Requiem Mass Is Tech Killing Classical?

Classical music has long been portrayed as a stick-in-the-mud, but, as Max Figgett discovers, it’s far more innovative that you would think.

- Max Figgett

On 21 April 1914, composer Luigi Russoloand artist Ugo Piattimade history inMilan.After initially being banned by the police, a performance involving their intonarumori, experimental musical instruments, went ahead at the Teatro Dal Verme.

Cue pandemonium. Boos echoed down from a Luddite faction in the audience, drowning out the music, and a frantic brawl kicked off. Russolo himself punched a critic, but was later acquitted. In the words of a witness, the concert was like “showing the first steam train to a herd of cows”.

It may be an extreme example, but the riot in Milan speaks volumes about classical music’s difficult relationship with technology. After all, the adjectives “innovative” and “forward-looking” aren’t often applied to the genre. Tomany, it’s a dusty world of cavernous concert halls, endless Beethoven and an aversion to modernity. It’s also a genre that – we’re repeatedly warned – is under threat from streaming services such as Spotify and YouTube.

But how true is this depiction of technology as the assassin? Is classical music actually embracing the digital world, rather than covering its ears and murmuring “people will always buy Rachmaninov CDs”? As we’ve discovered, classical might not have reached its crescendo yet.

A Spotify of bother?

Ever since Spotify burst onto our devices in 2008, experts have been debating its usefulness for listening to classical music. Aside from the usual complaints about the app being popcentric, there are more fundamental questions about the way classical recordings are categorised. YouTube’s rap sheet is hardly better: it’s been accused of lifting money out of the pockets of musicians, composers and record labels by allowing “pirate” recordings to proliferate.