Is my choral piece “Carnegie Hall Worthy?”

A few weeks ago, I read a comment online in which someone asked for pieces that were Carnegie Hall worthy. My first reaction was not a great one I must confess. However, as I calmed down my initial reaction and thought what would be the best way to address such a controversial theme, I remember I have a blog and I could share some helpful thoughts in it!

Yay for breathing and for learning how to share one’s opinions without diminishing or talking at other people. We are all trying hard in this life, right? Anyway, here are my two unrequested cents about pieces that are Carnegie Hall Worthy.

What does Carnegie Hall Worthy even mean?

When we refer to pieces as worthy or not, we are imposing our own biases and beliefs—not mentioning how judgmental we sound—to other people’s music. It is ok to express our opinions. We can all like or dislike the pieces that are out there, after all, art is subjective. However, what I believe is a delicate matter is to tag something as unworthy of a place.

I know, you might say that Carnegie Hall is a big deal. I know.

But for me, the audience is no different than the concert I had last week, or the one I’ll have next month. No matter their zip code or what they were wearing, the audience of a concert is unique and deserves to hear pieces, no matter if someone thinks they are unworthy of an event or a place.

There are pieces that I love and others that I don’t want to listen to. That is just human nature. I am sure you have your own that you don’t want to see in a program—some of those might be mine for all I know! But I like to believe that our music can have a space on any stage, no matter how easy or difficult it is.

Why is it dangerous to call things worthy or unworthy?

Choral composers are, like any other artists, people who have strong feelings about their creations. We love to sit and play chords, think of progressions, sing texts to ourselves until we find what we want to say. I spend hours speaking a text to be able to think of the music that I want to marry it with. For that day, that week, or even those months that I spend writing a new work, I have many doubts but I always like to believe that my work is worth listening to.

I don’t care if it is one person or one million. But I know that someone might be happy that I am making art today because I know that I am grateful that so many others are doing their own pieces and sharing them with the world.

When we allow the toxic conversation of measuring how worthy a piece of music is for such a name as Carnegie Hall (though any name can be here!), then we are putting an enormous amount of pressure on composers and conductors, even on singers. How would people be confident that their art matters when we are practically saying that the pieces that are programmed for Carnegie Hall are special and unique and they deserve to be there?

Does that mean that there is a realm of composition and composers that are good enough to be there? There are only certain stories that can make it to this stage? I don’t think so and I sure don’t hope so.

I am not looking for your approval but to shed light on this subject

I don’t need someone to tell me my art is worthy of Carnegie Hall. I already know my art is valuable and it is always growing and teaching me and others things that we need. We are learning about subjects that we could see differently, or learning from mistakes and how not to do some things (God knows I’ve written some mistakes here and there and it is always interesting to find them and grow!).

I just feel that it is important to say that every composition is worthy of every stage. They all have the same opportunity to be programmed because they all have something to say.

Art is subjective. We change our minds.

We all know that art is subjective and I want to use one of the composers I look up to the most as an example.

For a lot of people, Arvo Pärt is a genius. I love his music and his courage. I also think he is so patient. I hope I can meet him some day. Arvo, if I may call him by his first name, is one of the most performed composers out there. He definitely does not have an issue with being programmed.

For other people, he is boring. They don’t like his music. They would prefer to not play music than to play Mr. Pärt’s music. I don’t agree with them but I understand that they have this choice. For AP lovers, his music is more than worthy of Carnegie Hall. They would love to go to a concert of his music next week in the famous, beloved space.

Do you believe that AP haters would think the same thing? Some of them might, but there will be more than a few that will be sure to curse on whoever dares to program him for such an institution.

The same with any composer out there that you can think. Nico Muhly, Karen Thomas, David Lang, Jennifer Higdon, John Mackey, Eric Whitacre, Joan Szymko. Any composer. You name it.

So, next time that you find yourself thinking if your piece is Carnegie Hall worthy, remember why you chose that text and what you want to say with your piece and you’ll see that your art has value and that we want to hear what you want to say.