Orchestral musicians have unusually challenging jobs • Hacker News Board

Re: Orchestral musicians have unusually challenging jobs

#51

Post by Leherenn » Thu, Mar 24, 2022, 8:10 PM UTC

callalex wrote: post #50

Leherenn wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do musicians hate the "non-classical" concerts?

For the same reason a Michelin chef wouldn’t enjoy being a fry cook at McDonalds. It’s all the tedious parts of the job without the challenge and creativity parts.

Are the top movie scores really that bad/simple compared to the average classical piece? Clearly, the classical masterpieces are a step or two above, but they don't always play that or it must get boring quickly I assume.

To me, if felt more like a Michelin chef having a go at a burger. You wouldn't do that all the time, but it could be a fun distraction once in a while. If anything, it feels like you would need quite a bit of creativity to adapt a piece that was not meant for a classical orchestra.

Re: Orchestral musicians have unusually challenging jobs

#52

Post by bsder » Thu, Mar 24, 2022, 9:28 PM UTC

j7ake wrote: post #2

I remember listening to a piano concerto + symphony one evening live at a concert hall and thinking how it was possible that this orchestra of 50+ plus a famous soloist makes money on our $100 tickets (best seats). Here we are paying $100 for 50 top notch world class musicians playing for 3 hours. There were maybe 500 people in the concert hall, so at an average ticket price of $50 each musician (split evenly) would…

> I remember listening to a piano concerto + symphony one evening live at a concert hall and thinking how it was possible that this orchestra of 50+ plus a famous soloist makes money on our $100 tickets (best seats).

They don't. And this is the problem with classical music.

This kind of thing is almost all about getting money from "benefactors"--and do NOT ever offend them. And those benefactors have normally pretty narrow musical taste in classical music.

Re: Orchestral musicians have unusually challenging jobs

#53

Post by commandlinefan » Thu, Mar 24, 2022, 9:59 PM UTC

socksset wrote: post #13

Even worse to me is so many orchestras have to pay the bills with performances of Christmas music or orchestral versions of Motley Crue. Imagine putting in that many hours of practice on the classical masters to end up with a low paying job playing Frosty the Snowman and Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar On Me".

> and Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar On Me".

And here I am wishing I could play Pour Some Sugar On Me somewhere for free...

Re: Orchestral musicians have unusually challenging jobs

#54

Post by IndySun » Sat, Mar 26, 2022, 12:16 PM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #44

IndySun wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, there's no objective artistic explanation for Selena Gomez; and all orchestral music played in a hall is objectively 'art'?

There are layers of objective and subjective factors. "What is art" is its own beast. How a particular style of interpretation is chosen, is subjective. Once that style is chosen, the performance can be assessed against many objective standards, such as whether they followed their own stylistic choices correctly, etc.

I'm arguing that the subjective part of art is far less powerful than the objective, almost to the point it recedes from view. You disagree? Strictly speaking, all 'art' is subjective. Or, even stricter speaking, anything at all for which subjective outweighs objective becomes more or less 'subjective', ergo, all art is subjective.

Perhaps you might argue, receded from view but still significant, is that fair?

Re: Orchestral musicians have unusually challenging jobs

#55

Post by cryptica » Sun, Mar 27, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

jelsisi wrote: post #19

cryptica wrote: post #9

This seems to me like a job where the output quality of a worker is extremely difficult to measure; it's difficult to tell if one excellent musician is better than another excellent musician. Surely beyond a certain point, it's subjective. People tend to want to think of themselves as being objectively talented and as being deserving of credit; but in certain professions, there is no such thing. Art is rich people's…

Having played the violin for ~16 years and been in many competitions, I'd have to say it's fairly easy to differentiate musicians. There are pieces of music that push the the limit of what your fingers can do, and some interpretations generally win out over others.

Wouldn't all musicians who are good enough to work for a professional orchestra be able to play all of these difficult pieces without making any mistakes? Being able to play difficult pieces without making a mistake is the objective definition of perfection. Yet among the people who can all play difficult pieces perfectly, not all of them can work for the New York Philharmonic or more high prestige group. What differentiates one player who plays perfectly from another player who also plays perfectly?

There must be something else beyond 'not making mistakes'; that thing is subjective, not objective. It's pretty clear if someone hits the wrong note, but who gets to judge that a particular musician held a specific note for 10 milliseconds too long? Or who is to say that some notes were given 'too much emphasis'?

I'm sure that there is consensus among the elite musicians about all these subjective judgments, but it doesn't change the fact that it's subjective... The audience might not care at all either way or they might even disagree with the elite musicians' consensus... Who is right in this case? Isn't the customer always right? What does it mean to have a 'trained ear'? Can't the ear be over-trained or mis-trained.

If you teach someone how to do something the wrong way (e.g. inefficiently) and they learn how to do it the wrong way perfectly, isn't it still the wrong way?

Re: Orchestral musicians have unusually challenging jobs

#56

Post by jelsisi » Sat, Apr 02, 2022, 6:47 PM UTC

cryptica wrote: post #55

jelsisi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having played the violin for ~16 years and been in many competitions, I'd have to say it's fairly easy to differentiate musicians. There are pieces of music that push the the limit of what your fingers can do, and some interpretations generally win out over others.

Wouldn't all musicians who are good enough to work for a professional orchestra be able to play all of these difficult pieces without making any mistakes? Being able to play difficult pieces without making a mistake is the objective definition of perfection. Yet among the people who can all play difficult pieces perfectly, not all of them can work for the New York Philharmonic or more high prestige group. What differ…

Well worded response, you've changed my mind! My guess is that what is deemed subjectively better comes from past interpretations and builds. I don't have enough historical background to understand the context that has lead to what is popular today.