Conductor Michael Tilson Thomas’ Free Lunch

Tilson Thomas leads a past year's concert. Photo: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ari/">Steve Rhodes</a> under a CC license.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


That was a treat! How often can you leave work on your lunch break, grab a burrito, and plop your ass down 20 feet from a world-renowned symphony orchestra for a free concert led by this guy.

The San Francisco Symphony, fresh from a round of festivals in Switzerland and Italy, played an outdoor freebie for their appreciative hometown rabble Friday afternoon, the players laughing as nearby car horns and sirens worked their way into the refrains. It was delightful show, ignoring the program’s admonition that “video or audio recording of today’s performance is strictly prohibited” (Please! This is the iPhone generation.) Superconductor Michael Tilson Thomas took the helm, launching his talented crew of waiters (or so they appeared in their white tuxedoes) into the Roman Carnival Overture (Opus 9) by Berlioz, followed by the First Movement (Allegro con brio) from Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Opus 67. (See rant below.)

Wagner was next, his stormy overture to The Flying Dutchman well rendered, but the real crowd pleaser came courtesy of a French composer I’d never heard of—a Wagner admirer named Delibes, whose raucous and intellectually twisty “Cortege de Bacchus” (from the ballet Sylvia) promised what Tilson Thomas called “the good bad note.” Which got me listing for one such note; I was rewarded with many.

The symphony’s luchtime finale was also the finale (Allegro con fuoco) from Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 4 in F minor, Opus 36. Which, by no fault of the players, seemed a tad forgettable, even though it concludes in typical triumphal fashion. More from this Delibes fellow!

The fact that I clearly have little classical breadth brings me to the issue of nomenclature. We’re all familiar with the abovementioned Beethoven piece: Da-da-da-duuuuuum! … Ta-ta-ta-tuuuuuuuum! The symphony played it movingly, although not so movingly as to erase this from my permanent consciousness. But let me ask readers: Did you recognize this iconic work when I mentioned its name? Yeah, didn’t think so.

Hence my theory on why classical has so declined in popularity: Bad marketing! A piece needs something people can remember it by so they can tell their friends about it—memorable names to compete with everything from “Blowin’ in the Wind” to “Poker Face.”

I actually grew up playing classical piano, yet to this day it’s only the named pieces I can readily recall: Bach’s Goldberg Variations and Brandenburg Concertos, Beethoven’s Pathetique and Moonlight sonatas, his Tempest (wonderful!), Holst’s The Planets, Vivaldi’s ridiculously overplayed Le Quattro Stagioni. (The Four Seasons, fool!) And—god help us—stuff like “Fur Elise” and “Pachelbel’s Canon”, the latter so egregiously overexposed that when you type “pache…” into Google, one of the auto-search terms that awaits you is “Pachelbel rant.” Which, as it happens, is a video so awesome I’m going to force you to watch it:

The point is, we hear too much of these pieces, and not enough of other deserving ones, in large part because nobody can remember a name like the Brahams Cello Sonata in F (Opus 99) or Handel’s Organ Concerto Opus 7, No. 1. It’s sort of analogous with genetics, another subject I used to study: Scientists give human genes unpronounceable names like LDHC and CYP1A1, while those who study fruit flies give fly genes memorable monikers like “18wheeler” (whose mutant larvae have 18 stripes), “cheap date” (flies with mutations in this gene are highly sensitive to alcohol), and “clown” (red and white eyes).

Look, I know what you’re going to say. But so what if most of these master composers have been dead for hundreds of years! I mean, have these people no creativity!

Click here for more Music Monday features from Mother Jones.

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate