charles Villiers Stanford heard Johannes Brahms play his Second Piano Concerto, he observed that the composer “took it for granted that the public knew he had written the right notes, and did not worry himself over such little trifles as hitting the wrong ones. . . . hey did not disturb his hearers any more than himself.”

THE REST OF THE STORY

My two cents for what is worth:

1) I dread a future where performers come to the stage dressed as clowns, make some tired jokes like an american preacher on tv, and try to descend to the level of the uneducated masses rather than elevate them in the world of incredible musical beauty that they can create.

2) if you ask me, this awkward quest for "popularity" is always wrong; you can only survive being what you are, you are headed for disaster trying to imitate something else: classical will never be pop, and will always appeal to a minority of people.
This is not even bad; I find this "famous tenor meets pop singer" exercises frankly awful, commercial exercises with, if you ask for my highly personal opinion, a noticeable smell of prostitution.

3) The great, great charlie parker preferred to suffer hunger rather than to play for people dancing whilst he played. He knew that beauty has nothing to do with how many people hear you, and that true art and beauty never ever tries to please the masses.

4) with all due respect for Horowitz, if I spend my money for a CD I want what is written on the tin; if he makes a piece partly unrecognisable I will ask for my money back unless he has written "horowitz's variations of"...

5) I am getting very subjective here, but I live in England, formerly an Anglican country. The anglican church has "modernised" itself in the last 30 years, trying to "adequate itself to the times"; the Catholic Church on the other hand has almost not moved at all and the very shy steps she has done to "adequate", she is now walking back with great energy, has been doing for 15 years at least.

In oday's UK there are 27 millions of nominally Anglicans and 4.5 millions of Catholics and guess who has more churchgoers..... or you can look at it on a planetary level and look for the christian denomination expanding the most, the answer is, unsurprisingly, the same.....everyone can have his opinion as to why, but you get my drift, authenticity and the nerve to say what you are and to stay how you are is what brings home the bacon....

6) as many articles, this one starts from a premise which seems unsubstantiated to me. Are we sure that the classical music is in such a bad state?

The world changes: 100 years ago to hear Wagner you had to go to the opera theatre, nowadays you can buy CDs or DVD. Last time I looked, the business involved was huge.

As why many people are over fifty at concert halls, it is really not difficult to see why: if you let the pensioners have discounts (as it is in England and, massively so, in Italy) they are going to fill the place: they have the time and the value of money and the others just subsidise them; plus, they do not spend time with playstations and the like, and their taste will be, as it is normal with the age, on avergae a bit more refined...

I would be worried if the concert halls were void, but they certainly aren't in Italy or Germany or UK. Many of those who are in the concert hall today were in woodstock 40 years ago, smoking dope. In 30 years time, you will have another generation of white haired people discovering classical music with age, as it has always been and always will be.

Just my personal opinions.

I think it depends on the artist. Some have the ability to carry this off while others don't.

I happened to see author Kenneth Hamilton at Bard College in August 2006. He was a participant in the program "Liszt and His World" which consisted of performances, lectures, and panel discussions over two weekends. Although he has a kind of nerdy appearance he is a very interesting speaker. He gave a fascinating but also amusing lecture/demonstration before sitting down to perform Liszt's Hexameron. His audience enjoyed it immensely.

There is a difference between 'not being elitist and snobby' and 'prostituting oneself to popularize.'

A lot of "average Joes and Janes" never even give classical a chance, just assume they wouldn't like classical music because of its reputation of inaccessibility...that you have to be especially educated or have especially refined taste and "the rest of you" wouldn't understand or like it and should just go back to your lowbrow pursuits. This is crap. The sheer volume of "serious" music that was used in film and (gasp) cartoons belies that.

Look at John Williams' work...people LOVE that and it's (gasp) orchestral. But message is that it's "OK" for 'commoners' to like it...so they do!

You don't have to be dressed in a tuxedo to give a serious performance that is "worthy" of the music.

In fact, a lot of *performers* (and potential performers) would benefit from a less formal, fear-inspiring concert and recital arrangements. No one is suggesting that after a performance of Rach, the pianist jump up, lift his or her hands in the air and shout "Rach on!!"...but giving brief statements about the piece, the composer, or the performer's background hardly constitutes lowering the performance.

This is why I have "crossed over" to ragtime, and why I am not going back to classical piano playing. You want freedom? Go hear a ragtime concert. Most of the performers improvise freely, in the style of the music, without "selling out" or "prostituting" or any other ugly words the classical world likes to apply to performers who display even a modicum of musical creativity. They make the music their own - everyone's version sounds different. And, unlike classical performers, they talk about the music they're playing and explain it to the audience.

A lot of what I hear on the classical side of things is an outright contempt for the audience. Why do that?

I think we can thank the trend of writing music for the sake of being intellectual rather than musical, for many people skipping concerts. There's a point where an audience won't accept "music" that is designed soley for other musicians to appreciate the constructional skills of the composer, with little to no regard paid to how it sounds. Art should make life more beautiful and lately, musical composition has been anything but beautiful. Sure there are exceptions but it seems pretty rare.

Today's world is vastly different from the days when going to a concert was the only way to hear a performer or a composer's work. It's different from when piano transcriptions of symphonic works were the only way a family could hear that music (if they were lucky enough to have musicians in the home). Today we have instant gratification in almost everything. Mp3 downloads, cds, dvds of performances, television, the internet. Children are bombarded from birth with the radio, tv music, dvd players, video games, cd players. I'm glad my mother was so awfully restrictive with what I spent my time doing - I feel it gave me much time to experience music my peers would never give a chance. My girlfriend is a perfect example of today's culture: I can sit down and play sonata after sonata, prelude after prelude, fugue after fugue - it's all the same to her. When asked what she thinks of the music I play she replies "you played it before" every time and then returns to her Discovery Channel or whatever modern convenience is occupying her mind. Some people are just violently opposed to even the idea of classical music because of what others think of it and it makes it very difficult for them to give it a chance. It's seen as an elitist art, and it is, if you think about it. What average work-for-a-living person has the time, dedication and desire to spend hours a day learning music? If it wasn't for Bugs Bunny cartoons, many people would never be exposed to it..

Sounds like you are talking about interior decoration or landscaping; it has never even occurred to me that real art should make life more beautiful.

It does sound a little like interior decorating, but who appreciates art that makes them feel sick to their stomach, get headaches and generally make them feel bad about being alive? I'm sure there are some technical-minded people out there who are more than willing to apply the term "art" to anything that is produced by man, but I think they have been led astray from why great art is so uplifting to mankind. Computerized Dot patterns being used as the basis for a musical piece, trying something new for the sake of new and not for it's musical sake, never repeating something twice musically just because you feel it's different, twanging strings for the sake of it with no feeling for sound is, in my opinion, not artistic and betrays a lack of musical talent. Many will disagree with me, I'm sure.

Well, to give you a better idea of where I'm coming from - I find some Beethoven to be pretty disturbing and not very pretty, but I still love it. There's some Schubert and Brahms that is so profoundly depressing that I have to be careful about listening to it. Etc. etc.

Really? I've always seen you as a very comfortable baby boomer with all the answers.

Guess not. There's a lot about Schubert that scares the s**t out of me. (Tomasino, we could talk?) My apologies to all involved, I rehearsed a singer a few years ago in Winterreise... I was not going to be the pianist in performance, I was simply the chap that came to his home. I basically did the dirty work for less £ than the "official" accompanist.

But you know something? When I started studying those poems, I began to have nightmares. I'll never, ever forget that. Even now it frightens me to talk about it.

So with all due respect, when I mention certain things about the slow movement of the D959, well I've been there...

Originally posted by Mattardo
Me.

It seems never have occurred to most modern artists either. But I don't think there is much doubt that it was the universal opinion in all the arts before the late 19th century (modulo 18th century quibbles over the distinction between 'beauty' and 'sublimity'). (And why are interior decorating and landscaping not 'real art'?)

Best wishes,
Matthew

I'm not knowledgeable enough about the history of the philosophy of beauty to talk about this in any educated way, but in the visual arts at least, it has seemed to me that there have always been works of art that weren't "beautiful" in the conventional sense, and didn't seem intended to make life more beautiful. Look at Franz Hals, for instance, and it seems that he was often after some sort of truth, and sometimes rather ugly truth, rather than beauty - at least to my uneducated way of seeing it. And there is a very long history of artistic representations of the crucifixion of Jesus which often are pretty horrifying, rather than beautiful. Music isn't that kind of direct representation of reality, and because it isn't, it is more difficult to characterize, but I'm not so sure that even Baroque composers were always engaged in aural beautification efforts.

Of course it's possible for interior decoration or landscaping to be real art (along with many other disciplines), but I would be surprised if you didn't understand the sense in which I mentioned them. And they are not usually included in listings of the "fine arts", I don't think.

That's impressive and I think it's wonderful. I also have to work for a living in a profession that has nothing to do with music. But you must admit it takes a special person to tackle such a feat when the world is full of so many distractions.

Very good points from everyone. Art is very hard to categorize and pin down in terms of beauty: everyone has a different view of what makes something beautiful. I suppose part of my definition of art comes from my own views on music. I believe music should make life better and there's at least one philospher that agrees with me (Nietszche - "God gave us music so that we, first and foremost, will be guided upward by it. All qualities are united in music: it can lift us up, it can be capricious, it can cheer us up and delight us, nay, with its soft, melancholy tunes, it can even break the resistance of the toughest character. Its main purpose, however, is to lead our thoughts upward, so that it elevates us, even deeply moves us. ..."). Depressing, hateful music can still be beautiful, I think. Look at the middle movement of the 4th piano concerto of Beethoven - very depressing BUT very beautiful. It can make our lives better through empathy - "oh I've felt like that - I'm not alone". There are many examples like this, but I find it difficult to apply the same example to many modern composers. Now if we listen to Beethoven's 2nd movement (in that concerto) and then try to slit our throats because of the influence of that piece, there's something wrong going on...

I don't know - there's so many ways of viewing music and art it's hard to definately say what it should be. The modern age has blurred our appreciation of it, I think. It's hard to go to a concert and see someone destroy everything we know about the piano just for the sake of "standing out" from the crowd. It would be different if sounded good, but it usually does not: it must be appreciated from an intellectual level only. Then what's the point? If Stalin were here - he'd know what to do! I kid, I kid.

I found the article very interesting and thought provoking. It really did get me thinking. But it is true that many of these pianist ideals are still deeply involved with jazz as far as improvising and mingling with the audience. The pianist James Booker (jazz) recorded many of the same things twice but nearly none of them sound the same. One piece he performed is called Classified and the shortest version i have is about a minute in length with the longest being about 10 minutes. Another one is about 9 minutes or so but actually only performs the lyrics for about 1 while in the rest of the track he's talking the entire time while playing the theme on the piano. He's first talks about the title of the song and social issues relevant to the time period. Additionally, he frequently slightly modifies the lyrics in performances much like Sinatra did in his tunes. But I also admit that there is a growing number of jazz artist who are starting to hold performances in the standard classical demeanor and I dont think its necessarily good.

Great article - thanks for posting it.

There is absolutely no doubt that widespread public interest for 'traditional' performances of classical music has declined. The same happened in other branches of the arts, such as classical ballet. Neither specialist classical orchestras nor ballet and opera seem to be able to stand on their own feet without hefty subsidies to keep them afloat.

This is not really surprising. It's perhaps more surprising that these 'minority interests' still receive such patronage. It's not uncommon to hear complaints of favouritism towards certain 'elitist' minority interests at the expense of other applicants for funding. Whilst I'm a big fan of the outcome of subsidised Classical music and Opera, I have to concede that people who aren't enthusiasts do have a point.

However, I see no reason to expect that any of these branches of the arts will die out altogether, or need to be completely replaced by 'modern' versions. What usually happens is that the balance shifts.

After the pianoforte was fully developed it more or less replaced the clavier, harpsichord, etc as the predominant instrument in its class. But it didn't stop audiences wishing to hear performances on the older instruments. Indeed, they are still being built today, and are still used in recitals. Just not on the scale that they once enjoyed.

Classical music (and even the acoustic pianoforte itself) are not currently at a stage where they are in danger of losing some kind of notional number 1 spot in popularity - that already happened some years ago. Let's at least be honest about that. For the great majority of the public the word "Concert" does not mean a bunch of people in formal dress playing a repertoire that's centuries old on acoustic instruments that date back even further. "Concert" to most people now means rock-n-roll and the like on mostly electrically amplified instruments. To them, "Classic" means going back as far as the 50's or 60's - 1960 not 1760 or even 1860.

I for one certainly hope that we can hear freer performances of what I think of as 'classical' music, and a renaissance of the style outlined in the article. I think that it would be a great way to renew interest. I just don't believe that it needs to be seen as a replacement, or in a negative or competitive light.

I can enjoy a 'punk' version of La Boheme just as much as a traditional staging. I can appreciate a brand new modern dance troupe without feeling that it has to replace an 'old favourite' version of Swan Lake for instance. I can have a great time at a rock concert (and do) without needing to abandon my love of the sight and sound of a full symphony orchestra in traditional garb doing the zillionth standard version of a much loved piece.

The fact is that interest in various musical genres and performance styles has always waxed and waned, and will continue to do so. If we are keen enough on something in particular then it's up to us to actively work to keep it alive. That can be anything from a hands-on role to belonging to a "Friends Of The..." style group. It might perhaps involve buying subscriptions to concert series, giving subs as gifts, and generally helping to spread and maintain enthusiasm and interest. But if it means continuing in the form of a smaller band of dedicated enthusiasts, rather than just as audience at big 'laid on' shows, then so be it.


Cheers,

Chris

People seem to make a big deal about performers speaking to the audience. I think it's missing the point. Some people are good at public speaking. Some people are not so good at public speaking. Some people are very very good at playing the piano. I go to a piano recital to hear someone play the piano.

I also want the other people in the room to be listening to the music--not fidgeting, eating, sending text messages...a formal concert atmosphere means means that people take it a little more seriously, and it's more likely to feel like a special event rather than like listening to the radio at home.

Did Rubinstein, Horowitz, Richter have conversations with their audiences at every recital?

I agree that there's a lot that could be changed about the modern recital. I'd like to hear more contemporary repertoire (Ligeti, Liebermann, etc) and freer approaches to mainstream repertoire. But I'm not interested in how people speak or how they dress; I'm there for the music.

For the record, I'm 35 years old and have been enjoying classical concerts since I was 15.

Bravo to Kenneth Hamilton, I couldn't agree with him more! In fact, the thrust of my approach to piano technique is to reconstitute that bravura approach to playing in modern technique. My supposition: most pianists today don't play with the panache, sonority and freedom of the old greats because they CAN'T. We have lost important knowledge about the HOW of great technique. Physical limitation has played a large part in creating the conservative, bland aesthetic that has become the norm.

There exists a way of using the hand, arm and body at the piano that changes all this. I call it 'skeletality,', where we don't follow the finger action school and divorce the vigorous action of the fingers from the supple involvement of the arm, nor do we emasculate our fingers with the over-relaxation that is so often the inadvertent result of following the arm weight school. Instead we discover how correct skeletal alignment transfers power to the keyboard not through muscle exertion but by "bone transmission." When you do this, a strange phenomenon occurs: getting back to one's skeleton gets one back to one's Self in an interesting way. There's a feeling that it is more You playing the piano; not only do you have more control over what you do but there's a different qualityof control.

More on this at www.craftofpiano.com.

Notice he says BEFORE or after the bass notes. This is a complicated science far more evolved than what we have come to accept as "breaking the hands": the monotonous and mindless placing of the melodic note constantly just a little after the bass - and it always seems to be exactly the same irritating distance after! For instance, placing a melodic note just a little before the bass instead of after, affords you a longer "singing time" on that note before you have to move on - it's one simple way of gaining in plasticity of phrasing. When I heard Horowitz live I noticed he was doing it, and was surprised that more pianists and teachers hadn't picked up on it - it was obviously one of his most effective "tools."

I could rant on and on but will post this much for starters. Thanks so much to Terry Teachout for drawing this valuable book to our attention!

Alan Fraser
www.alanfraser.net
www.craftofpiano.com
www.pianotechnique.net
Craft of Piano: the synthesis of mind, body and spirit in sound...

This explains why Gabriela Montero almost left the music world. She had a chat with Martha Angerich who convinced her to carry on (See the 60 Minutes story of Gabriela on YouTube).

I like her style of improvisation which I find unique. Besides, it adds joy to playing the piano! :3hearts:

- Mark

originally posted by Alexander Hanysz:
Amen to that

Since the article used Leif Ove Andsnes as an example I'd just like to give the word to him
(from a recent interview with SFIST) :

SFIST: Do audiences react differently if you have different outfits? Or if you do more expressive/emphatic gestures?
L-O. Andsnes: Yes, I am sure audiences react differently to lots of tricks. But ultimately I am there to serve the music, and I must be as sincere as possible towards the composer, the piece and the audience.

What else do you want ?

Ragnhild

"Many will disagree with me, I'm sure".

I certainly don't.

Beauty comes in many flavours, but what most people react to is the beauty.

Mahler's "kindertotenlieder" are certainly not very cheerful, but their beauty is undeniable to most listeners and if we think of beethoven and schubert, melancholy if what makes a good part of their charm even today.

In this sense, Mahler makes your life more beautiful even when he makes you sad, because you recognise the beauty in the sadness.

That there should be a form of art whatsoever that is not expression of beauty is new to me, but I now begin to understand why people inflicts themselves what they call "modern art"...

-----------------------------------------------

On the "explanations" I'd say that if one loves music one will end up reading some books or gathering information on the matter oneself.

It is not for the performer to be the teacher of the listener about what he is playing (though I would not be upset if he gave some information), but it is for the listener to do whatever he feels necessary to appreciate the music as he wishes.

The performer will, on the other hand and literally speaking, "let the music speak".

Last Thursday night we were in New York and went to Carnegie Hall and heard Leif Ove Andsnes. He played perfectly, as the opening post talked about. ( It was very formal but He did dress in business casual ). He never spoke and the audience had to applaud him for 4 returns to the stage before he played an encore. It did feel to me as so very formal and like he had to be pleaded with to bless us with an encore.

Then two nights later, last Saturday, we went to our local cities symphony performance. The symphony played as backup to a rock band which was imitating the Beatles. The concert was attended better than most of the local symphony concerts, the band acted and talked like the Beatles, and we enjoyed it very much.

Last month we went to a concert at Bass Performance Hall of Andre Watts. He had been sick when the concert was scheduled, so he had a make up date he played a different concert program than was in the program book. So he took the time to verbally introduce and explain each piece he played. It was most enjoyable and the audience even applauded him for giving the explanations. It was most enjoyable to feel closer and more personal with Andre Watts as he was more like our friend teaching and entertaining us.

Today I received in the mail the book, Piano Roles: A New History of the Piano[/b] It has chapters which support the history which Terry Teachout referees to, The book refers to the current piano recital style as "conservatory model" instead to the "shows" which were the norm for all the great pianists of the 19th century. I recommend this scholarly book to any who want to really think about this topic. It is a book written by 16 scholars about the piano and its history and culture. It is also very, very well illustrated.

It has always seemed odd to me that pianists are "suppose" to not talk to their audience. Maybe this can change. I would like it better.