“古典音樂在美國已經死了。”這些話響起了整個上週互聯網; 其源，板岩文章寫標記Vanhoenacker，配有插圖的墓碑和灰白的陳詞濫調在演唱胖女人的。這是什麼，我們都沒有看過，但最新的訃告的時機特別奇怪。是的，紐約市歌劇院折疊去年秋天。但是，在石板一塊出現前一周，明尼蘇達樂團從15個月的停擺危機的出現，出版後的第二天，紐約愛樂樂團和西雅圖交響樂團宣布精力充沛2014-15賽季。那麼是什麼導致發病率的這一最新痙攣？以及為什麼被美國媒體如此迷戀古典音樂的所謂即將消亡？
As the musicologist and pianist Charles Rosen so eloquently put it, “The death of classical music is perhaps its oldest continuing tradition.” To place that tradition in context, consider the infographic below. Design credit goes to Andy Doe, a consultant in the classical recording industry and the author of the blog Proper Discord. Doe has already addressed some of the factual and conceptual errors committed by Vanhoenacker. This timeline shows just how long the “crisis” in classical music has lasted, and just how superfluous it is to declare 2014 the year the art form kicked the bucket.
There is a creepy bloodlust to the doom-mongering of classical music, as though an autopsy were being conducted on a still-breathing body. What if each commentator decided, instead, to Google “young composer” or “new chamber ensemble” and write a compelling profile of a discovery? Why not interview members of the local orchestra and find out how real people make careers in a purportedly comatose industry? Why not talk to those graying audience members—contempt toward the elderly is a common theme in death-of -classical-music articles—and find out how their history of listening has improved their lives? Statistics provide firm answers, but not necessarily to the right questions. If the stakes are as high as the life and death of an art form, why not explore the question of why it might be the case by looking at the actual, lived experiences of those involved?
Instead, classical-music concern-trolls toss poorly aimed barbs. Critics blame the business (“It's a charity case!” “Ticket sales will never account for all of its costs!”) and the culture (“Why all the abstruse rules of conduct?” “Why can't I wear shorts?”) without having a clear grasp on either. There seems to be a deeper savagery at work, one that maniacally insists that a functioning industry reflect on itself, as though orchestra managers and opera intendants were oblivious to their own problems. “Listen to me!” the pundit demands, shaking classical music by its shoulders. “I have the stats. You're dead .”
What supports these jeremiads is the implicit idea that classical music is an aberration in the United States, something to be regarded with suspicion. (Vanhoenacker writes of “classical trappings … that never sit quite right in the homeland of popular culture,” as if popular culture were an exclusively American affair.) But, like plenty of other great things in the US, classical music has endured because it has been made American. For more than a century, agitators for Beethoven and Brahms helped secure it an increasing stake on American soil. These were educators and musicians who carried what the historian Joseph Horowitz calls “moral fire,” who genuinely believed that great music made people better. The moral angle is bust—it's unjust and untrue to claim that classical music is inherently better than any other kind of music—but a fire still burns. Talk to anyone who performs, composes, promotes, or organizes anything in this field and the blaze is palpable. It is not a profession for the apathetic.
It's also not an industry full of naïve devotees without business acumen. Remember, this is a nonprofit enterprise that has endured from the era of church and court, through the days of aristocratic patronage, only to arrive in the United States and convince wealthy industrialists and a democratic government that it was worth funding. The recent economic failures of individual institutions do not mean that the whole system is broken.
Vanhoenacker cites scenes from the sitcom “Modern Family” to demonstrate classical music's recent split from popular culture. Such moments of mockery go back at least as far the Marx Brothers' ”A Night at the Opera.” Classical music was for pretentious snobs in 1935 , according to the movies; classical music is for pretentious snobs in 2014, according to television. In between, Americans built Lincoln Center and the Walt Disney Concert Hall; penned “Appalachian Spring,” “4'33″,” and “Music for Eighteen Musicians”; and sold millions of classical records.
Granted, classical music has lost the central position it held in American culture in the mid-twentieth century, when the NBC Symphony Orchestra blared through home radios and Presidents regularly shook hands with conductors on television. But let's remember that the art's exalted status was as much the result of global politics as of middle-class tastes. America, an ascendant superpower with its own dark history of oppression, found classical music a useful tool for convincing the world of its cultural prowess. Today, we no longer require classical music to flex soft power. Until the US again feels the need to use high art to prove itself to the world, it's unlikely that a New York Philharmonic broadcast will interrupt the ten o'clock news. But Time covers and “Modern Family” should not be the benchmark for success in the wide expanse of the American cultural landscape.
To play the numbers game briefly: Vanhoenacker professes to be alarmed that classical recording presently constitutes only 2.8 per cent of the market. A cursory glance at industry reports would show that the market share has hovered around three per cent since the mid-nineteen-eighties . The stability of that share might actually be a sign of health. Yes, it's a niche market, but so is most music in our polyglot society—not reigning supreme is not the same as ceasing to exist.
The doomsayers also like to cherry-pick a few crisis-ridden institutions and use them to generalize about the art form itself. Classical music is the sum of all its institutions, performers, and listeners, plus a thousand-year-old cultural lineage; it can't be snuffed out through any combination of bankrupt orchestras and mediocre album sales. What's most remarkable, perhaps, is that the industry remains relatively vibrant in the face of an American media culture that appears so determined to marginalize it. The classical- music declinists rarely consider the value in having a few of the greatest orchestras in the world located in America, the so-called homeland of pop culture. Or the civic pride that the citizens of Chicago and Minnesota take in their symphonies. Or the lifelong bonds forged between musicians and their audience. Or the uncanny thrill of hearing Mahler live, an experience like no other.
American classical music launched in earnest on Christmas Day of 1815. The Boston Handel and Haydn Society—comprised of middle-class music lovers—unveiled excerpts from European oratorios, and concluded with a rousing “Hallelujah” chorus. “There is nothing to compare with it; it is the wonder of the nation,” proclaimed one critic. Next year, the Society will celebrate its two-hundredth anniversary. How many other American phenomena have endured for two centuries? Those are not the sounds of death throes you hear; they are a steady heartbeat.
Photograph: Hiroyuki Ito/Getty
譯文：
“古典音樂在美國已經死了。”這些話在上週充斥了整個互聯網。《板岩》文章的作者：Vanhoenacker，配有插圖的墓碑和歌唱胖女人的蒼老的陳詞濫調。這沒什麼，我們以前都讀過，但是最新的訃告的時機很特別。是的，紐約市歌劇院在去年秋天剛剛破產。但是，在《板岩》出現前一個星期，明尼蘇達樂團剛剛解除持續15個月的停工危機，消息出版後的第二天，紐約愛樂樂團和西雅圖交響樂團宣布了精彩紛呈的2014-15演出季。那麼是什麼導致的這一最新論調爆發？而為什麼美國媒體如此迷戀於古典音樂即將消亡的報導？
像音樂學家和鋼琴家查爾斯·羅森雄辯所說的那樣，“古典音樂的死亡也許是最古老的持續的傳統。”為了把這一傳統的背景下，考慮下面的信息圖表。設計歸功於安迪·多伊，在古典唱片業的顧問和博客適當不和諧的作者。美國能源部已經解決了一些犯下Vanhoenacker的事實和觀念上的誤區。下面的時間表顯示了古典音樂的“危機”已經持續了多麼長的時間，而在2014年重提此話題是多麼的多餘。
有一種令人毛骨悚然的殺戮欲的厄運散播古典音樂，就好像驗屍正在上仍有呼吸的身體進行的。如果每個評論員決定，而是以穀歌“的年輕作曲家”或“新的室內樂團”，並寫了發現一個引人注目的個人資料？為什麼不採訪當地的樂團成員，並找出人們如何真正做事業的據稱是昏迷的行業呢？為什麼不談談那些花白的觀眾，蔑視老人在死亡的古典音樂的文章，並了解如何傾聽他們的歷史有所改善他們的生活一個共同的主題？統計數據提供了堅定的答案，但不一定正確的問題。如果賭注之高作為一種藝術形式的生死，為什麼不探討為什麼它可能是通過觀察實際情況的問題，這些生活經驗為何？
相反，古典音樂的關注，巨魔折騰針對不良倒鉤。批評人士指責業務（“這是一個慈善機構的情況！”“門票銷售將永遠不會占到其全部費用！”）和文化（“為什麼行為的所有深奧的規則是什麼？”，“為什麼我不能穿短褲？”），而無需清楚掌握在任。似乎有更深的野蠻的工作，一個瘋狂地堅持一個正常運作的行業反省，彷彿樂團經理和歌劇intendants是無視自身存在的問題。“聽我說！”的權威人士的需求，它的肩膀搖晃古典音樂。“我的統計。你死定了。“
是什麼支持這些jeremiads是隱含的想法，古典音樂是在美國，一些像差被認為是與猜疑。（Vanhoenacker寫的“經典服飾......，從來沒有坐得很對流行文化的故鄉”，彷彿流行文化是一個完全美國的事。）但是，像很多其他偉大的事情，在美國，古典音樂一直忍著，因為它已經取得了美國。一個多世紀以來，攪拌器的貝多芬和勃拉姆斯幫助它固定在美國本土增加的股份。這些都是教育工作者和音樂家誰進行了歷史學家約瑟夫·霍洛維茨稱“道德經火，”誰真正相信，偉大的音樂讓人們更好。道德的角度胸圍它宣稱古典音樂本身就比其他任何一種更好的不公正和不真實的音樂，但火仍在燃燒。跟任何人誰執行，撰寫，推廣，或任何組織在這一領域的大火是顯而易見的。這是不是一種職業的冷漠。
它也沒有一個行業充滿天真的信徒沒有商業頭腦。請記住，這是一個由教會和宮廷的時代經歷，通過貴族光顧的日子非盈利企業，僅在美國的到來，並說服富有的工業家和一個民主的政府，這是值得的資金。個別機構的近期經濟上的失敗並不意味著整個系統壞了。
Vanhoenacker援引場景從情景喜劇“摩登家庭”，展示古典音樂的近期拆分的流行文化。嘲弄這樣的時刻回去至少就馬克思兄弟的“夜在歌劇。”古典音樂是對自命不凡的勢利小人在1935年，根據電影;古典音樂是在2014年自命不凡的勢利小人，根據電視。在此期間，美國人建林肯中心和迪斯尼音樂廳;寫下“阿帕拉契亞之春”，“4'33”，“和”的音樂為十八音樂家“;並出售數以百萬計的古典音樂唱片。
誠然，古典音樂已經失去了它在美國文化中舉行的二十世紀中葉的中心位置，當美國全國廣播公司交響樂團響起過家裡的收音機和總統定期握手在電視上導線。但是，讓我們記住，藝術的崇高地位是一樣多的全球政治的中產階級品味的結果。美國，一個崛起的超級大國與壓迫自己的黑暗歷史，發現古典音樂的說服其文化實力的世界一個有用的工具。今天，我們不再需要古典音樂彎曲的軟實力。直到美國再次覺得需要用高雅藝術來證明自己的世界裡，這是不可能的紐約愛樂廣播會中斷十點鐘的新聞。但時間的封面和“摩登家庭”不應該成為標杆，在美國文化景觀的寬闊成功。
簡單玩數字遊戲：Vanhoenacker自稱驚慌古典記錄目前僅佔2.8％的市場份額。粗略瀏覽一下行業報告將顯示，市場份額約三％的中期以來，1980年代徘徊。該份額的穩定實際上可能是健康的標誌。是的，這是一個小眾市場，但這樣是最的音樂在我們的多語種的社會，不是至高無上的統治是不一樣不復存在。
在災難預言者還喜歡櫻桃挑了幾危機重重的機構，並利用它們來概括這種藝術形式本身。古典音樂是所有的機構，表演者和聽眾的總和，再加上千年曆史的文化傳承;它不能被扼殺了通過破產樂團和平庸的專輯銷量的任意組合。什麼是最顯著的，或許是該行業仍然在出現如此堅決排斥它是美國媒體文化的臉比較熱鬧。古典音樂衰退論很少考慮有幾個最偉大的樂團在位於美國流行文化的所謂故鄉，世界上的價值。或公民尊嚴的芝加哥和明尼蘇達州的公民參加他們的交響樂。或偽造音樂家和觀眾之間的終身債券。或聽馬勒住，沒有像其他經驗的不可思議的快感。
始建於1815年的波士頓亨德爾和海頓協會，包括中產階級的音樂聖誕節愛好者，推出了歐洲清唱劇選段，並用熱烈的“哈利路亞”合唱結束。“沒有什麼可以和它來比較，這是美國的奇蹟“一位評論家宣告。明年，該協會將慶祝其二百週年。有多少其他的美國協會持續了兩個世紀？那些你聽到的聲音，不是垂死掙扎，而是一個平穩的心跳。
沒有留言:
張貼留言