Ya, I know what you’re saying. Orchestra London already does a Red Hot Weekends thing with Jeans ’n Classics, performing music by The Who, Annie Lennox, etc. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about motherfuckin’ Metallica… I’m not just talking about accompanying the CD or playing in front of a giant video screen, I’m not just talking about a Metallica cover set, I’m talking about playing with the actual band — massive stage production, rabid fans, and all.
Get ‘em here.
It can’t fail.
Yeah…
Open mind for a different view / And nothing else matters.
Now give me one good reason it wouldn’t work…
[Clarification: I need to be explicit: I was being exaggeratedly, unrealistically hypothetical to make a point. Poorly executed at the time... anyways, let's continue.]
Ok, there are several good reasons. Ok — many reasons. But I want you to say them out loud, or write them down (hint: comments).
What I’m getting at is that when we start talking about why a Metallica concert with Orchestra London isn’t realistic (market’s too small, not enough money…), pretty soon it seems like we’re just talking about why Orchestra London isn’t realistic, period.
The list of reasons is largely the same.
I’m not saying we should get rid of Orchestra London or let it fail. I don’t know enough about the specifics to come out unambiguously on either side of the issue. (Note: I’ve already discussed it in more depth, coming out in favour of the arts in general, with some conditions.)
What I’m saying is we need to be fully conscious of certain realities that are not very agreeable to an institution like Orchestra London — indeed, not very agreeable to symphony orchestras in any North American city. Then, instead of trying to build scaffold-bridges over those shortcomings, or dance around them, or hope for some deus ex machina to come and reward performing fine arts with the recognition and reward they deserve, performers and artists should rather be building on strengths — at all costs.
“Building on strengths at all costs” doesn’t mean that the performing arts are entitled to taxpayer support. It may be closer to the contrary. By way of my own example… I consider myself an aspiring essayist. I expect and receive zero support — of any kind. (Though hoping is another thing…)
More importantly, I’m afraid that by adapting for the sake of readership, grants, book deals, or whatever, I’d actually be selling my strengths short. I’m still developing and learning my craft, exploring my strengths, and discovering new creative opportunities — defining my own models from the convergence of self and circumstances. I don’t give a shit what kind of writer or blogger you expect me to be. I don’t give a shit about conventions — nor do I care about trying to be unconventional or radical merely for its own sake. Admittedly, I do have an eye on turning this into a self-sustaining career, but not at the expense of flourishing creatively and intellectually.
For classical performers and composers to thrive in this loud, fractious, diffuse, distraction-filled age of ours, they have to work think & play like rock stars. I don’t mean they should play rock music. I mean they need to feel they have something truly original and moving to contribute — something they can’t even articulate right away but have to spend years conceiving and working out and appreciating for themselves. Then begins the years of work, defining new models for aesthetic value and professional success, specially suited to one’s self and circumstances… Then comes the time to get up on the stage, fully confident – smirks and snickers from the crowd be damned — and set people’s ears, minds, and loins on fire.
For the record, actual examples of the rock stars (in this sense) from the world of “rock music” are few and far between — not as long as they’re all chasing record contracts and the trappings of success. As Bob Lefsetz wrote on his great blog a few months ago:
Used to be a rock star was someone who earned his stripes. Who lived in his own little world, governed by his own rules. That’s why we revered them… If you want people to believe in you, you have to make your own choices, not based on expediency or instant money, but what FEELS RIGHT!… If being a rock star is being in control, today’s overexposure paradigm is about handing control to the machine, which you were supposed to be rebelling against!… Concentrate on the music.
I’m not saying I’m a rock star, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want to be…
Regardless of what I am or what Orchestra London is, it’s rock stars who keep making music compelling, creative, and vital: the J.S Bachs, the Mozarts, the Beethovens, the Wagners, the Mahlers, the Schoenbergs, the Stravinskies… the stubbornly self-driven, self-making creators of new models and destroyers of old boundaries.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to save Orchestra London. I’m saying it’s wrong to save Orchestra London at the expense of the spirit of music — at least, it’s wrong if I just let it happen without raising my voice to be heard.
{ 2 comments }
Matthew Good release his first solo album years ago and a good percentage of that was done in conjunction with the Vancouver Orchestra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Good#Solo_career).
I think that this would be a fantastic idea to converge two very different forms of music into a thing on combined beauty.
I know the one big issue can be cost, on the part of usually the performer working with the Orchestra.
To tell you the truth, I like some rock-symphony stuff, but I wouldn’t necessarily advocate it in this case. I just wanted to make the more general point that we need more creative audacity. It doesn’t have to come from a city-sanctioned institution, that’s for sure (as you argued in your earlier post at frommybottomstep.com).
Comments on this entry are closed.