John Williams named 2023’s most-performed living classical composer

[karelm 2,914]

Does this topic need its own thread?  Our Johnny has added another accolade to the list - he's the top performed living classical composer of 2023 beating out Arvo Part!

Movie maestro John Williams named 2023’s most-performed living composer - Classic FM

 

The report is based on the performances listed on its website last year, which numbered over 30,000.  

Annual classical music statistics 2023 vx (bachtrack.com)

[Tom 4,661]

I am shocked that anyone could beat Williams on any given year (as long as his film music "counts").  

 

And, what is the deal with a Minimalist composer being the most performed the year before?  Don't people know what words mean anymore?  

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

I wanted to post this a while back, but I couldn't find a good link with a proper list of the top 10. I was surprised to see Caroline Shaw in the list - simply because we performed her And the Swallow with the choir in December, and I had never heard of her before.

 

4 minutes ago, Tom said:

I am shocked that anyone could beat Williams on any given year (as long as his film music "counts"). 

 

Of course it "counts". But it's *most performed*, i.e. live performances. A bit more than ten years ago, live performances of film music probably didn't even yet make a dent in these statistics.

 

4 minutes ago, Tom said:

And, what is the deal with a Minimalist composer being the most performed the year before?  Don't people know what words mean anymore?  

 

I suppose you're joking, but I still have to point out that Glass hasn't considered his current style minimalist for many years now.

[Tom 4,661]

Yes, I was joking on the minimalist thing.  If you did not think it was funny, then treat it as minimalist humor.

 

I get the performance part, that is why I am surprised.  Williams has over 50 years of music to pull from and entire concerts all over the world dedicated to his works, not to mention many, many more that include some pieces.  It is going to be hard to beat that (which is why getting knocked off in 2022 is surprising to me).  But, either way, the crown returns to him for at least another year.    

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

I missed the point anyway, because I forgot it wasn't Glass who was ahead of Williams last year (although he is in the top 10), but Pärt.

 

Pärt, as far as I'm aware, is mostly focused on choral/vocal works (we did his Which Was the Son of a couple of years ago) and works for smaller ensembles. Williams's primary focus, both for film and concert works, has always been a symphony orchestra, often a large one. His choral and vocal output is small, and even that mostly requires an orchestra.

 

I imagine many amateur artists and ensembles give regular performances of Pärt's (and for the same reason, Glass's) works, because a) they've written material that can be performed by soloists/vocal ensembles/small instrumental ensembles, and b) performing those works is relatively affordable (as far as licencing of contemporary works is affordable for amateur ensembles - we pay the performance fees for the Pärt/Britten/etc. works we do, but also paying the recording/publication fees that would allow us to put the result on YouTube etc. is usually a luxury we can't justify). By contrast, for most Williams works you need a) a big orchestra and b) parts and licences.

[JTN 2,030]

I wonder how all those performances pay... Do the venues pay any royalties to JW? 

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

The organiser (typically either the venue or the performers) has to pay the licencing fees. When you have to rent the sheet music (as we did for the John Rutter pieces we did some years back), that can be part of the rental contract (you have to declare upfront how and where you will perform the music, and the expected audience, before you get the sheets, and your rental fee depends on those conditions). Otherwise, it's usually done by registering the concert with the responsible collecting agency of the country where the performance will take place (AKM for Austria, GEMA for Germany, ASCAP for the USA, etc.). They are then responsible for making sure the original composers get what they're due (with varying success). If the composer is not registered with any agency, you have to make a licencing deal with them yourself - essentially the (actual) purpose of the collecting agencies, because they ('re supposed to) make it easier to licence the music through one official, standardised channel.

 

I know at least one of those agencies has a tendency to blindly charge a fee for every piece of music on the programme, with no regard as to whether the piece is still under copyright and whether the composer is actually registered with a collecting agency. You can then file a complaint with them and will get a reduced total fee, but never will they give you an actual detailed listing of how much they charge for the individual pieces. They once tried to charge us a fee for performing Mozart's Requiem, and I'm pretty sure they also tried to charge us for performing a few pieces our choir director has written (and specifically brought in for our concert; he's not registered with an agency).

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

42 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

They once tried to charge us a fee for performing Mozart's Requiem

 

Which I guess could make sense if you used an edition of the score that's still under copyright.

[JTN 2,030]

56 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

They once tried to charge us a fee for performing Mozart's Requiem

You must have used too many notes.

[Tom 4,661]

Oh, and by the way, there are plenty of other composers who were performed more than Williams.  But, they are all dead.  

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

2 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

3 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

They once tried to charge us a fee for performing Mozart's Requiem

 

Which I guess could make sense if you used an edition of the score that's still under copyright.

 

If so, then how would they know? That's not part of the information they collect. Also, as far as I understand, unless there's actually a specific difference in the notes (something that goes beyond any variations you invariably get through different interpretations), I expect the copyright would apply only to the sheet music (which we bought for each member), and not for the performed music.

 

(But then, YouTube claimed that our recording was copyrighted because it thought we were the Arnold Schoenberg Chor…)

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

10 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

If so, then how would they know? That's not part of the information they collect. Also, as far as I understand, unless there's actually a specific difference in the notes (something that goes beyond any variations you invariably get through different interpretations), I expect the copyright would apply only to the sheet music (which we bought for each member), and not for the performed music.

 

(But then, YouTube claimed that our recording was copyrighted because it thought we were the Arnold Schoenberg Chor…)

 

I know next to nothing about the details of this.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

57 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I know next to nothing about the details of this.

 

I don't "know" much, my main knowledge of copyright comes via computer programming. But unless a new edition of a score adds something distinctly original, I cannot imagine the editors having any kind of ownership of the musical content (and thus resulting performances). What certainly can be protected is the layout, hence the frequent warning on score sheets that copies are prohibited (which is of course not entirely correct either - they're allowed under fair use).

[Tom 4,661]

Okay, one more and then I am done.  

 

I think that the guy who composed the score to The Birds should be the winner of this.  I mean, his score is the most minimalist out there, and we hear it at every intermission of every concert.  No wonder we never heard from him again.  The fees and royalties that dude pulled in must be astronomical.  

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Don't confuse Bernard Herrmann with John Cage.

[Tom Guernsey 2,286]

I don’t know whether there’s a more appropriate thread but this randomly appeared on my Facebook and it made me chuckle that JW beats them all. Even Willy Nelson.

 

 

[Thor 7,508]

Yes, I saw someone post that on FB too, and was about to post JW, but someone beat me to it.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Can any of you post a link to it?

 

If conductors count, Herbert Blomstedt beats them all at 96.

[Thor 7,508]

Ray Anthony (the sole remaining member of the Glenn Miller Band) still plays the trumpet at 102. But not in public, I believe.

 

(*that's what SHE said*).

[Tom 4,661]

I have a quibble over the word choice in the original article.  "JW 'named'..." makes it sound like some subjectively-based prize.  It is a statement of fact.  They should have gone with "JW is/was the most performed living composer."  

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

It's based on incomplete data.

[Tom 4,661]

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

It's based on incomplete data.

Sure, but that is the case with all statements of fact.  The factual claim is that he is the most performed living composer, and that claim (which could turn out to be false) is based on such and such evidence.  

 

Sorry, the philosopher in me in coming out.  

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

A fact is a statement that is true, it isn't perhaps true.

[Tom 4,661]

 

On 02/02/2024 at 2:00 PM, Jurassic Shark said:

A fact is a statement that is true, it isn't perhaps true.

Read on only if you want to become sleepy:

 

From a linguistics point of view, a statement that is true is simply called a true proposition.  A fact is a statement concerning some empirical (scientific--broadly construed) reality.  Thus, not all "factual statements" are true.  The statement that "water freezes at 65 degrees" is a factual statement, but false.  Usually, though, we use the shorthand "fact" to refer to a empirical proposition that is indeed "true" by reigning consensus based on best available evidence.  But the kicker is that no scientific statement can ever be called true with a 100% certitude, as science deals only with probabilities under the 100% threshold. 

 

As factually true as Newton's law that Force + Matter x Acceleration seemed prior to Einstein, the latter proved it was not actually true.  The lesson: all facts, no matter how high their probability of support, could turn out to be false upon further inquiry.  

 

In the case of the above, the statement that "Williams is the most performed living composer" is a factual claim. The best available evident points to this statement being true.  Hence, a fact.