Many (music) students spend many many hours practising, hoping to achieve an excellence good enough for fame. At face value, a logical approach one would say. Looking around these days, on this supposedly excellence in quality, one really wonders, how certain people ever got there. Mostly as a result of clever marketing, ... just marketing.
Some years ago, I was having similar discussions on marketing of music. Perhaps, most of my readers are familiar with e.g. André Rieu. A Dutch violinist, who for several years travels around the world with his orchestra, performing Johann Strauß style concerts for huge crowds, with sugar sweet entourage costumes and you name it. His popularity is undisputed. At least the crowds are there, his numerous fans are enthusiastic. But is this really quality, which enjoys so much popularity. we tend to mistake that being successful is therefore being quality-wise good. Giving a show all the effective lights, sound-equipment (wonder why Maestro Rieu is not able to perform 'unplugged'), a romantic costume-closet and well-directed top of the notch camera-work is a good ingredient for popularity. Popularity of the masses.
Admittedly, André Rieu has a very good sense for business. Good PR. Good commerce. His income is at least six or seven figures. Nevertheless, his performances in the artistic sense and quality excellence is highly debatable. In addition, an often heard argument that his "commercial approach" has introduced many people to classical music. I highly doubt, that the crowds who have visited his spectacles or buying his CDs are suddenly fervent listeners of Haydn, Händel or Shostakovich. Like André Rieu, there are also many others.
We need to clearly see a divide between what is good marketing and what is quality-wise admissable in music performance. Trying to sell (more) classical music is definitively a good objective; to make it pallatable for broader masses (therefore more profitable) is a dangerous area, which should be dealt with very carefully else we create just big Kitsch, keeping the artistic value of music intact. Here, not everything is automatically acceptable. Therefore: Fame is not necessarily equal to quality.
MS
Some years ago, I was having similar discussions on marketing of music. Perhaps, most of my readers are familiar with e.g. André Rieu. A Dutch violinist, who for several years travels around the world with his orchestra, performing Johann Strauß style concerts for huge crowds, with sugar sweet entourage costumes and you name it. His popularity is undisputed. At least the crowds are there, his numerous fans are enthusiastic. But is this really quality, which enjoys so much popularity. we tend to mistake that being successful is therefore being quality-wise good. Giving a show all the effective lights, sound-equipment (wonder why Maestro Rieu is not able to perform 'unplugged'), a romantic costume-closet and well-directed top of the notch camera-work is a good ingredient for popularity. Popularity of the masses.
Admittedly, André Rieu has a very good sense for business. Good PR. Good commerce. His income is at least six or seven figures. Nevertheless, his performances in the artistic sense and quality excellence is highly debatable. In addition, an often heard argument that his "commercial approach" has introduced many people to classical music. I highly doubt, that the crowds who have visited his spectacles or buying his CDs are suddenly fervent listeners of Haydn, Händel or Shostakovich. Like André Rieu, there are also many others.
We need to clearly see a divide between what is good marketing and what is quality-wise admissable in music performance. Trying to sell (more) classical music is definitively a good objective; to make it pallatable for broader masses (therefore more profitable) is a dangerous area, which should be dealt with very carefully else we create just big Kitsch, keeping the artistic value of music intact. Here, not everything is automatically acceptable. Therefore: Fame is not necessarily equal to quality.
MS
5 comments:
I always wonder about those who feel it is only they who can say what is "Quality" or who is knowledgeable regarding Classical Music.
I myself was trained on Piano from the age of 5. I have always enjoyed Classical Music. I also enjoy André Rieu. Your presumption that one sees Andre and only then may or may not seek further information on classical music is wrong. Your error started at the beginning.
Quality carries a different meaning to each person. You are equating quality to your personal likes and dislikes. Therefore you fail to find what is quality to others. Again, a failure with your premise at the start.
Born in Maastricht, in the Netherlands, the 58-year-old Rieu grew up in a family of musicians, including his father, who was the conductor of a local orchestra and who encouraged his large family to attend his concerts on a weekly basis. André began his training on the violin at the age of five, eventually studying at the Conservatoire Royal in Liège and the Conservatorium Maastricht, where his teachers included Jo Juda and Herman Krebbers. From 1974 to 1977, he attended the conservatoire in Brussels, where he studied under André Gertler. Andre's teachers are amongst his supporters. He won Premier Prix at Music College and though humble regarding his playing skills, he could indeed play as your term says: "unplugged". Many of us fans have been treated to such moments.
To me, music is about choice. Thankfully I grew up in a musical household where one could listen to any and all music without criticism from those so pompous they can't see the song for they are too busy criticizing the notes.
Rabid Fans? You bet'cha!
Nice to everyone, YES. You are always welcome to join us.
www.AndreRieuFans.com
dear andrerieufans,
I am afraid, you mistake quality with taste. As a professional musician myself, I think, I have enough tools to objectively see the difference between the two.
What you like - or be it thousand of fans with you - is not a measure for quality. Furthermore, I do know Mr Rieu as well (but thank you for the biography) and seen several of his performances.
Another question would then perhaps be; why are none of the works, which André Rieu performs, almost never played according to the original scores of the composers?
MS
PS - It was not my intention at all to take away your enjoyment.
MS
Still it is hard to tell what is quality in music. I, for example, always wonder what's so special about Mozart? I really like some of his works but in my eyes he rather captivates by fame (in a way he was the first popstar in music history) than from quality. But I guess most musicians would put this statement down to my bad taste. :-)
kulturblogger,
I tend to agree (but maybe Mozart was not the very first popstar at all... hard to tell from back here in the 21st century). Yet, you point at quality of a composer or his written music rather than the quality of performing (or his music). Nevertheless, good point!
Nice thoughts. They seem especially pertinent to me, as I am practicing to make the sub-list for the local Philharmonic right now. Regarding Rieu, Mr. Denk has written a nice article, too:
http://jeremydenk.net/blog/2008/12/05/good-for-you/.
Judging from the comments on his site, there seem to be few Rieu fans reading the blogs of concert pianists.
Post a Comment