Age footnotes

As one of the young'uns avidly interested in classical music, I can't say these data come as a HUGE shock to me. My very much subjective and anecdotal impression of the demographics of patrons at my local orchestra (Toronto) bears this out each time I go. There's always a smattering of groups of young people, a few mid-rangers and business types, and a sea of older people (dominated by older older people). In fact, I would not be surprised if the TSO were more aged than the average...

Nor is this data much of a shock to the older people in the audience, who often wonder, wistfully, where all the young people are. I've never thought to ask any of these people if there were more young people at concerts when they themselves were young. Such an obvious thing, and I've never thought to do it! I'll try to make up for lost time. I tend to assume that these now-older people remember more younger people in the past, which is why they're so wistful.

But then, to be fair, I'm in my sixties, and I've been going to classical concerts since my teens -- and I can't remember how old the audience was then!

Can we connect to a younger audience through a new generation of musicians in the orchestra? This seems to be a largely untapped resource.

I agree. This is a paradox -- there's no shortage of young musicians, even while younger people don't go to classical concerts. There should be a way for young musicians to connect to this potential younger audience. I think we'll do better once the current younger generation starts to run the classical music business.

At 36 I don't know if I'm helping the average age or hurting, but I'll also speak up as a relatively young classical music fan who does still go to concerts.

Problem is- I don't go very much. why? Money is one factor. Also I have a very time consuming theatre habit, which is my profession, so that makes music my hobby. I'm lucky if I get to one concert every two months.

Maybe that's still exceptional.

But I do know that it takes a lot to get me interested in going through the concertgoing experience these days. Like- I want to see a specific performer, or a specific piece.

The philharmonic is just boring now. And Avery Fisher is a cold impersonal barn that it takes eons simply to get in and out of.

As I've become more interested in early music, I seek out expert ensembles--but unfortunately those tickets are among the most expensive.

Speaking of cost (an obvious culprit) many concerts I might be interested at Fisher or Carnegie I forget about when I think is it worth it to pay north of $30 for the last row of the upper balcony? For a solo recital???

There should be no more solo recitals in such big halls. No one gets anything out of that experience except the $100-folks.

Some of the concert venues I've found the most worthwhile recently:

- the Mostly Mozart late-night soirees. Intimate space, amazing soloists, in about an hour. Plus free drinks! I'm absolutely convinced that more publicity for this would be the most guaranteed way to turn the younger generation back onto classical.

- Leon Botstein's Classics Unclassified. At first I resisted thinking it would be "Music Appreciation 101". But even for a trained pianist like myself, these were informative, playing both to the specialist and the generalist. Again--short program. One big piece preceeded by lecture/demonstration. Plus, it's in the Miller Theatre, which is terrible acoustics, but again, small.
And cheap.

- Operas at the BAM Harvey. Again, the smaller venue. Like Glimmerglass, Opera suddenly becomes good drama when you can see the singers' faces.

In sum: best way to lure young classical-friendly people back to the concert hall--give them something worth seeing at a price not necessarily cheapo, but that they can afford to bring a date to.

Postscript: Worth noting, as I'm sure you and others have, that concert attendance is only one measure of interest. In this day and age, just listening
to the music--in all the technologically new ways one can do so--may be an even more accurate--and encouraging--measure.

Wonderful, helpful thoughts.Thanks so much. I'm going to put this on the blog for everyone to see.

The cost of tickets really is a problem. Recently I got an e-mail announcement from the Curtis Institute of Music, the famous music school in Philadelphia. They were announcing a bassoon recital -- ticket price, $28. Now, the player is the principal bassoonist in the Philadelphia Orchestra, so obviously he's good, but how many people want to pay that much for a bassoon recital? I've been to several, in my music-student days, and again in recent years, when I've been teaching. The appeal is somewhat limited (with apologies to John Steinmetz and other bassoonists who might be reading this!).

I agree about interest shown in ways besides buying tickets. Unfortunately, it's still tickets that sustain the business. Classical recordings, for instance, aren't making much money for many people right now.

Where were the elderly ticket buyers when I was young? Where are the young ticket buyers now that I am old? True, we now have more time and money to attend more events, and perhaps give the impression we are everywhere in greater numbers. But visit a conservatory to see the dedication and talent of the young people.

I agree -- I teach at two conservatories, and the students are very dedicated. And numerous! It's a paradox. They do say that their friends don't understand what they do. As for elderly ticket buyers generations ago, they certainly existed. There were just fewer of them, proportionately. As far as I can see, the orchestra audience then was more like the general population - -in age, at least -- than it is now.

Fascinating. As a bassoon player, I have long been aware that my work seems bizarre and marginal to most people, and so I'm not surprised by the data showing that classical music is losing steam. I don't see this as a bad thing; it's an opportunity to ask what kinds of musical life we want to create. After all, the old structures are not all that fulfilling. As computer scientist Alan Kay famously said, "The best way to predict the future is to invent it." Well, what kind of future do we want to invent? Where and how do you want to encounter music? With whom? What aspirations do you want the music to serve? What role(s) do you want to play?

I think the situation MAY be even bleaker than it looks.

The population as a whole is expanding exponentially -- somewhat similar to compounded interest. But the demographic in which concertgoers and potential concertgoers sits may be shrinking. A couple in the general population tends to have more than two children, so that population grows. A couple in the concertgoers demographic tends to have two children. But there is little assurance that those two children will turn out to be concertgoeers, which means the concertgoers are not replacing themselves.

Further, audiences for "cultural events" tend to have a large proportion of homosexual males, who tend not to reproduce themselves at all.

That last comment is challenging, to say the least. Seems to me that if we assume that this is true, and that gay men are some large proportion of the cultural audience, then maybe things aren't so bad. There will always be the same proportion of gay men (and women) in our society,and if there's something that makes them more interested in some kinds of culture, they'll still keep going.

But of course this whole topic is sensitive. I hope no one was offended by what's been posted here.

The biggest problem with doomsaying is projecting out current trends while saying "if things remain as they are today ..."

We're dealing with cultural, economic and technologic forces here that are highly volatile, and which will certainly recombine in ways to surprise us in the future.

For instance here's just one possible future and reasons for it:

The audience is aging today because it's less important to succeed socially to "be cultured." Therefore, fewer parents take their children and teens, willing or not, to concerts. Fewer adults go because they discovered their liking for classical music at a relatively early age. Those who do go are going more for the inherent enjoyment than "to be seen" as part of the upper eshelon.

The age at which classical music is "discovered" by hearers, I would hazard, is increasing as much as the average concert attendees'. And since the "social" reasons for attendance are less important*, that proportion of the audience is decreasing.

If these suppositions have any merit, one could foresee a future where total audiences decrease with respect to the population as a whole, but the passion of the audience increases. This would result in fewer, but still high quality--and more touring--orchestras, not the end of a tradition.

I would also suggest that economic factors, as have happened in other industries, would put downward pressure on musicians' salaries and the excessive packages given to music directors.

So maybe we'll have 50% fewer orchestras for the classics, paid less; but they'll still do a good job. Meanwhile, new music will thrive all the more with the ability for fewer musicians to emulate orchestral experiences with electronic instruments in concerts of comparably compex musics as traditional classical, which will more and more occupy a solid niche along with today's "period performance" movements.

In short: I see changes, transformation, but not demise.

*although social reasons seem to be enjoying a boomlet for Asian audiences.