I have had some interesting conversations this weekend with old friends about music, marketability, and solutions to an art that seems to be “dying” within our culture. Not only does the American government seem to pick and choose how it grants money to the arts, but the economic situation makes it hard for any musician to perfect their craft while making a living solely on the arts. This begs the question: should musicians, artists, dancers, and other fine artists live solely off of their craft? Of course, for us musicians, we probably have a similar answer: “sure, but how?”
As some background to this conversation, I’d like to include a prelude about how the music market is set up. I’m reading a very interesting book by David T. Gordon entitled Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns. The book itself is very interesting and points to some reasons why contemporaneity and the need for inclusion of the pop music idiom within Christian worship services is actually changing the face of how the general population views Christian sacred music. This push for the pop idiom also affects those works that are specified as sacred within the sphere of Western Classical music and how the population views the works. With all of that aside, Gordon references another book within his essay by Ken Myers entitled All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes. Gordon summarizes Myers’ book premise by reporting how all music is categorized in three spheres: High/Classical music, Folk music, Pop music. Gordon makes an excellent observation in saying that High/Classical art is not composed for the wide masses of the population to understand, but is still multigenerational, transcendental, and takes much education and practice to not only perform the music but listen to it as well. Gordon continues to say that Folk music has similar traits to High/Classical art, but divides less of the population as it speaks to its own idiomatic culture. These idiomatic and cultural attributes are usually understood to be different from each other across the globe. For example, West African art and music is understood to be vastly different than the music of Classical Vienna in the 18th-19th Centuries. Musical form within Folk music is, usually, completely understood within the context of the culture that performs its music. However, another culture’s music is not always understood when cross-referencing other cultures’ idiomatic art and music. Suffice to say, Folk art and music gives cultural identity. With that said, these two realms (High/Classical art and Folk art) still automatically marginalize much of the music-listening population. Why? This is because most of the population listens to – you guessed it – Pop music. As Gordon points out, Pop is a purposeful counteraction to High/Classical art and Folk art. It is purposefully not multigenerational, nor is it transcendental, nor does it exclusively speak to a certain camp of people to be educated in order to listen to it. Rather, Pop music speaks to the vast mass of people. The Pop music market advertises to the lowest-common-denominator, but in a smart way: it target-markets to those that want or feel-the-need for in-the-moment music with extreme ease of accessibility. The Pop music market also makes sure that all of their music is accessible – easy to listen to, no education required, etc – to the masses. I feel that this is to be said about Gordon’s summary in light of the discussion ahead: not only is the music categorized in these three camps, but the musicians that perform this music continually lose their identities as musicians by trying to combine these camps. I’m fairly certain that contemporary musicians fall into one, two, or all three of these musical categories, which causes musicians to either marginalize themselves into one sphere – or the population marginalizes them into one sphere due to contractual target-marketing – or stretch themselves thin studying two or all three of the musical categories to try to be an “effective” musician. So how do musicians win in a model that’s set up like this? How do we earn a living?
The Ineffectiveness of Merging Musical Models
It seems that High/Classical music has a certain model of effectiveness, Folk music has a similar but different model of effectiveness than the High/Classical model, and the Pop music model disregards the High/Classical and Folk music models in order to be effective. With that stated, my observations of the High/Classical culture within the past few years has yielded interesting results. The need to sell more tickets, create a larger fan-base, and the blatant targeting of a younger audience leads me to believe that the High/Classical camp is attempting to become something it simply cannot become: the Pop music model. I’d like to remind readers that High/Classical music is a model in which its music is more inaccessible, transcendental, and mentally taxing than the Pop music idiom. In High/Classical music’s merge with Pop music, it seems many traits that belong exclusively to High/Classical music have been sacrificed. Classics – meaning historical musics that are “popular” amongst Classical music listeners – are more-frequently performed than commissions or newer pieces – an interesting move away from the historical High/Classical model. Let’s think on the flip side of the coin for a moment: if Pop music acted this way, it would seem normal. In regards to the in-the-moment individual who wants to listen to “accessible” music, listening to classics would seem perfectly normal. If that same individual went to a Chicago concert and only heard them play their newer songs like Stone of Sisyphus and Ma-Jong but never heard the classics such as 25 or 6 to 4 and Beginnings, they’d be sorely disappointed – being a huge Chicago fan, I know I would be. However, somehow the members of the High/Classical camp feel that this Pop music model will be successful because the Pop music model, in and of itself, is successful. So then the value of music when compared to the dollar becomes the question. Obviously, the pop music model target-markets and shakes the listening population for every dollar they have. In my observations, the radical reshaping of the High/Classical music administration almost conforms to this target-market model. However, in trying to conform to the Pop music model, the music, itself, is sidelined. The music becomes a second thought to trying to reach a wider audience, which then attempts to redefine the music’s purpose to an audience that historically is defined as more “inaccessible” than pop music. This is where the High/Classical art will fail the most when attempting to conform to a Pop music model. A hybrid model such as this will only squash the transcendental nature of High/Classical art in to merely a classic wanting to be heard in the moment by audiences; what was virtually inaccessible and transcendental magically becomes accessible in a horrible way. Now, all artistic and intuitive value within that piece is diminished to merely an at-the-surface hearing or, at least, is marketed that way. Also, if this model is conformed forcefully, no one will take High/Classical music seriously as an art, even to the younger audience that they target. Since most of the younger generation listens to more Pop music than Classical, assuredly they will grow to see that the traces of the Pop music model in the Classical music sphere make the music virtually expendable. Orchestras would be an in-the-moment jukebox, basing concert seasons on nothing more than statistical reports on what sells the most tickets. This was a very heartbreaking revelation to me as I am a lover of old and new Classical music. The very art that has a strong-rooted identity is getting lost in the abyss of unsuccessfully attempting to merge models – and getting lost very quickly, at that.
A Contemporary Musician’s Marketability
How should an individual musician performing within one, two, or all three of these camps market themselves? I believe, first, that they should be aware of these model-merging attempts. In my opinion, Classical musicians should learn to understand newer pieces and perform newer pieces. Folk musicians should specifically speak to the culture it is derivative of and be appreciated by those musicians outside who don’t understand it. Pop music is interesting because the model is so relatively new, but as the model progresses, Pop musicians, specifically sidemen, should be aware of Pop music’s intense hunger for money. Blurring these models together will only create turmoil in the three camps’ identities, as well as the performing musician’s identity. Studying and mastering these three markets will open up new worlds of freedom.
In order to make a living in music, a musician has to study all of these categories, how they’re morphing, and how we can make them better so that our actions don’t do the music an injustice. This means musicians are to be proficient in all styles in order to be marketable and should be able to teach the models and styles of each category. This is a “it is what it is supposed to be” model. In each given situation, ask how is this music presented to the public. Is it intelligent or easy to understand? Has it been performed numerous times before now as a classic, or is it a new piece that attempts to follow a mode of transcendentalism? Then answer “to whom or how is this music being marketed?” You’ll quickly find what model the music falls under.
Last Thoughts
I’m a fan of the proverb “there’s nothing new under the sun.” I’m sure these models have been merged before and I’m sure they were merged quite skillfully. However, I feel we should never let the music suffer an injustice due to lack of funding or want for a target audience. The audience is already defined through the music that is heard. Any tampering with that can yield strange results. If an Icelandic folk musician sat in the audience of a Classical concert, he will hear things within a Strauss waltz that he understands, but only has the ability to articulate what he hears with his own folk music terms. Similarly, if J.S. Bach sat in the crowd of a Nine Inch Nails concert, he could only articulate what he hears in his own terms and nothing more. Granted there are historical separations in how one perceives and hears music, but to think that everyone hears and articulates the power of music in the same way is a false assumption. So what am I getting at in all of this rambling, with all of the model-merging, marketing, and jabber about how musicians should react? I propose that contemporary musicians need hear music on their own terms and act upon their convictions within the model they play. Doing this will bring back the sense of healthy and needed exclusivity within the three models, yet will still make the music available to the public. It has potential to give the transcendental, multigenerational nature back to Classical music, tighten the communal nature of Folk music, and keep Pop music far away from the High/Classical and Folk models. I believe this to be entrepreneurial for our time, but the risks involved are great, especially to those wanting to make a living in music and/or provide for their families this way. The fact is, we should use our brains to the best of our ability and do what’s necessary for music, in and of itself, to remain the priority.
Please share your thoughts and join this discussion! Comment on this article below. I’d love to hear some thoughts about this subject.
The Music On The Wall 