The death of classical music

The prevailing wisdom among stuffy critics and patrons looking to shower their largess is that classical music is an art to be appreciated like fine wine, with a discerning palette to augur through its complexities. To them, any addition beyond oscillating frequencies will kill the form. But they're wrong.

In his piece "When Histrionics Undermine the Music and the Pianist," Bernard Holland of the New York Times posits that the physical "histrionics" -- the performing tics -- of musicians have nothing to do with the music of the composer. That, in fact, those gestures out of the theater are laughable to the eyes of younger listeners eager to discover yet soon to be estranged from the majesty of art music.

Holland's argument fails because he neglects several facts:

1. The score is NOT sacred. As music notation matured, it became more and more exact, but the nuances of its performance remain impossible to accurately delineate. (And that is not including the grid and chance notations of Cage disciples.) To say that a performer acts merely as a middleman -- as a bridge between audience and composer -- does violence to the idea of interpretation. If a performer can elevate their performance from the rote, mechanical and cliche to the fresh and exciting, then it must be new, not some return to some totemic paragon, which must be familiar by definition.

2. The pseudo-avuncular tone of the piece is condescending in its assumption that younger listeners will be so caught in the tableau of performative histrionics that they miss the substance. What an insult to the intelligence! If the performer makes some non-musical gesture as a natural result of their intense concentration, I think the young listener -- and the audience in general -- will be further moved.

And for a smarter response, go to Henry Fogel's blog On the Record.