I would be hard pressed to call the centuries old, mainly European instrumental music performed by wind ensembles and orchestras a form of entertainment in 2016 to the public at large. I do, however, think that learning how to play this music with all of its intended expression, nuance, and color is an incredibly important part of becoming a great musician. A performance might help in motivating a student to learn their music, but having the performance be the end goal can be short sighted, again, depending on context.
Music is an art form and does not exist for entertainment's sake. When we put too much of an emphasis on performance, we're really doing a disservice to the bigger picture. Performing itself is an art form, and being a great performer is part of being a great musician. But to act as if there needs to be some sort of audience for playing music to be worthwhile is inaccurate, in my mind.
When an audience needs to be built for a performance, my first priority would be to make sure the product is performance-ready. If that is the case, then I have no qualms with being tasked, as a music director, with generating an audience. With social media, and good old fashioned flyering and press releases, getting the word out can be done with minimal effort. If your school and community values performances, maybe repertoire should be selected or ensembles formed with that in mind. However, we should never forget that the craft is not in the performance for others, but for the work itself.
2 comments:
I can only speak in regards to myself, but I think you're right in saying your viewpoint is a bit different. I don't think there always needs to be a performance, but I do think our art form does ultimately exist to be shared and therefore played in front or an audience. I just don't really understand what the point in playing music if no one is going to hear it. It's the same with every form of art really. Do writers write just so they can read their own books? Do painters paint just so they can look at their own paintings?
I would think so. I mean, people write in diaries that are for their own purposes...does that mean they write differently then they would if they were writing something for public consumption? I know little about fine art, but I would assume if you asked most painters if they painted for others, I would guess they would say absolutely not. Painting, writing, making music, this is your soul trying to speak, to try and make sense of your experiences, painful and joyful. Many great artists exist in obscurity for most if not all of their lives, and yet their art, once found and presented, speaks to so many. Why is that? Human experience. Fine art and art music exist quite validly as markers of human expression and contributions to the greater ether of human existence. Whether they entertain is ultimately irrelevant, though a nice attribute.
I think teaching the appreciation of music as an art form and not just a vehicle for entertainment or public acclaim supports a higher purpose. This is not to say that performance is not incredibly important, or that music doesn't entertain. or even more so that certain (most?) types of music we encounter exist primarily for that reason. But music, as a form of human expression, is important regardless of whether it speaks to us or it makes sense to us.
Post a Comment