Fwd: RE: [h2o-discuss] street performer protocol

["Tuyet A. Tran" <tatn2000@yahoo.com>]

 Subject: RE: [h2o-discuss] street performer protocol
 To: John Wilbanks <wilbanks@cyber.law.harvard.edu>
 
I completely agree with your point about the SPP as
potential support for new and/or avant-garde music.
  
Another idea for people who are supportive of new
music to advocate for additional public sponsored
programs that encourage 'open' entries to US
competitions. Open entries does not mean any change
in juried standards or musical quality/potentials of
composers. The rules and regulations in Europe are
complex and demanding yet, unknown & 'financially
challenged' American artists had been able to compete
and often, won. It is somewhat daunting for some
Americans to know that in a pool of highly talented
European trained composers, they too can test their
talents in competitions. This is not to say that
competition is a single gauge of good or bad music
but, to a struggling young composer, the proces
provides an avenue for development, growth and changes
as artists. 
 
Some American composers, performers, and conductors
have often become known through their early public
exposures in Europe before attempting to re-enter the
US cultural and art circles with a modicum of
recognition. It is fortunate for young and new
composers and performers to receive widespread support
from the European audience. The audience makeup is
often openly enthusiastic with newcomer and unknown
composers' works. In some instances, the composers
could not even afford the trips abroad to hear their
own works performed live for the first time. 
 
At the risk of sounding corny to a sophisticated
reading audience, I am forever grateful to several
European performers showing their supports by
introducing new work by an unknown foreign (American)
composer. Moreover, the audience judged and enjoyed
the music rather than the composer's  bio as provided
by the programme notes. The resulting effects are
inevitably rewarding and encouraging for composers to
flourish in their artistry and writing. 
 
It is indeed a nice concept but, like it or not
American audience does not even respond well to new
works by composers who are already established and
famous. Unless the works are exclusively electronic,
new music composers still need supportive performers
to introduce to the audience. The proposal is
interesting but, unless the audience even gives the
music a chance, giving free performance to an audience
of your best friends is not exactly the answer to
building a new composer's confidence and growth. In
a city such as New York, where the audience is
diversely cultured, many still profess their
preferences for Shubert over John Adams (whose works
had been voted by the American Orchestra Association
as the most frequently performed American composer in
late 20th century).

I think composers, performing artists and artists need
to be recognized and compensated for just as people
in other professions. For some of my friends, they
would have preferred to live in the US and earn the
same amount of income with the bonus of receiving the
respect accord to their chosen profession.  
 
Needless to say, these are mere opinions narrowly
based on personal experiences and observations. On a
personal level, music and life are equally fluid which
means, more room to change, grow, learn, and explore
while persevering in my writings.


Thank you.
Tuyet
>  
> 
> --- John Wilbanks <wilbanks@cyber.law.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
  I would almost argue that the support of marginal,
avant-garde art is the most valuable part of such a
proposal.  
>  
If an artist is sufficiently recognized by the
public, there really isn't much need for a support
structure, as I see it.  The US is terrible about
supporting young performers -- unless those performers
are manufactured for mass consumption -- and instead
depends on varying combinations of luck, patronage,
and word-of-mouth to find new talent.

This idea seems to strike to the very heart of
what benefits open structures and systems provide. 
Business will be business, and work to turn a profit,
but open structures mean that there are established,
clear pathways which someone can tread who chooses
not to join the standard business world.  I am by no
means convinced it can or will work in the model
proposed, but it's a nice example of the heart behind
the theory of openness IMO...
> > 
> > jtw



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com