Posts
(Please forgive any perceived haughtiness or preachy-ness; this particular thought-can has been sitting in the fridge for quite a while, and when I went to take it out I dropped it and it rolled around everywhere. I tried tapping the top but to no avail).
Here is a sad anecdote:
Your partner is opening presents on Christmas day. They have 4 presents to open (of course all of different expense, shape, and meaning to them). Little does your partner know that these four presents are given to them in a specific order because they are all part of one larger gift, which only the final present will reveal.
They open the first present, and it's awesome! Something they've wanted for a long time. They gasp and leap to you in delight, but you only hold up a hand, saying "open the next present please."
Somewhat embarrassed and put-off, albeit still very excited, your partner nevertheless turns to Present No. 2, which is also a beautiful present and very meaningful to them. They begin to exclaim their happiness, but one stern look from you says "I've already told you not to do that."
Present No. 3 is an excellent present indeed, but your partner shows no enthusiasm toward it, instead swallowing their already-reduced exurberance in favor of simply going on to Present No. 4. Present No. 4, in fact, is the best of all, and fully reveals how the four presents were related. You say, "Okay, go ahead and thank me now."
I don't know about you, but that just doesn't seem like the most appropriate way to give to/share something with someone. Yet this is the lost way of our "Concert Etiquette."
Maybe your presents were meant to be viewed ultimately as a whole, but couldn't your partner relive the experience on their own later and recreate the wholesomeness? Would your presents really be ruined irreparably if you were to be thanked for them individually, as well as on the whole?
I've participated in and seen concerts where the audience (or part of it) applauds "inappropriately", and the conductor will actually use his hand to silence them, never acknowledging or accepting the support. I feel like I can't begin to expound on the social ramifications of that action.
Suffice it to say, however, that by forcefully transcending an art that offers so much promise for emotional impact above the heads of the audience which the art proposes to impact in the first place, we succeed only in alienating our own supporters. Prescribing applause to occur when you want it to is a distortion of enthusiasm, and, however subconsciously, IS felt by your audience. You just can't expect to bundle up emotions however you want and expect them to be released perfectly intact at a time that you deem prudent. In addition and needless to say, it also devalues any and all applause you receive, simply because you know it is coming.
People literally scream through entire pop concerts, is that wrong? Maybe it feels good to scream, cheer, and show unbridled enthusiasm. I've never seen Britney Spears or John Mayer or whomever stop everyone and say, "excuse me, but could you wait, I'm trying to do something awesome here."
When a tenor sax player absolutely annihilates some chord changes with improvisational creativity, does it ruin the music that follows to recognize something that you found to be amazing? What if that same sax player were to yell at everyone who is actively supporting his latest piece of impromptu art?
"Classical" music, "Art" music, "Concert" music, any of the various pigeon-holing names we come up with are an endangered species because it is losing relevance, but not to the mind. Our brains have not literally grown new sections in the last 200 years; evolution is much too slow to use that as a justification. Rather, only the social conditions have changed. Just like in evolution however, the ability to adapt is paramount to survival. Everyone can and will enjoy anything that excites them, inspires them, or moves them. Classical music in every way should fulfill those standards, but we refuse to let it change with the times.
If I had a way and a sufficiently powerful platform, I would choose to abolish completely the aspects of Concert Etiquette. I'd choose instead to let the receivers of information be free to express, mirror, and reflect all the surprises, disappointments, thrills, and emotional moments that are contained in the information. It is, after all, the essence of sharing experiences, and I sincerely don't believe that there is much more than that to the Art of Living.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou have a lot of valid points, but I do not feel that concert etiquette should be done away with. Not only is it a Western European tradition that has become an integral part of public performances of art music as early as the Renaissance, but it is a way of ensuring that the continuity (thematic, mood, etc.) of the entire work is not destroyed. It also aids in helping the performer to maintain concentration, which we both know to be very important when recreating art. Additionally, your [EXCELLENT!] analogy only consists of interaction between two individuals, while an actual performance usually consists of a significantly larger audience. It would not be as easy to quell the enthusiasm of such a large audience, especially considering the fact that most of them are well-versed in concert etiquette. So, I'm not sure if that analogy transfers well to an actual scenario.
ReplyDeleteI know that I would much rather "wait it out" to the end of a multi-movement work, not only because of the aforementioned points, but because I, too, am a performer and value silences while I'm performing music that requires a different type of concentration and a significantly smaller margin of error (near perfection). Jazz, Rock, Pop, etc, are legitimate genres, nonetheless, but they have a different audience tradition -- audience interaction. Those genres feed off of positive audience interaction. Art music? Not so much. Perhaps that's why so many people with sticks stuck up their butts enjoy (or pretend to enjoy) the genre. So I do not think it's quite fair to compare those, either.
I think there's also something to be said about the relative complexity of "art music." In a jazz show, the tenor solo ends and it's someone else's turn for a solo, but probably using the exact same chords as the first one. And the next soloist can wait a few measures or whatever if the audience is roaring in applause for the last guy. (Or there's a shout chorus, which will drown out the audience's reaction anyway.) In "art music," cheering after a blazing violin solo... doesn't really make as much sense because who knows what's going to come after it and it could be something important or quiet. So it's understandable that it's frowned upon in the concert hall. An exception might be something like a concerto in which after the solo parts there are big orchestral tutti, a la Mozart.
ReplyDeleteClapping between movements, well, some people do that on occasion, and I think it could be decided by the concert program, depending on if the piece is relatively sensitive and each movement isn't very standalone. Something as simple as "Audience may clap between movements." or "Please do not clap between movements." The thing about having to concentrate between movements, I don't buy. It should be a moment of recuperation and recalibration while readying the next one. Having applause to encourage what performance you've done so far seems very healthy. And again with the concerto example, it's so awkward having finished the first movement allegro and the fantastic cadenza and everything and then the audience is as silent as a brick. If I just finished a mofo of a cadenza I'd like some props.
And about cheering the whole time, like at pop concerts? The answer to that one should be obvious - amplification. Pop groups play for huge crowds very often, and (not ever having been to a pop concert I speculate that) they take into account that people will be screaming and soundcheck accordingly. And there isn't quite as much to miss... the doubling of the horn and the bassoon, the harmonics in the harp, or what the hell ever, you're not worried about. All that matters is being in the moment and feeling thrilled and entertained, which is the goal of pop music more than to be subtle or delicate. And you probably know the songs anyway if you're at the concert.
"The convention of silence during performances developed late in the 19th century. Mozart expected that people would eat and talk over his music, particularly at dinner, and was delighted when his audience would clap during his symphonies."
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_etiquette
I believe that people were more connected to the music back in Mozart's time. They might have been as excited about a symphony as we are about a seeing Coldplay live. And yeah, they felt excited, they clapped, they cheered and hollered, they were in to it! If you look at the modern audience at an orchestra concert, you'll see quite a lot of zoning out and snoozing going on (I am certainly guilty of that). I have a feeling that if "classical music" concerts were more "fun," a few less orchestras would be shutting down and going bankrupt.
The same goes for expressing negative emotion as well. Imagine the premiere of the Rite of Spring without a riot! If etiquette had held up at that performance in 1913, a critic might have written that "the audience, looking sort of angry, sat still during the whole performance. Light applause was heard at the end of the piece, and many left mumbling about how offended they were at its content." I don't know about you, but I'd prefer it if we cheered, hollered, and rioted just a little bit more. I mean, who REALLY wants to sit through a serialist concert anyway?
As Sky and Shawen both mentioned positive reactions in between movements, there could also be negative reactions, which would be unfavorable from a performer's perspective, no matter how justified. Would you like for the audience to boo you off stage or hurl inflammatory remarks of disdain at your ensemble after you've done your best to give a solid performance? Do you think that'd be a morale booster? Probably not. Granted, if they didn't like the piece that much, they'd just wait until the end to boo it or not applaud at all. But it would be especially distracting if such were to take place in between the movements.
ReplyDeleteSky, I agree with your comment that time in between movements "should be a moment of recuperation and recalibration while readying the next one," how do you expect to do either of the two without concentration? And with music that contains difficult solos or chamber music with one player to a part, the stakes are higher.
Btw, concert etiquette definitely came about before Mozart, as applaud was reserved at then end of courtly dances, immediately following the bow, in Renaissance Europe. That was the decorum over 500yrs ago.
I heard the KC Symphony perform a world premiere (piano concerto) by an Italian composer a few months ago, and was actually lucky enough to be seated diagonally behind him (and his wife). In between movements, some of the uninformed concertgoers applauded between the movements and I could see his face writhing in anger and irritation. And even during the piece, there seemed to have been a coughing fit which spread among the elderly throughout the hall. He looked around in repulsion at the innocent audience members who were merely attempting to give his piece praise. I shared his sentiment, because not only was it a world premiere, but the piece was most certainly being recorded (as they are in most cases, whether or not those recordings will be produced and distributed for sale). Some people like to enjoy a continuous work of art in its entirety. But like I said in my initial post, concert etiquette is as integral to art music as beer is to a native German's diet. It's a deeply ingrained tradition.