Through These Ears

Behind The Scenes With Andreas Scholl

Countertenor superstar Andreas Scholl has produced a very nice short film of interviews and rehearsal voyeurism.  Scholl hosts a behind-the-scenes look at rehearsals for Handel's Partenope at the Danish Royal Theater.  Even though they're brief, he gets some good insights into the work from both Music Director Lars Ulrik Mortensen and scenic designer Lous Désiré.

I suppose Scholl wanted to reach as wide an audience as possible with this, so everyone speaks English.  Although you may have to turn the volume up a bit to hear all the rehearsal chatter.

(From il giornale della musica)

Scholl makes an interesting point about Handel possibly adapting to the new (for his day) style simply to satisfy the public.  He ran his own company in London, and had to constantly struggle to turn a profit.  Handel's fortunes went through many boom and bust cycles, and it was a tough scene.  Sometimes the fad was for oratorios, sometimes for opera in the Italian style, sometimes it was something else entirely. Partenope was premiered at the King's Theatre, Haymarket, London, in 1730. 

This was just a couple of years after Handel had to shut down the company he ran for about ten years, the Royal Academy of Music (no relation to today's RAM).  He dissolved his company because everyone in London wanted to see John Gay's The Beggar's Opera, and similar works.  So his response was to start a new Academy, and Partenope came along soon after.  Small wonder he was trying to strike a new pose with the music.

So London has been a tough scene for almost 300 years.  No wonder Daniele Gatti was looking for a break.

The short film is well worth watching.  The short-haired brunette is Tuve Semmingsen and the blonde singer we see briefly is the Partenope, Ingrid Dam-Jensen.  Also, it turns out that Scholl's doing three of these behind-the-scenes films, and he has a link to the first two on his own website. And is it just me, or does Scholl's speaking voice sound like a cross between Placido Domingo and Mandy Patinkin?

Danish radio station DR P2 will be broadcasting the performance live on October 11.

Internet Radio Royalty Payments Not Settled Yet - Contrary To Reports

Today's news that the RIAA, DiMA, and the National Music Publishers Association (and other publishing groups) seem to have reached some sort of agreement on music over the internet is apparently not all it's cracked up to be.  Some good will come out of this, should the Copyright Royalties Board (CRB) approve the settlement these groups submitted to them, but, contrary to how this is being portrayed in some circles, it doesn't fix the problem with internet radio.

Here's a good explanation at the Broadcast Law Blog of what's really going on.

This agreement deals with limited-time downloads and interactive streaming.  The latter is becoming increasingly common, so it's good to get that out of the way finally, although since that's mostly about "on-demand" streaming, it doesn't cover anything else.  But how many people really do limited-time downloads?  I wonder if this move is intended to push that to the forefront a little more?  It's certainly a good marketing ploy if they can swing a useful price differential.

One thing this agreement does do, though, is allow people like me to record a stream without being chased down for royalties by the RIAA as if I were an illegal file-sharing college student.  I don't make copies of anything I record off the internet, I don't post it on the torrents, and I don't do anything else except listen to it again once in a while.  So I'm certainly happy about that.

Still, this does not deal with everyday internet radio, which is the real problem.  Live365 and Rhapsody are still in limbo, and this is the biggest obstacle right now for those who want to start new internet radio stations.  I suspect the CRB will want to get the biggest bang for the buck, and stick with the SoundExchange (an unincorporated division of the RIAA, naturally, and a near monopoly) deal they struck last year.  While this year's figure - $.0018 to stream one "performance" to one listener - doesn't look like much, this adds up in a hurry with lots of listeners, tuning in 24/7.  Unless we're talking about an internet radio station that operates for one hour a day, and they only tell their friends about it.

And let's not forget that this configuration is based on the pop music format, i.e. one "performance" = one song. Classical Music gets screwed in places like iTunes, because a four movement symphony counts as four different tracks.  Internet radio has the same problem.  In one sense, this is okay, because Classical works are generally longer than rock tunes, and should cost more.  That's fair enough for direct sales of a recording.  But radio stations can get killed if they handle it this way.

What will happen is just what this commenter on the Broadcast Law Blog said after last year's punt by the CRB:

Strategically, we'll withstand the increase by doubling the minimum length of each selection we play, creating less numbers of "performances", as well as aggressively seeking out marketing deals with labels housed outside the U.S. that are willing to provide airable product and waive U.S. performance rights fees on behalf of their orchestras in exchange for preferred treatment on our station and website.

Guess what this means?  Fewer US records being played, and fewer listeners for US labels, which usually means US artists and composers get shaft as well. And nobody should even bother making a recording of, say, Chopin Waltzes or Preludes, because nobody will play it if they have to pay a royalty for every single short work.

Here's the official press release, if it helps.  I believe the CRB has until Oct. 2 to make a ruling.  Let's hope cooler heads prevail.

What To Do About Music Directors?

I recently had a post about this fascinating interview with Anthony Woodcock, in which he discusses - among many other things - the relationship between an orchestra an its music director.  That only touched the surface of the topic, and this article in the Washington Post has made me think further along those lines.  I'm probably also thinking about these things since so many groups and companies are starting their new seasons around now, some with new music directors, and some without.

The article talks about some of the things a music director does, including programming and hiring.  This does remind me of a few things we all tend to forget since the music director discussion so often tends to focus on big names and money.  For example, the National Symphony Orchestra isn't going to fill their eight vacancies for possibly another two years, until they hire a new music director.  This isn't really a big deal, as it's not like the seats are empty for concerts.  But it does hinder the orchestra's stability, and may hamper growth somewhat.

Many orchestras have artistic directors who do the bulk of the programming, but that's not the same influence a music director/conductor has.  The artistic director behind the scenes will mostly make the decisions about which soloists to bring in, negotiate repertoire with guest conductors, come up with theme concerts, things like that.  The music director as chief conductor generally has influence over the programs they themselves lead in performance.  Although I'm oversimplifying things a bit, there is something more personal when it comes to the music director's own concerts.

But there's so much more to it than just programming.  In the US, music directors are often expected to make fundraising appearances and press the flesh.  In some places that can almost become a job unto itself.  Often, he or she will be, for better or worse, the "face" of the orchestra.  That comes with the territory, especially if they're expected to stay around for a while.  Opera companies put their star singers on the posters instead, although in many places the core audience will have just as strong feelings about their music directors as do their concert orchestra counterparts.

One major effect a music director can have on the orchestra is in the performance standard.  There are plenty of examples of new chief conductors coming in and instilling much-needed discipline (Kurt Masur and New York come to mind), or strenghtening an orchestra and taking it to that next level (like Esa-Pekka Salonen in LA, or Michael Tilson-Thomas in San Francisco).  Conversely, standards may slip when the big boss isn't around enough, or turns out to be really irritating or negative in rehearsal.  There are just as many stories of music directors destroying morale and failing to keep the orchestra in top form.  Rehearsal is a big part of that.  Poor preparation - a killer - and bad manners will eventually defeat talent and star power, no matter how big the name is.  That's something the public generally doesn't get to hear about very often, if ever.  All they may know is that the group seems uninspired lately.  And the tendency is usually to take it out on the musicians.  Often, the audience tends to blame rough spots on the players only, when sometimes it's a bad or missed cue, or sloppiness from the podium.  Music critics often aren't much better at that.  Maybe if some of them went to more rehearsals they'd occasionaly find a new perspective on a given performance.

If the players feel like they're not getting the opportunity to do their best, it's all over.  Even if they're pros who bring it every night, some things just don't happen without the right attitude on the podium.  Not every orchestra can do an LSO and basically tell the conductor, "Okay, we'll start the piece when you do, but that's the last time we're going to pay attention, and it's up to you if you want to stop waving your arms about when we're finished."  Although, some orchestras do that anyway even when they shouldn't....

Aside from having high performance standards and a good working environment, there are other benefits for everyone when the relationship works well.  For instance, I just noticed this post by Kenneth Woods about a bit of programming he's doing for his upcoming season with the Surrey Mozart Players.  He's programming a much neglected piece he has always wanted to hear live, and is well aware of the pitfalls of trying to do such a thing.  This kind of enthusiasm and dedication to the art is great for the orchestra and the audience, as well as being a personal moment of musical satisfaction for the music director.  That kind of thing won't happen very often in other business arrangements.  James Levine gets to do lots of his beloved Elliott Carter and other contemporary music because it's his show.  Similarly, Salonen can keep doing works by his old schoolmate Magnus Lindberg with LA.  The same goes for Leon Botstein and the American Symphony Orchestra, or, as the above article metions, the NSO can now add more contemporary works from other countries after Leonard Slatkin's departure. 

In some cases, the job is done by the players themselves.  The Orpheus Chamber Orchestra has never had a conductor/music director, and the Britten Sinfonia seems to be doing just fine that way as well.  Different situations call for different measures, and I don't think this arrangement would work for some of the big boys, just because of the way the whole organization is structured.  But that's another argument altogether.

There's just so much more to the music director/chief conductor deal than what we see on posters and in concert programs.  Sometimes I'm amazed that anybody gets anything done well.

Silly Musical Stunt: Road Paved To Play The William Tell Overture

In Lancaster, CA, Honda decided to do a musical marketing stunt.  They had a stretch of road far away from the center of town paved with regulated grooves which would "play" the music from the William Tell Overture when driven over by a car.  Of course, the bit of road isn't very long, and they certainly aren't going to start with the lovely cello opening.  Instead, when a car drives over it at 55mph, the vibrations produce the only part most people recognize:  the bit otherwise known as the Lone Ranger Theme.

This follow-up report even has video clips of the results.  Yes, what you hear really is that music.  Just imagine it played twice as fast, with the pitches adjusted appropriately higher.

I'm glad I don't live near there, as it apparently drives some locals crazy.

Anthony Woodcock Talks About Orchestra Management in the US

Polyphonic.org has posted a fascinating interview with Anthony Woodcock, the new President of the New England Conservatory of Music, about the many aspects of managing an orchestra in the US.  Woodcock has been managing orchestras both in the UK and the US for about thirty years, and has great knowledge and terrific insight into how it works.  He covers so much ground in this half hour that it's impossible to touch on all of it in one post.   Inevitably, I have some concerns about things he says, but there is much to learn and absorb.

I've heard, either in person or via a broadcast or recording, most of the orchestras that Woodcock has managed over the years, and possibly even during his tenure at a couple of them.  I had no idea about him at the time, of course, as usually the only way an orchestra manager takes the spotlight is when people are complaining he's done something terribly wrong.  Woodcock himself has taken the helm at some very good orchestras, from the City of London Sinfonia through to the MInnesota Orchestra, and as far as I can tell has left only solid organizations in his wake.

In any case, he has some pretty interesting ideas, including his concept of "Animateurs".  He explains that at length in the interview, and while it starts out as a seemingly great idea, it becomes problematic when he gets to audition criteria.  In essence, he's a proponent of the idea that orchestral musicians should be ambassadors for the music in their communities, and should engage in local activities, bringing the music to schools, etc.  No one could possibly argue with that, but then he posits that the ability to do these things should be taken into account when having auditions for places in the orchestra.

Woodcock says that orchestras focus solely on how well the candidates play, but generally ignore the whole person.  I get where he's going with this, but I don't see how this can be put into practice at all.  Many orchestras have a probationary period for audition winners, during which the rest of the players can decide if this is someone who fits in well, makes a positive contribution to the orchestra, has good work habits, doesn't cause trouble in the section, and the practical concerns of introducing a new part to a large machine.  The kind of personality traits Woodcock seems to be looking for in his "Animateurs" may or may not be useful for fitting into the quasi-dysfunctional family life of an orchestra.  The personality type which may work great in a community outreach setting might get really, really annoying in stressful rehearsal situations, or the best player for the position may be a cold fish when talking in front of children and families.  I guess since there are so many players auditioning for so few spots, we can afford to expand the criteria now, but I'm not sure how that will work.

On the other hand, Woodcock does get into the concept of training for these things in the music schools.  He envisions a time when students are prepared for this kind of wider responsibility.  Now that just might be a significant contribution to the curriculum.  Getting students to think about the larger picture of how what they're doing might relate to the audience can only be beneficial to their development.

Another fascinating segment of the interview is when Woodcock discusses some basic differences between how orchestras are run in the US and in the UK.  One of the most important differences is in the way funds are raised.  Obviously things are totally different in the UK with state funding, etc., but it's his perspective on how it works in the US which I found interesting.  He calls it the "Sysyphus" way of fundraising: after the rock is pushed to the top of the hill, one always has to go through all that fundraising again, every year.  I think many people outside of that world often forget this reality.

One thing about the difference between the US and elsewhere that I think he gets wrong is when he discusses the role of the Music Director.  Woodcock talks about how the Music Director of an orchestra in the US has much more power and control over the proceedings than in Europe.  While it's true that in the US there is the idea that the Music Director will put his own stamp on the orchestra and programming, Woodcock has the wrong idea about how that came to be.  He says that people like Toscanini and Stokowski were treated as such superstars because Hollywood prepared Americans for that kind of celebrity worship.  This is ridiculous, considering that during Mahler's brief tenure as Music Director of the New York Philharmonic he was treated as a celebrity as much as anyone.  In the past, visiting artists were feted as much as today's Hollywood celebrities, long before there ever was such a thing.

Hero worship has existed throughout human history, but there are other reasons why Music Directors in the US generally have more influence on the orchestra.  Europe and the UK have a heritage of orchestras being owned and operated by the State (or the Church).  The music director was as much a servant to whoever ran the court as he was a leader of his own scene.  In many places in Europe, the musicans are city or state employees, and (in theory if not always in practice) can't be fired on the concductor's whim.  It's a great exaggeration to state that conductors in the UK weren't running private fiefdoms as much as anyone in the US.  Certainly megastars like Karajan were as tyrannical as any who had the reputation here.  And let's be honest:  the stock villains Woodcock is thinking about when he speaks of martinets running American orchestras were all European anyway, merely continuing the traditions of the Old World.

In the US, orchestras were founded by individuals, or small societies.  Usually, these people had their own vision, and ran the orchestra accordingly.  It's not surprising that it's almost expected in many US orchestras for the orchestra to become a sort of personal statement.  Woodcock is correct, though, when he blames the near absolute power some maestros had for the development of a strong musician's union.  But this has nothing to do with the negative influence of Hollywood.

Still, there is much to learn here, with plenty to think about afterward.  It would be great to hear more from Anthony Woodcock on almost every issue he covers in this interview. 

Life Beyond Corporate Sponsorship

With the latest news of Lehman filing for Chapter 11 and Merrill Lynch apparently selling itself to Bank of America, the question uppermost in everyone's minds is surely, "What will happen to all that corporate sponsorship upon which orchestras and music organizations rely so heavily?"

Large corporations and foundations subsidize a huge chunk of the concerts we go to.  Yes, the big boys tend to have their own endowments and funds, but so many groups have concert series sponsored by corporations that one has to wonder how that's going to work in the future.  Sports stadiums have occasionally had to change their names when the original sponsor failed to live up to the agreement (for instance, Enron Field became Minute Maid Park), and a couple years back a few arts organizations had to scramble a bit when Alberto Vilar failed to meet his promises.  These things happen often enough, but this year is probably going to be worse than most.

Even in the ticket sales department, orchestras and opera companies will feel the pinch.  If some company goes south, there are probably ten others waiting to buy that skybox at their local football stadium.  That's probably not the case with the opera house or concert hall.  The same thing goes for sponsorship of concert series, and possibly even the money some group might need to bring in that one big name of their season.

Ticket sales account for barely 15% of the average orchestra's annual budget.  The rest is made up from fund-raising campaigns, grants from various government and arts organizations, and random individual gifts.  If they're very, very lucky, an orchestra can make a few pennies from merchandising and CD sales.

It's hard to tell whether this will affect major ensembles in big cities more than other groups.  If nothing else, this season will be a good indication of just how engaged communities are with their local orchestras, large or small.  Obviously everyone needs to find more revenue streams, but that's easier said than done.

Fortunately, technology now allows for a whole lot more of the concert experience to be made available outside of the concert hall.  I've spoken before about online broadcasting, and the potential there.  Peter Gelb's greatest contribution during his tenure at The Metropolitan Opera may very well turn out to be those live opera broadcasts in movie theaters.  That idea has already been taken up by the San Francisco Opera, and Glyndebourne did this last year as well.  For years now, groups like the London Symphony Orchestra and the San Francisco Symphony have been selling their own concert CDs.  Other orchestras such as The New York Philharmonic have arrangements with labels to release a few live recordings.  All these ideas can be adopted by an orchestra or opera company of just about any size, and, depending on how they do it, without a massive up-front cost.

These ideas can apply to any program a group wants to offer, even the non-Classical ones.  Kiddie concerts and holiday celebrations can be tapped for merchandising and souvenir recordings just as well as any serious concert.

Of course, all of this will require some seriously intelligent negotiation with the players and unions.  It's certainly in everyone's best interests to be smart and not greedy, with the long term firmly in focus.  I hope everyone on both sides of those discussions will keep these things in mind.

Alex Ross Asks: "Why So Serious?"

Alex Ross has a new article in The New Yorker discussing just how today's respectful, dead guys only, no-clapping between movements, serious Classical Music concert took form.

Ross uses a couple of new books as inspiration for his discussion: Kenneth Hamilton’s After the Golden Age: Romantic Pianism and Modern Performance and William Weber’s The Great Transformation of Musical Taste: Concert Programming from Haydn to Brahms.  Between the two, Ross puts together a reasonable, brief explanation of how we got to where we are today.

The point of all of this is that Ross feels that we need to re-open the discussion of what a Classical Music concert looks like, and how it connects to the audience.  That's a discussion we definitely need to have, and it's great that more people are starting to bring it up.

What I don't like is the use of the word "serious".  I think Ross to easily dismisses the respect the audience has for the composer.  If that respect had not been bestowed upon composers by the bourgeoisie (as he puts it), the opportunities for composers to reach the heights of success would have been greatly diminished.  Otherwise, things can become devalued to the point of no return.

I hope his ideas of "flexible" and the kinds of music he wants to include in more concerts are more like the examples he gives at the end of his article, rather than rock and all or other kinds of "brand-new" music.  Every time someone starts talking about opening up the format of the Classical Music concert, other genres inevitably start to join the stage.  That's something I don't think will help connect new audiences to Classical Music, unless it's done like this.

Video Game Music For The Concert Stage - Metal Gear Solid

Just a further note about my suggestion that one way to attract new audiences to Classical Music is through the not-so-new video game soundtracks which are derived from tradition.  In case anyone thinks I'm kidding, note the audience reaction to this, a little something from "Metal Gear Solid":

New Music For New Audiences - OR - New Audiences For New Music?

William Weir has an article in the Chicago Tribune which addresses a very important point about getting people to listen to Classical Music.  After describing the difficulty of getting new works performed in the usual places for the usual audiences, he suggests that this might be the wrong place to look.  What about finding new audiences for new music?

This is not a new idea anymore (fortunately), and Weir offers a good entry point into that new world.  He quotes Greg Sandow, who often says that we should try to cater to pop music audiences, as part of a larger argument that maybe the traditional audience shouldn't be expected to like new music as much as non-Classical Music fans might.

After all, Weir says, the genre of "Classical Music" is so wide-ranging that no one will automatically like it all just because it's "Classical".  The example of Hoagy Carmichael and Radiohead both being "pop" is a reasonable analogy for the vast chasm between, say Corelli and Xenakis.  Yet they're both in the same section in the record shops (online or not).  No other genre encompasses so many centuries, so many countries, so many cultures, and so many permutations.  Of course, in reality it's rather silly - almost arbitrary at this point in the industry - to put all this music into one capital-C "Category".  The term "Classical Music" itself is essentially obsolete anyway, but until something better comes along, I'll use it, along with "New Music" for the contemporary languages, for the sake of argument.  (There is certainly an academic case to be made for why all this music should be considered parts of a greater whole, but this is not the place for that discussion.)

In one sense, it's a marketing issue.  The listener only cares about categorizing music in this way so he or she knows where to go to buy it.  Call it something else, and they'll still like it.  In fact, I would submit that some contemporary Classical Music would be received by the non-Classical audience much more readily if it was called something else.

But it's more than just a question of marketing and terminology.  In order to figure out which audience is going to like which music, one has to address the issue of language.  The genre of "Classical Music" these days has become almost as diverse as the human species, and it's important to understand that there are a wide variety of languages being spoken with which not everyone is going to be conversant.  I've touched on how the language of New Music might be familiar to non-Classical audiences before.   Now I'm going to take this idea further, and posit that in fact there are some contemporary languages which will be more appealing to them than to traditional Classical Music audiences.

The language of the Standard Repertoire (I don't intend that as a pejorative, I swear) tends to be that of the European harmonies and structures of the late 18th Century through to the middle of the 20th.  Yes, this is a gross generalization, but bear with me.  When I say "harmonies and structures", I mean the shapes and colors and emotions of the language.  These affect different people in different ways, depending on many personal things.  In the end it's a personal perspective, and so much of life experience contributes to that.

The personal music experiences of today's younger generations tend to include far more that is over-amplified and distorted or strange-sounding, violent or ugly, or harsh and dissonant than in previous generations.  The sounds that some Classical audiences reject are much more readily accepted by people who listen to other kinds of music.  There's probably something to Thomas Beecham's old adage that the public don't like music, they just like the noise it makes, but what it really means in this case is that the audiences who like other kinds of "noisy" (to more conservative audiences) music will have less difficulty getting into this kind of "noisy" music.

I'm definitely not saying that the younger, pop audience is more open-minded than the traditional Classical audience.  In fact, I'm saying that they're at least as prejudiced and closed-minded - if not more so.  How many times have we heard that "Classical Music" is boring?  Or, "That's too pretty, it's putting me to sleep", or other casual dismissals of 1000 years of music?  As often as not, it's because they are only exposed to one of the "prettier" languages, and their own personal experience simply hasn't prepared them to understand it.  That should be a familiar argument to anyone who cares about New Music.

Someone who is very into the grungier, more experimental sounds in rock or electronica will find many appealing sounds in contemporary works.  But the same person who enjoys the purely electronic sounds coming out of IRCAM can just as easily run screaming from the room at the sound of a harpsichord.  The language of one is familiar and enjoyable, the other is Lurch from The Addams Family. 

What this means is that there are many more people for whom the language(s) of New Music won't be so alien after all.  It's time to reach out to that audience.

I will say, though, that this won't be accomplished by adding a piece by Radiohead or a film music suite to a concert of Brahms and Rachmaninov. And I also don't think the kind of blues and gospel stuff Weir mentions is the way to go either, even if it's fronted by Matt Haimowitz on cello.  That's the wrong message to send also, as if none of the amazing languages of our genre cut it anymore.

Instead, I'd like to see a little suite from one of the new video games, plus something like Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead's "Popcorn Superhet Receiver" (not exactly to my taste, but it will bring that other audience in) along with works by living, breathing, interesting New Music composers who write in the more interesting contemporary languages.  There are so many to choose from!  One can come up with a nearly infinite list of combinations like this.

It's time to give up for good the idea that the old school composers will lead the way to new school audiences.  That doesn't mean that music isn't great, or that it should die out because new audiences dont care for it.  Instead, it means that the path to the enjoyment of the Standard Rep. starts with the enjoyment of the New Rep.

UPDATE: (Sept. 4)  I see that AC Douglas over at Sounds & Fury disagress with me.  I understand where he's coming from, and I have to say that there is room for both our positions.  In fact, our two approaches can work side by side with little effort.

The audience whom Mr. Douglas describes as "young but already grown-up persons who presently have little or no understanding of and little or no interest in classical music" are buying tickets today, not in twenty years.  So, while I will always approve of the outreach programs for the very young, and any and all efforts to cultivate the next generation of Classical Music lovers (who wouldn't?), I don't accept that as the only solution.

I've been through the argument that people don't understand how to listen to this kind of music, that they need to develop a longer attention span, etc.  Having been in the trenches of various battles in this industry, I no longer buy that as the only way.  "Get 'em while they're young" is great, but I've seen too many adults (or even late teens and young adults) get enthusiastic about something in the Classical Music genre, even if they've never heard any masterpieces or hallowed chestnuts of the repertoire.

The key is to stop worrying about getting this new audience to sit through a Beethoven String Quartet cycle or something once they have their ear in the door.  There's a thousand plus years of music, in an infinite variety of colors and flavors, and it's illogical to expect all music lovers to follow one specific time-line or canon (as much as I would love to from an academic standpoint).  I can't even begin to recount how many times I've seen someone whose first exposure to this world was through something with contemporary sounds and structures.  They're into it, and they don't care if they're supposed to listen to Bach and Mozart first, or that this is more complex than the music they're used to listening to.  That means nothing.  The evidence is out there, and so is the audience, just waiting for someone to make the effort.

As for future generations, I hope we never stop encouraging them in exactly the way AC Douglas suggests.  And there's no reason whatsoever that my other suggestions should interfere with or contradict this approach.

Tired of the Latest Pop Tunes? Try Boosey & Hawkes Ringtones!

Well, why not?

booseytones

But will they let composers submit new ones?  How would that look?  "Get the latest ringtones from today's hottest composers!"