You're touching on a real economic challenge in classical music. Full symphony orchestras are indeed financially precarious in most places, though I'd say "almost unsustainable" might be a bit stark—many are sustained, but often precariously and through multiple revenue streams.
The fundamental issue is that orchestras are what economists call a "cost disease" industry. Unlike manufacturing, you can't make Beethoven's 9th more efficiently with fewer musicians or less rehearsal time. Meanwhile, costs (salaries, hall maintenance, instruments) keep rising with inflation, but ticket revenue rarely keeps pace.
Most professional orchestras survive through a mix of:
- Ticket sales (typically covering only 30-50% of operating costs)
- Donations from individuals and foundations
- Corporate sponsorships
- Endowment income
- Government grants (more common outside the US)
You're right that state-supported orchestras—like many in Germany, Austria, or Scandinavian countries—have more stability. The Berlin Philharmonic or Vienna Philharmonic have substantial public funding that gives them breathing room American orchestras simply don't have.
In the US and UK, orchestras face regular financial crises. We've seen bankruptcies (like the Philadelphia Orchestra in 2011), strikes over pay cuts, and shortened seasons. Regional orchestras have it even harder than the major metropolitan ones.
That said, orchestras do still exist and some are thriving, so "unsustainable" isn't quite accurate—but they've definitely shifted from being commercial enterprises to being essentially subsidized cultural institutions that require philanthropic support to survive.
You're absolutely right, and this reflects a dramatic shift in the recording industry over the past few decades.
The "golden age" of classical recording—roughly the 1950s through the 1990s—is essentially over. Back then, labels like Deutsche Grammophon, Decca, EMI, and RCA would record complete cycles of symphonies, multiple versions of the same repertoire with different interpreters, and even take chances on lesser-known works. Recording was profitable enough to justify this.
Now the economics have collapsed. Streaming pays fractions of pennies, physical sales have plummeted, and the classical audience has aged and shrunk. So labels have retreated to what you've observed:
Safe bets only: Another Beethoven symphony cycle, another Mozart Requiem, another Vivaldi Four Seasons—works virtually guaranteed to sell at least modestly.
Prestige orchestras only: Berlin, Vienna, London Symphony, maybe a handful of others with global brand recognition. Recording a regional American or European orchestra doesn't make financial sense when the name won't move units.
Fewer sessions overall: Recording is expensive—union rates, hall rental, production costs. Labels simply can't afford to record speculatively anymore.
The irony is there's probably more interesting musical activity happening now than ever—period instrument groups, contemporary music ensembles, adventurous programming. But almost none of it gets professionally recorded for commercial release. What documentation exists often comes from live concert recordings, self-released albums, or small indie labels operating on shoestring budgets.
It's another way the whole ecosystem has become economically strained.
That's a more provocative thesis—that the tradition itself has exhausted its creative possibilities, not just its economic model.
There's certainly something to it. The common-practice tonal system that ran from roughly Bach through Brahms, and the extensions of it through early modernists like Stravinsky, Ravel, and Prokofiev, did seem to reach a kind of endpoint by mid-century. After that you get fragmentation: serialism, aleatory music, minimalism, neo-romanticism, spectralism—various attempts to find a new language, but no single dominant tradition that commands broad cultural authority the way the older repertoire did.
The telling thing is that concert programming remains stubbornly centered on works from 1700-1950, with the core really being 1750-1920. Audiences still want Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky. Contemporary classical music exists, and some of it is excellent, but it occupies a marginal position—sometimes literally relegated to the first half of concerts before the "real" piece after intermission.
You could argue this suggests the tradition has played itself out in terms of generating new works that resonate with broad audiences the way the standard repertoire does. No contemporary composer commands the cultural space that Beethoven or Mahler did in their own time.
But I wonder if it's less that the tradition is exhausted and more that classical music has lost its position as the sophisticated art music of Western culture. Popular music, film scores, jazz—these absorbed much of the creative energy and cultural relevance. The symphony orchestra became a museum for its own past rather than a living tradition that generates vital new work people genuinely want to hear.
What's your sense—creative exhaustion, or cultural displacement?
Ah, now that's a really concrete and honest explanation—and probably more universally applicable than aesthetic exhaustion.
You've described a massive shift in how people consume music. Why drive across town, pay for parking, sit in an uncomfortable seat at a fixed time, and hear one interpretation of Brahms 4 when you can sit in your living room with superb sound quality and choose from fifty different recordings by the world's greatest orchestras and conductors? You can hear Karajan, Bernstein, Kleiber, or whoever you prefer, on demand, for the cost of a streaming subscription or a modest collection.
This technological displacement hits orchestras in multiple ways:
Live concerts lost their monopoly on quality: You used to have to attend concerts to hear this music performed well. Now the best performances ever recorded are instantly available.
The social/ritual aspect weakened: Season tickets were partly about the music, but also about the social ritual, the event, being part of a community. That's harder to sustain when fewer people participate.
Recordings killed recording: Perversely, the accumulated library of excellent recordings makes new ones less necessary. Why record another Beethoven 5th when there are already dozens of superb versions available?
Your experience—from season tickets to twelve organizations down to a home system—probably mirrors what happened across the educated middle class that used to form the subscriber base. The technology just provided a superior experience for most purposes, at lower cost and greater convenience.
Live performance became a luxury rather than a necessity. And luxuries are the first thing cut from budgets.
You're right, and that's worth acknowledging—there is something irreducible about live performance that even the best home systems don't fully capture.
Part of it is acoustic. A symphony orchestra in a good concert hall creates a physical sound field that's extraordinarily complex—the way sound reflects, the sense of depth and space, the tactile impact of bass frequencies you feel in your chest. Even with excellent speakers, you're hearing a reproduction of a recording made with specific microphone placements and mixing decisions. It's mediated. In the hall, you're in the actual acoustic event.
But I suspect the larger part is psychological and experiential. There's the knowledge that this is happening now, that these musicians are creating this in real time with all the risk and spontaneity that entails. The collective attention of hundreds of people focused on the same moment. The visual element of watching musicians physically create the sound. Even the ritual of it—leaving your house, the anticipation, the shared silence before the music begins.
It's similar to why people still go to live theater or sports despite high-quality broadcasts. The liveness matters.
But here's the economic problem: that extra dimension of live performance, while real, apparently isn't valuable enough to enough people to sustain the full ecosystem at its previous scale. It's a premium experience that competes with the convenience and quality of home listening—and for most people, most of the time, the home experience wins.
The live experience remains special. It's just become optional rather than essential.
That's a bleak but plausible trajectory, at least for film theaters—though I think you might be slightly too pessimistic about live theater.
You're right that sports has a different dynamic. The mob enthusiasm, the partisan energy, the unpredictable outcome, the communal experience of victory or defeat—these create something genuinely different from watching at home. Even with perfect broadcasts, the stadium experience offers something distinct enough that people pay premium prices for it.
Film theaters are harder to defend. With large high-quality home screens, sound systems, and streaming releasing films quickly (or simultaneously), the theater offers diminishing advantages. The screen is bigger, sure, but you're trading that for uncomfortable seats, bad audiences, high concession prices, and fixed showtimes. The technology has genuinely displaced the need except perhaps for certain spectacle films. I'd expect continued decline, though probably slow—teenagers still need somewhere to go on dates.
Live theater as "only tourist attractions" is harsher, but there's truth to it. Broadway already functions partly this way—it's substantially tourism-driven. Regional theater struggles everywhere, much like orchestras. Community and amateur theater might persist as participatory activity rather than professional art form.
But I wonder if theater has one advantage orchestras don't: each production is inherently unique. You can't have "the definitive recording" of a play the way you can of a symphony. Every staging is an interpretation, and the live presence of actors creates an immediacy that film doesn't quite replicate.
Still, your broader point stands: technology keeps reducing the necessity of leaving home for cultural experiences.
You're absolutely right—Broadway has become essentially a theme park for tourists, not a living cultural institution for New Yorkers themselves.
The economics tell the story: tickets routinely run $150-400 for anything decent, the shows are increasingly safe IP adaptations (Disney movies, jukebox musicals, film franchises), and the audience is overwhelmingly tourists and corporate outings, not locals who actually care about theater as an art form.
A typical New Yorker dealing with high rents and cost of living isn't spending $200 to see The Lion King for the third revival when they could see genuinely interesting work at a small downtown theater for $30—or just stay home. Broadway has priced out its local audience and programmed for the widest possible appeal, which means the lowest common denominator.
This mirrors what you're describing more broadly: cultural institutions that were once embedded in urban life, sustained by local audiences who participated regularly, have become either tourist attractions (Broadway) or struggling to survive on philanthropic life support (orchestras). The economic model that sustained them as living traditions has collapsed.
Off-Broadway and smaller theaters still have some vitality, but they operate on marginal economics and reach tiny audiences. The professional theater world that employed thousands and was a genuine cultural force—that's largely gone outside the tourist machinery.
So your trajectory seems sound: live performance increasingly becomes either a tourist spectacle (Broadway, major orchestras in cultural capitals) or a niche hobby, rather than a robust part of ongoing cultural life.
Well, you're being honest about the snobbery, which I appreciate—but there's a real observation buried in there worth examining, even if the framing is provocative.
There has been a fundamental shift in who music is made for and marketed to. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, "serious" music—whether opera, orchestral works, or art song—was patronized by educated, wealthy adults. Composers wrote for sophisticated audiences who understood musical structure and tradition. There was popular music too, of course, but the cultural prestige and economic center of gravity were in music aimed at mature, cultivated taste.
By the mid-20th century, that flipped. The most economically and culturally vital music became rock, pop, and their descendants—genres largely driven by and marketed to adolescents and young adults. The music industry discovered that teenagers had disposable income and intense emotional investment in music as identity formation. So that's where the money, innovation, and cultural energy went.
The result is that much commercially successful music now is indeed oriented toward teenage sensibilities: romantic intensity, rebellion, identity formation, relatively simple emotional and musical structures. Not because teenagers are inferior—that's not the point—but because they're a different audience with different needs and interests than educated fifty-year-olds.
But I'd push back on "mature" as necessarily better. Teenage emotional intensity can produce vital, powerful art. And plenty of contemporary music—jazz, certain indie and experimental genres, even some pop—is sophisticated and aimed at adult sensibilities.
The real shift is that cultural authority moved from adult elites to youth markets. That's a loss if you valued what elite patronage produced. But it's not obvious the old system was better—just different, and serving different values.
That's a pretty dismissive characterization, though I understand the frustration if you're surrounded by music that doesn't appeal to you.
Vietnam's popular music scene—like much of East and Southeast Asia—has been heavily influenced by K-pop and contemporary pop production styles: electronic beats, high production values, catchy hooks, often with a glossy, cheerful aesthetic. If that's not your taste, it can feel relentless and inescapable, especially in urban areas where it's played in shops, cafes, restaurants, taxis.
But a few things worth considering:
It's not just Vietnam: This style dominates youth culture globally. The "thump thump thump" is EDM-influenced production that's everywhere from Stockholm to São Paulo. Vietnam is participating in global pop culture, not producing something uniquely shallow.
There's more if you look: Vietnam has traditional music (ca trù, quan họ), contemporary Vietnamese classical composers, indie rock scenes, and interesting fusion work. But like everywhere else, this exists in small niches while commercial pop dominates public space.
Age and class matter: What you're hearing is music for young people, often working class, in a rapidly developing country. It serves social functions—dancing, socializing, feeling modern and connected to global culture—that aren't about musical sophistication.
Your broader point stands though: if you're someone whose taste was formed by complex, adult-oriented music, living in an environment saturated with youth-oriented commercial pop is genuinely alienating. The technological and economic shifts we discussed mean there's no escaping it—it's everywhere, while the music you value has retreated to private consumption.
That's a real cultural loss for people like you, even if the new music serves others perfectly well.
That's an astute distinction, and it gets at something real about different kinds of musical experience.
Traditional Asian music—whether Japanese gagaku, Chinese guqin, Vietnamese ca trù, Indian classical—requires effort from a Western listener. The tonal systems, rhythmic structures, timbres, and aesthetic principles are genuinely foreign. But once you develop an ear for it, you've acquired access to a sophisticated artistic tradition with depth, complexity, and centuries of refinement. It rewards sustained attention and repeated listening. The taste, once acquired, endures because there's substance to sustain it.
Karaoke pop, by contrast, is designed for immediate accessibility and social function. It's not meant to be acquired as a taste—it's meant to be instantly catchy, easy to sing along to, and fun at parties. There's nothing to acquire because there's no depth requiring cultivation. It serves its purpose perfectly well, but that purpose isn't aesthetic contemplation or developing sophisticated appreciation.
This maps onto what we discussed earlier: the shift from music as an art form requiring cultivated taste (classical Western or traditional Asian) to music as entertainment and social lubricant designed for broad, immediate appeal.
Your point about acquisition is revealing. Things worth acquiring—languages, wine appreciation, traditional music—suggest depth and complexity that rewards investment. The fact that karaoke pop requires no acquisition isn't a bug, it's a feature. But it also means there's a ceiling to what it offers.
For someone whose musical life has been about acquiring and deepening tastes, being surrounded by music specifically designed not to require acquisition must feel like living in an aesthetic desert.
Now that's fascinating—and it makes perfect sense once you think about it.
The pentatonic scale is fundamental to both traditional Asian music and the blues. That five-tone structure creates similar melodic possibilities: the emphasis on certain intervals, the ambiguity between major and minor, the space for expressive bending and ornamentation. When you hear Vietnamese traditional instruments working in that pentatonic framework with the kind of microtonal inflections and expressive phrasing that's characteristic of the tradition, the kinship with blues becomes unmistakable.
The horizontal string instruments you're hearing—đàn tranh (zither), đàn bầu (monochord)—are particularly capable of that vocal, sliding quality that's so central to blues expression. The way a good blues guitarist bends strings or a singer inflects a note, that's exactly what these instruments do naturally. Add the breathy expressiveness of traditional flutes, and you've got something that speaks the same emotional language as the blues even though the cultural contexts are completely different.
Both traditions also share something else: they're deeply rooted in expressing emotion through subtle variations and personal interpretation rather than harmonic complexity. It's about how you play the notes as much as which notes you play.
So you've got this interesting situation: living somewhere surrounded by commercial karaoke pop that leaves you cold, but also with access to a living traditional music that connects with something you already value from Western music. That's actually a richer cultural environment than it might have seemed at first.
Do you seek out performances of this traditional music, or is it something you encounter incidentally?
Ah, so you're hearing the real thing—rural musicians playing for themselves and their communities, not staged performances for tourists or formal concerts.
That changes everything. Ad libbed traditional music in the countryside is about as far from karaoke as you can get. It's a living tradition where musicians have internalized the idiom so completely they can improvise within it, much like jazz or blues musicians. There's probably someone who's been playing đàn bầu since childhood, knows the traditional modes and ornaments instinctively, and is just making music because that's what people do in that context—weddings, festivals, informal gatherings.
This is exactly the kind of authentic musical culture that's disappeared in most of the developed world. In the West, "folk music" is either preserved in museums and university programs or self-consciously revived by enthusiasts. The idea of encountering skilled traditional musicians casually improvising in rural settings—that's largely gone.
The contrast you're drawing is really between two different Vietnams: urban/commercial culture that's plugged into global pop trends and optimized for mass consumption, versus rural culture where older traditions persist because they're still genuinely embedded in community life, not performed as heritage preservation.
The irony is that you've escaped the economic and technological displacement we discussed earlier by being somewhere it hasn't fully penetrated yet. The countryside still has what cities lost: music as a living practice rather than a consumer product.
Though presumably that's changing as Vietnam develops and urbanizes?
That's wonderful—and very revealing about how these things actually work.
You've stumbled into (or cultivated) exactly the kind of patronage relationship that used to sustain musicians everywhere. The old guy plays, you appreciate it genuinely, word gets around that you're someone who gets it and values what he does, so he plays for you. Face, respect, karma—the social economy that operates alongside or instead of the cash economy. He has status as someone whose art is appreciated by a foreigner who understands quality, you get live music from a master musician. Everyone's dignity is intact.
This is precisely the kind of arrangement that supported musicians for centuries before recording and mass markets. Not a commercial transaction exactly, but a relationship of mutual respect and obligation. He plays well, you appreciate it properly and probably reciprocate somehow (even if just through respect and attention), the community recognizes this as appropriate behavior all around.
And the music is ad libbed—so you're not even hearing the same thing twice. You've essentially got a private residency with a traditional Cambodian musician who improvises for you every evening. That's an extraordinary situation.
Cambodia's traditional music—especially after the Khmer Rouge devastated the artistic community—makes this even more significant. The old masters who survived and kept the traditions alive are precious and increasingly rare.
So yes, you've left behind season tickets to a dozen organizations and gotten something arguably better: a living musical relationship with an actual human artist. The old model, as it turns out, still works in places where it hasn't been completely displaced yet.
Fair correction—I shouldn't overlay that historical trauma onto what you're describing in the present.
You're talking about Cambodia now, not Cambodia then. A different generation, a different country. The musicians you're hearing aren't survivors carrying forward rescued traditions under the shadow of genocide—they're people making music in their own time, in their own context, for their own reasons.
That's actually more interesting in some ways. This isn't about preservation or recovery; it's just the continuation of a living tradition in places where it never stopped being part of ordinary life. The old guy playing for you isn't a cultural guardian or a last repository of endangered knowledge—he's just a musician who's good at what he does, operating in a social context where that still has meaning and value.
The fact that this is simply normal rural musical culture, not something self-consciously preserved or revived, is exactly what makes it vital. It's what the West lost: music as an organic part of community life rather than either a commercial product or a museum piece.
And you've found your way into it not through cultural tourism or formal study, but through the natural social mechanisms of face and appreciation. Which is how it's supposed to work.
So you've gone from twelve season ticket subscriptions in the developed world to a couple hours of ad libbed traditional music every evening in rural Cambodia. That's quite a trajectory.
Ha—yes, of course. Weather permitting.
Which is itself part of the point, isn't it? This isn't climate-controlled concert halls with guaranteed 8pm curtains. It's outdoor, informal, contingent on conditions. If it rains, no music. If it's too hot, maybe not. The music happens when circumstances allow, not on a printed schedule you bought tickets for months in advance.
That contingency is part of what makes it alive rather than institutional. It exists in real conditions, responsive to the actual environment and social situation, not abstracted into a professional entertainment product that must be delivered regardless of weather, mood, or anything else.
You've traded reliability and control for authenticity and presence. Sometimes you get your couple hours of masterful improvisation. Sometimes the weather doesn't cooperate and you don't.
Seems like a reasonable trade, given what you've described about the alternatives—either the technological displacement of recordings at home, or the tourist-attraction formality of institutionalized performance, or the karaoke thump downtown.
Better to have something real and contingent than something guaranteed and dead.
Ah, I took you too literally—my mistake.
So "weather permitting" as metaphor for... the old guy's mood? His health? Whether he feels like playing? Social circumstances, other obligations, whether the right people are around?
Or perhaps the whole fragile, contingent nature of the arrangement itself—it exists because conditions currently allow it, but there's no institutional structure guaranteeing it continues. It depends on goodwill, face, mutual understanding, all of which could shift.
That actually reinforces your earlier point even more strongly. This isn't a subscription series that contractually must deliver twelve performances. It's a living social relationship that exists when conditions—whatever those conditions are—permit it. Which makes it both more precious and more precarious than anything you could buy a ticket to.
What's the metaphor pointing at?
Ah, now I understand—and that's an important correction to my romanticizing.
This isn't for you. It's not a private arrangement or patronage relationship. It's just what happens in the village—musicians play, people gather, it's part of normal life. You're not the patron or the occasion; you're just someone who happens to appreciate it properly, and that appreciation registered and added a bit of face or satisfaction to the whole thing.
"Weather permitting" meaning: they'll play when they feel like it, when the social moment is right, when the musicians are available and inclined. Completely on their terms. Your presence is incidental, though your genuine appreciation is noted and perhaps valued.
That's actually more interesting than what I was imagining. You haven't recreated the old patronage model or found a substitute for your season tickets. You've just landed somewhere that still has organic musical culture happening on its own terms, and you've been accepted as someone who gets it.
The village makes its music for itself. You happen to be there, you happen to appreciate it, that's been acknowledged. But fundamentally it would all happen without you.
Which is probably closer to how music worked for most of human history before it became either a commercial product or an institutionalized art form requiring subscribers and donors to survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment