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.

Stupidity In Cleveland - Music Critic Reassigned For Being Critical

Via Sounds & Fury, I just learned that the Cleveland Plain Dealer has reassigned Don Rosenberg, the music critic who has covered the Cleveland Orchestra for about thirty years.  It seems that he was too critical, too often, of music director Franz Welser-Mõst, and some people from the orchestra board complained enough that the paper is taking him off the beat.

How completely stupid.  I'll let others do the bit about how it's a critic's job to be critical, and instead say that this is just another sign of the problems going on with the orchestra.  I suppose this is related to the fact that in June, the orchestra extended Welser-Mõst's contract until 2018(!), while they have been having fundraising difficulties almost since he got there.  Rosenberg has been critical of his leadership, although always seemed to give praise when due.

They're having the same troubles other organizations are having holding onto donors, and it seems questionable that in the middle of this situation they would grant such an extension to the music director's contract.  There have been other difficulties at the orchestra in the last year as well, including personnel issues such as the resignation of the associate concert master due to a questionable restructuring of the section.  Things like that don't come from the board, so the true problem may be deeper.

Daniel Lews has been one of the biggest financial supporters of the orchestra.  He has also been involved in some behind-the-scenes machinations.  I don't know if he's involved in this move to protect Welser-Mõst, but it may not be a mere coincidence that he donated $10 million the year they hired their young European rising star (which is what they wanted).  Not only have they extended his contract to an absurd length, but recently eliminated the position of music director of the local Blossom Festival and gave it to the Music Director Nearly For Life.  Curious.  They apparently treat him very well in the office.

Rosenberg is not alone in his lack of total love for Welser-Mõst, or as he is known in some quarters as "Worse Than Most".  But the Vienna Staatsopera has him slated to take over from Ozawa in a couple of years, so he clearly does have quality support.  Of course, his repertoire there will be a little more limited than it is in Cleveland, and one of the main criticisms is that he just doesn't bring it in some works.

The Cleveland Orchestra has a rich history, always in the conversation about top orchestras in the US.  They're still an excellent group, but maybe not as inspired all the time as they might be.  I've certainly never been a big fan of Welser-Mõst, and from what I've read, Rosenberg seems to have his number.  Naturally, the people on the board who just signed him on for what seems like an eternity in music director years will want to hear as little criticism as possible.  This is far from the first time an orchestra has raised a fuss with a local paper about coverage, but in this day and age it's pretty ridiculous for a paper to cave in like this.

Unfortunately, this is exactly the kind of thing that can alienate an orchestra from its community.  It's one thing for a music critic to get downsized, as people will begrudgingly accept that newspapers everywhere are struggling and doing this kind of thing.  It's quite another matter when the writer is merely taken off the beat because the orchestra doesn't like him.  It's important to remember that even if this is the result of noise from just a single faction of the board, it reflects back on the entire orchestra.  This must look awfully petty to orchestra supporters.

Not only that, but this amounts to the Cleveland Plain Dealer turning its back on readers.  In effect, this personnel decision is a statement that readers will no longer get a reliable report about an important cultural institution.

Stupid.

UPDATE:  Sam Bergman, violist and blogger for the Minnesota Orchestra, has made a comment below which (in his signature) links his post about this issue on his and Sarah Hicks's "Inside the Classics" blog, which has a little more information about how this may have happened.  Read his comment, and then go here to see what he's talking about.  A VP of the board is still a "faction", albeit a small one, and this was still handled in a very stupid fashion.  At least we agree that this reflects badly on the orchestra, which is the most important consideration.  I mean, regardless of the political machinations of the board and the paper, this affects the relationship between the community and the musicians as well.

Admittedly, I haven't spent much time thinking about how else this could have been handled.  If Rosenberg is just biased and couldn't be stopped after five or six years, why is he still writing for the paper?  If he was so clearly out of line, would his colleagues have elected him president of the Music Critics' Association of America?  Okay, maybe, but I kind of doubt it.  If the critic is acting unprofessionally, is reassigning him going to cure that?  Was this simply a case of a unique personal prejudice, which would never happen in another situation?  Maybe, but the problem is that Rosenberg is not exactly a lone voice in being underwhelmed by this conductor.  Since this is not the first time the paper heard these complaints, how has this been handled behind the scenes until now?  I guess we'll never know.

My thanks to Sam Bergman for the comment and the update.  I should have done this a while back, but the Inside the Classics blog has now been added to the Orchestra Blogs list on the left.

UPDATE:  Yes, I can spell Welser-Möst's name.  A typo is one thing, but there's no excuse for copying and pasting it to avoid having to do the alt-code for the "ö", and never noticing what I'd done.  My bad, fixed now.

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. 

A Fall Harvest of Opera DVD Reviews at the Mostly Opera blog

The Mostly Opera blog has been doing an excellent series of posts of opera DVD reviews.  Lots of good stuff here.  Mostly Opera also generously provides many video excerpts, all well worth checking out. I mentioned René Pape a few days ago, and the review currently at the top of the page includes a clip of him from a performance of Beethoven's Missa Solemnis.

There's a lot more to be found here, so click on "Older Posts" at the bottom as well, since the whole page is just the latest post.

Help Save Concertzender From Short-Sighted Bureaucrats

I just noticed this post at On An Overgrown Path that Concertzender, the terrific Dutch Public Radio broadcaster, is in danger of being shut down.

It seems that the Classical Music channel is getting more action on the cable networks than another popular music channel, the coordinator of which wants the bosses at Dutch Public Radio to simply kill the competition. That other channel has a much higher budget, and I'm sure some bureaucrats are going to look at this from the wrong end.

Enough letters of support came through to make them to temporarily postpone the decision, but Concertzender is still apparently on death row awaiting a phone call from the governor.  Rolf den Otter (who works on their webiste, I believe) sent a message to Pliable at On An Overgrown Path asking for help getting the word out.  And a tip of the hat to him for posting about it.

Here's the Concertzender main page, where you can check out all the channels they offer. They also have a blog, where they follow concerts and the music scene.  They just finished blogging about last week's Utrecht Early Music Festival.  It's in Dutch, of course, but there are plenty of translator apps available for web browsers these days.  (I like to try to struggle through it on my own first, but if I can't hack it I always use Mozilla's Firefox browser with the FoxLingo Add-on, which can handle a good number of languages.)

den Otter also asks for people to send an email to:  mening - AT - concertzender.nl  (I'm not posting the real spelling because letting the spambots have at him won't help anyone.)

Say something like "Please don't pull the plug," and mention where you're from, so they know they have more international support.

Now here's a link to send a message of support to the people who do the good work, to become a Friend of the broadcaster, or even make a small donation. 

LSO Not So Happy About Gergiev?

On her classical music blog, Jessica Duchen has a post about recent activity by Valery Gergiev.  It concerns the political situation between Russia and Georgia, but that's not what caught my attention.  After the first part of her post, she says this:

"Factions among the LSO players are rumoured to be seriously p***ed off at Gergiev's allegedly somewhat cavalier approach to their rehearsal schedule."

I listened to almost all of his Mahler cycle with them via BBC Radio 3, and the performances have definitely been up and down.  While I really did enjoy a lot of it, there were times when he seemed to be heavily involved in getting some passion out of the orchestra (he's always good at the muscular bits, isn't he?), while at other times he seemed to be miles away.  It was pretty clear that he knew some of the works much better than others, and had more to say about them.

Someone or other said during one of the concert broadcasts remarked that Gergiev seemed to have his head buried in the score.  I commented elsewhere at the time that I noticed some rather "independent" solos here and there, as well as some rather flat moments in the ensemble.  I also remember saying that I couldn't imagine the LSO putting up with that for very long.

Gergiev has long been notorious for his hectic, workaholic schedule.  For years people there have been whispers that this makes him sloppy and unprepared sometimes, but I never heard of any open revolt against it.  The one thing positive I do hear consistently is that he has a great ability to communicate with the orchestra, to get his intentions across and quickly right the ship in times of trouble.  There is also usually praise for his primary concern about making adjustments for the individual acoustics of each concert hall.  But I wonder how long he can continue to counter the bad feelings about his chronic lateness and abrupt rehearsal methods?

Even in the top orchestras the players don't usually have the power to veto a guest conductor.  If anyone can, though, it's the truly independent LSO.  We'll see what happens.

Another Way To Do Media Criticism

Norman Lebrecht has a very interesting post on his "Slipped Disc" blog on ArtsJournal.com:

In a critical condition (5)

Now that we're past the mourning period over the dismissal (for that's what it was) of so many music and arts critics in the last few months, it's time to look at what can be done now, and in the near future.  Lebrecth's key paragraphs:

"A newspaper that cherishes and promotes its critics - as The Scotsman does, for instance, during the Edinburgh Festival - offers readers a reliable benchmark against which they can measure their own reactions and opinions to things they have seen and heard. The Scotsman deploys its critical team strategically in festival time as a way of setting itself apart from the range of free newspapers that flood the city streets.

In Salzburg, likewise, the local Nachrichten is read more closely during festival time than any of the national or international papers because its critics provide a clearer context day by day of events in the present festival against triumphs of the past. Their value cannot be measured purely in payroll terms."

This got me thinking further along the lines of innovative ways to report on music.  I've already had some thoughts about this, but I'm going to take it a step further.  The combination of my earlier idea about posting audio and video clips to generate interest in an upcoming concert and the way Lebrecht describes the approaches of The Scotsman and the Nachrichten brings to mind another genre of journalism (the topical critical writing kind, I mean): sports coverage.

In sports, the local writers always do a little piece about tonight's game, discussing key match-ups, possible strategies, injuries, and other things fans think about in anticipation of a game.  I say that Classical Music fans have very similar thoughts before attending a concert.  It's an interesting parallel:  Why do we go to a ballgame?  Because we're interested in the kind of ball being played, and at least one of the players or teams involved.  We root for a good result for our favorites.  We're elated when they do well, and disappointed when they don't.  Our passions can be piqued by a good pre-game report which hits on key points.

Why do we go to a concert?  Because we're interested in the kind of music being played, and usually one of the players or ensembles involved.  We root for a good performance, especially of the one work we wanted to hear.  We're elated when it goes well, and disappointed when it doesn't.  But our passions aren't piqued by a good pre-concert report, because there aren't any, unless it's a general interview with some bigshot hitting town, or a composer's birthday overview.  None of that does what a pre-game sports piece does, though.  All we get are dry details on the concert listings page.  To continue my restaurant analogy from a previous post, we're expected to look at the menu and alreay know how everything tastes.

So why not up the ante with music reviews?  Surely there can be a little space somewhere for three hundred words about an up-coming concert which discusses something interesting about the program.  It could even be something similar to what many of us think before deciding whether or not to go to a concert.  Is there a special moment in one of the pieces we really ought to hear?  Does the conductor or soloist do well with this repertoire, or is does the visiting band have the best brass section ever and you have to go hear them?  There are all kinds of things that can be brought up, and with just a few words.  If there's no more room in the Amazing Shrinking Newspaper, then put something on the paper's website.  That can't be too hard to do.  From there people can sign up for email or text notices, etc.  Online journals, bloggers, etc., can do this now.  After all, it's not like nobody knows what they're going to review until the last minute.  Concerts are often scheduled even farther in advance than the current season.  If the critic doesn't know too far in advance, the editor who makes the assignment sure does, or ought to.  What I'm saying is that this can be done without making any adjustments.

It's time to move beyond thinking about concert reviews as news items to be reported on only after the incident has taken place.  It's also time to move beyond the mindset that basic publicity techniques needn't be used for this kind of music, and that the audiences won't respond.  Perhaps newspapers don't care anymore, but there are plenty of music writers out there who do.  Taking a more well-rounded approach to covering concerts is an important next step.

Elliott Carter's Recent Works At Tanglewood - Online Video

The Boston Symphony Orchestra and the Tanglewood Festival have generously made performances available online of several recent works (plus the  the Double Concerto for Piano and Harpsichord from 1961) by Elliott Carter.  The performers are all Festival Orchestra players and resident Fellows at Tanglewood, and the footage comes from a few concerts at "The Shed".  These are full performances, not extracts, and in fine quality.

Carter's music from the last ten years has gotten my attention more than his output from the last 50 years combined, including the Double Concerto.

Tanglewood WebTV

There's a drop-down menu at the bottom to go to the different videos.