I know today’s title may be “fightin’ words,” but I have a musical reason for begging program directors not to play so much Mozart. And Haydn. And Rosetti, Krommer, J.C. Bach, Hummel, and Stamitz, as well.
The melodies are square, the harmonies are safe and predictable, the form is formulaic (pun intended). And frankly, many recordings of this repertoire are just plain boring. Mozart and Haydn did it better than anyone else, but they are being played to death on classical stations. We use their music as filler, because it comes in the right lengths and is always safe. No one will call up and tell you they hate it.
If you could go back in time to the classical era, you would be demanding new music every week. You’d go to the opera, to the theater, and to the concert hall where you’d hear music that was written just days — maybe hours — before. You might hear Haydn’s new symphony this week, but you’d expect him to have a fresh one for next week. And you’d only hear music a few hours a week — whenever you could get it live. But not us. We play the same two-hundred-year-old pieces over and over and over again.
Now that we have nonstop music available on radio, online, on CD, on ipod, it becomes an endless loop. We listen too much! And we especially listen to Mozart too much. After a while you can’t even hear the music anymore. When Mozart comes on, your mind starts to wander. It’s good for thinking, because you can organize your thoughts without any distraction from the music. Do we really want people to turn us on and tune us out????
Just like antiobiotics, overuse leads to ineffectiveness. My husband used to make goulash every week, and it got to the point that the kids and I can no longer eat goulash. Mozart is like goulash. He was an unbelievable genius and his music deserves to be listened to, not to be treated like aural wallpaper. How about giving the 18th century a rest so we can appreciate it again?
And happy Monday!
Subscribe Via Email
Enter your email address to subscribe to Scanning the Dial and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.
Wow. Spot on.
As long as you’re talking about daring programming, if you can get even ONE radio station to play some Harry Partch, then you’re a rock star in my book.
“When Mozart comes on, your mind starts to wander. It’s good for thinking, because you can organize your thoughts without any distraction from the music. Do we really want people to turn us on and tune us out????”
Interesting observation, considering that the PRPD Core Values studies found that listeners to classical radio appreciate that the music helps them achieve mental focus. Which raises the question, what if classical listeners actually like the fact that they don’t have to listen too hard to Mozart and Co. Could it be that that’s what appeals to them about it?
I’m starting to wonder if there are perhaps two kinds of classical radio listeners — the kind represented in the Core Values studies and the kind who want to be challenged, who appreciate Partch and WNYC’s efforts and the like. Or maybe one listener can listen in both ways depending on their mood and what else they’re doing. And maybe programmers should consider catering to both listening modes in different ways and different dayparts. Is it possible that the greatest potential for growing audience lies in expanding the programming that draws in the active and engaged listener?
We’re getting somewhere here.
I think Marty, in one fell swoop, has started two, perhaps three discussions. I understand
exactly what she is getting at, though her
cited composer may be clouding her brilliant
point. To the same extent, some of the
arguments forwarded due to the Core Values
studies may lead programmers down paths that won’t generate loyalty, or even listeners.
A fuzzy generalization, but bear with me:
–There are performances of Mozart that are on a level that I CAN’T HELP but listen
intently. They are just too interesting.
Sir Thomas Beecham for starters. On the opposite spectrum, one could cite Glenn Gould. His Mozart, cannot be considered backround for a millisecond.
But the vast majority of Mozart performances today are “safe”. They play the notes,
the music is sometimes, well, wallpaper.
–There’s that trainload of music that
is just forgettable. It fell out of the
repertoire for a reason. It is second rate.
And because it doesn’t disturb, it
is programmed. But it doesn’t impress either.
Spohr is a name that I think of in this light.
–There is a trainload of music from the 20th
Century that could easily be programmed
during the day, and would amount to
the antidote that Marty needs. Stravinsky’s
Apollo comes to mind. There are many, many more. The just concluded century has
too much wonderful, listenable material
to dump into a nonprogrammable basket.
Especially when the alternative is
music described in the previous graph.
To sum, people may tell us radio types
that they want music to relax, so
we play performances that are boring.
They may not be offended, but
will they be passionate, or even loyal
listeners with their contributions or
sponsorships?
The devil here is in the details, and why
broad generalizations cited in some
studies could lead radio programming
down a path of inconsequences, leading
to grave consequences.
Well said, Brian, and your last two paragraphs nail it. I have serious issues with the Core Values study, because we’ve drawn the wrong conclusions from it. We’re catering to passive listening, instead of challenging, inspiring, and interacting with our listeners.
(Mike, maybe we should post the core values on the blog for people who don’t work in radio.)
What set me off was our local Seattle station, KING-FM, which just played three solid days of Mozart and Friends. I want to be positive and supportive, but that kind of programming I just can’t support. My radio stayed off all weekend, and instead I listened to Golijov, Bruckner, and some echt Baroque music.
Thanks Mike and Brian for your thoughtful reponses.
Marty
If you are a computer listener, you can listen to “500 years of new music”, “non-generic classical music” on wnyc2, the 24/7/365 stream from WNYC, New York Public Radio (http://www.wnyc.org). George Preston and Brad Cresswell have done a fabulous job erecting this web stream where late 20th century and current composers are well represented.
WNYC’s Evening Music, available at the same site, ahs also been re-invigorated, and now a new sense of brightness and light has come to us from Terrance McKnight, the on air host Monday-Thursday, matching the intelligence of David Darling who hosts Evening Music Friday-Sunday.
Here’s the Core Values study I alluded to. In brief, the listeners surveyed said they value classical radio because it relieves stress, helps with mental focus and offers a retreat to a world of “beauty and majesty.” But they emphasized that classical music is “intelligent” whereas other types of music, such as pop or smooth jazz, are not. See page 8 of the report for a summary.
Mozart’s music is deceptively simple! Don’t be fooled! It’s much more complicated if you examine it a little. Guys like Robert Kapilow (“What Makes It Great”) and the BBC’s Charles Hazlewood make a living teaching us about the complexities in Mozart’s music. If you listen to it like “wallpaper”, then you’re missing the genius.