Fall 2009 Wrap-Up

Needless to say, I have been neglecting my blog duties.  However, my energy and effort have still been focused on the arts.  I just completed my first semester in the Arts Management Master’s program at American University.  This post is a wrap-up of all things art related from this semester’s classes and activities.

This semester I tackled issues facing the marketing of the arts, specifically the newest trends in online marketing and what, if anything, arts organizations are doing to keep up with the changing leisure culture of Americans. If you’re interested in having your own little arts marketing class at home, below are the books used in class. My favorite, although not an official “textbook” per say, was Here Comes Everybody, by Clay Shirky. If you haven’t already read this, I highly recommend it.  Anyone interested in marketing and how to harness the power of the internet to motivate and mobilize individuals will certainly enjoy.

Here are the other three books for my class in Marketing & PR for the Arts:

The Public Relations Handbook for Nonprofits

Arts Marketing Insights

In my other class, Survey of Arts Management, we had overview discussions regarding various topics and issues within the arts management profession: cultural policy, community artists and union relations to name a few.  I will admit, as a class, I was not thrilled.  That being said, the individual readings I found quite interesting.  My particular favorite was Arts, Inc.: How Greed and Neglect of Destroyed Our Cultural Rights, written by former NEA Chairman, Bill Ivey. Ivey proposes a national Cultural Bill of Rights for every American citizen.  In short, Ivey feels, as do I, that our cultural and artistic heritage is held hostage to the financial interests of giant conglomerate corporations who only care about turning a profit.  Even with the advent of all this new technology allowing individuals to download music and film at the click of a button, it ironically increases the technological divide between the haves and the have-nots.  Accessing culture now is more expensive and requires more equipment than ever before.  Ivey proposes a federal cultural agency, ensuring and protecting the cultural rights of every citizen and not allowing for business practices that will further inhibit the dissemination of cultural and artistic experiences to American citizens.

In addition to reading everyday, I also worked as a development apprentice with The Choral Arts Society of Washington.  This experience taught me what it REALLY means to work in development and fundraising.  Apart from what I could have ever learned in any textbook, my time with Choral Arts opened my eyes to the real grunt work involved with raising money to support a worthy cause.  The two most valuable things I took away from my experience are, 1) relationships are everything, and 2) even when things seem like they won’t workout, you ignore doubt, and make it work.  Thank you to my friends at Choral Arts for showing me this.

As if all this wasn’t already enough on my plate, I thought it might also be nice to sing solos in two separate concerts, two weeks apart.  First weekend, two performances of J.S. Bach’s Magnificat as well as other baroque choral works.  Second weekend, three performances of Carmina Burana where I sang the small, but oddly funny tenor solo part.  I love being a dying swan. Couple this with writing a research paper and preparing a presentation and, well, I guess you can imagine I felt a bit overwhelmed at times.  Yet, I managed to get through it all successfully.

Now I look forward to two weeks in Florida and not going back to school until January 11, 2010!!  Next semester it’s Cultural Policy, Financial Management and interning at Washington Performing Arts Society.  Orlando, HERE I COME!!

Corporate Sponsorship: Where should arts organizations draw the line?

I love it when I get to see theory in practice, especially when it has just been discussed in a classroom setting.  That is exactly what happened Sunday evening when I attended a free performance of Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew”,(thanks Travis for standing in line for the tickets!), as part of the D.C. Shakespeare Theatre Company’s 2009 FREE FOR ALL campaign. I can only assume that this “Free for All” is an attempt by the theater to expose their product, formal theater, to a new audience.  And what better way than a FREE show?!

The theory I speak of is related to marketing and how involved corporate sponsors should or should not be involved in an artistic organization’s product; the art.  This was the lively discussion held in my Marketing for the Arts class last Wednesday evening.  The scenario posited by my impressively erudite and comedically inclined professor, was essentially this:

What if a company, such as an alcohol distributor, offered to fund a woman’s writing group $20,000 for a poetry contest?  The catch being that the poem had to mention the alcohol distributer. Furthermore, a representative from the company would have final say in who wins and who doesn’t.  Do you, as the arts administrator for the group, take the money and possibly save your organization a lot of financial heartache, or do you stick to your artistic principles of unencumbered free artistic expression and turn down the money?

Needless to say, there followed a lively discussion.  There were good arguments for both sides; both taking and turning down the money.  After all, these are tough economic times and nobody wants to be the one to look a gift horse in the mouth and turn down the 20K on a mere ideological whim.  That being said, we’re arts administrators.  We have artistic ideals and values to uphold for our organization.  The general consensus in the end was that it is a matter of clearly defining one’s organization’s mission and values.  If Company X is asking to you do something that goes against these values, then it is not to be seriously considered.

In the case of the Skakespeare Theater Company’s 2009 FREE FOR ALL campaign, sponsored by none other than everyone’s favorite shopping money trap, TARGET, the corporate involvement was evident but not over-bearing.  As you can see by the event’s ad below, the TARGET logo is discretely placed at the bottom and blends in well.  Also, all those working the event wore t-shirts with the TARGET logo.  There were kites hanging in the reception area bearing the TARGET logo.  I didn’t find this interesting until half way through the play when “kites” are mentioned as part of the dialogue. Coincidence?   Of course the programs contained mention of TARGET, although again it wasn’t blatant or in-your-face. To the right is a picture I took from the front of theater showing the kites.

Overall, my experience at the play was amazing.  The show was amazing and funny.  Everyone left in high spirits.  And everyone left with a smile on their face all the while TARGET dotted kites dangling over-head.

“Arts are Patriotic” – A New Argument in Support of the Arts?

First day of graduate classes and I’ve already learned something.  MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow is an ardent arts supporter and advocate!

In my “Survey of Arts Management” class, my professor asked us to read this quote by Maddow and give our thoughts:

“Sometimes we choose to serve our country in uniform, in war. Sometimes in elected office. And those are the ways of serving our country that I think we are trained to easily call heroic. It’s also a service to your country, I think, to teach poetry in the prisons, to be an incredibly dedicated student of dance, to fight for funding music and arts education in the schools. A country without an expectation of minimal artistic literacy, without a basic structure by which the artists among us can be awakened and given the choice of following their talents and a way to get to be great at what they do, is a country that is not actually as great as it could be. And a country without the capacity to nurture artistic greatness is not being a great country. It is a service to our country, and sometimes it is heroic service to our country, to fight for the United States of America to have the capacity to nurture artistic greatness.”

This quote comes from a speech given at Jacob’s Pillow, a dance festival based in Massachusetts, where Maddow spoke out on behalf of the arts and the value they hold in society.

I was both surprised and delighted to read this quote.  As I don’t have television anymore, I am not able to follow the 24hr news cycle or any of the cable news programming that Ms. Maddow’s show is on.  However, it is refreshing and even uplifting to see that there are prominent journalistic voices speaking out on behalf of the arts in this country.  And not only speaking about them in ways that we are used to, i.e., arts are valuable, arts create jobs, etc., but speaking to the heart of the American patriotic spirit that runs so strongly through the veins of so many Americans.  Could this be a new way for garnering wide spread public support of arts funding?  Granted, I am still a newbie when it comes to arts marketing, but I have yet to hear the “arts as patriotism” angle that Maddow seams to be getting at.

She poses a very poignant question and one that I have never heard before.  Essentially she asks,“Why is serving your country only thought of in terms of military or elected office?” Artists provide such a great and honorable service to this country, and to every country in which they reside.  The service IS the art form; those being inspired ARE the ones being served.  Artists provide a service that is sometimes hard to measure in tangible terms.  Their product is their art, but the byproduct of that creation is inspiration, self-reflection and innovative though in the minds of those experiencing the art.

(Part 2) Commentary on “Orchestras and New Media” by Marc van Bree

Another section I found interesting, and something I hadn’t heard of yet, was called “Adapting Press Materials” and its talk of the social media press release.

After going over some general facts about what journalists look for in press releases, and providing his own wish list of information every organization’s press site should make available, van Bree delves into the new idea of a press release specifically designed to address an organization’s social media audience, and not just the standard journalist.  Van Bree sites a study showing that “…marketing professionals were consistently more interested than PR practitioners in reaching new media or consumers directly.” Offering his own analysis of the situation, van Bree writes:

Traditional press releases are specifically designed to communicate with traditional media.  However, the study suggests that online distribution is changing the nature of a press release, “repurposing them into news releases used equally by PR and marketing professionals alike as a communications tool to reach a multiplicity of audiences and achieve a number of goals.”

Van Bree also points out that the type of information a Blogger needs is different from the traditional journalist; more multimedia, key facts and quotes, and an ability to tag and use trackbacks to monitor the activity of the release, and perhaps even a way for readers to make comments.    The idea of all this being of course that strategic information is put out there in ways that are easily digestible and readily adaptable to any person interested enough to take the next step and tell their friends just how great Organization X is.

Recent writings have shown that more people find out about events, products, etc., through their friends and more importantly for this discussion, through social media outlets.  With this kind of growing trend staring us in the face, it would behoove us as arts marketers and administrators to take full advantage and learn ways to adapt our communications towards the use of this medium.

Of course with all new innovations, comes the potential for negative side affects.  For example, what happens when you put out a release about your organization only to have someone take that same seemingly well crafted release and turn it against you?  A seemingly positive release about increased funding for the NEA was misrepresented by Fox News wherein they put out a story line purporting skewed financial numbers and a contorted story about where some of the money was spent. I learned of this gross misrepresentation by Fox News via a great blog called Createquity written by Yale School of Management graduate, Ian David Moss.

This situation is a little different in that it is a “news” outlet distorting the message, but it is also related in that bloggers then take that distortion and run with it.  That’s just what conservative bloggers did here, here and here.  Even blogs, such as this one, who are in support of the funding, and who argue against positions held by Fox News, still have the incorrect number of $80 million.  So in the end, misinformation is spreading on both the supportive and unsupportive fronts.  Not good either way.

Under the “Measuring Results” section, van Bree discusses some ways to track the success of marketing efforts made via social networking mediums.  As with all PR and marketing plans, the correlations between being exposed to Advertisement X and buying Product Y aren’t always clear.

He points out a new measuring phrase to look for is “return on influence”, a spin-off of the commonly used phrase “return on investment”. Essentially, he explains an organization needs to determine what it’s trying to accomplish by using social media.  Next, it needs to determine attributes that could help measure and achieve this goal, and figure out how best to track those attributes accordingly.  The three important words to remember are part of what’s called the “Triad of Interest”: INTEREST; ATTITUDE; ACTION. Naturally, van Bree offers a much more fleshed out explanation coupled with colorful charts and data.  It would be redundent for me to reproduce all of that…. so I won’t.

Over the course of writing these two blog entries, I have probably read and re-read “Orchestras” five or six times.  Every time I go through, I notice something new and interesting that I didn’t notice the time before.  Marc van Bree has done a tremendous job of grasping the current marketing and media issues facing orchestras and artistic organizations alike.  Additionally, he offers up some solid analysis and commentary about the situation.  This semester in my master’s program I am taking a course on marketing for the arts.  I will be sure to keep this E-book as a handy resource and potential class discussion topic.

Thanks Marc for the great work, and the great resource!

(Part 1) Commentary on “Orchestras and New Media” by Marc van Bree

Getting back into the swing of things, the other day I read an E-book by Marc Van Bree titled “Orchestras and New Media”.  I learned of it by way of Technology in the Arts, a blog affiliated with Carnegie Mellon University.  Van Bree is a public affairs associate at the University of Chicago, and comes from a background at the Chicago Symphony where he served as the public relations coordinator and later as publicist.

Social Networking and Media

In this two part commentary I will highlight some key points I found interesting, as well as offer my own opinions and analysis on areas of the book, but I encourage all of you to read the full e-book as it is well thought out, easy to follow and well written.

Van Bree starts in with an analysis of the changing environment and the new media revolution that has increasingly become less of  a fad, and more of a new way of communicating.  He compiles some really good data showing the decline in print media circulation and ad sales, and the corresponding increase in online ad sales and even greater increase in website traffic.  I liked that he started off with this analysis and statistics before making the case for the use of new media and social networking.  The way I see it, he laid down the hard facts for those people and organizations who still view these new technologies with a skeptical and reluctant eye.  Things are definitely moving in the new media direction for advertising and marketing, but many arts institutions, like many established organizations, may sometimes be reluctant to invest precious marketing and ad dollars into something with untested and ambiguous ROI data.

Here are some of the scary numbers form this first section:

• the percentage of adults attending a classical music performance remained at about 12 to 13 percent of the adult population
• From 1992 to 2002, the drop in the amount of listening/viewing audience was nearly 25 percent.
• From 1998 to 2003, space dedicated to arts articles and listings went from an average of 5,489 column inches to 4,994 column inches.
• Number of featured stories down by 30 percent.
• Monthly unique visitor numbers for newspaper Web sites rose from 41 million in January 2004 to 75 million in January 2009.  In active reach percentages, average numbers increased from 27.5 percent to 44.3 percent during that same period.

I think the last bullet point is the most striking set of numbers.  Although, van Bree points out that online ad sales have not surpassed print ad sales, the trend is pointing towards that possibility, and these numbers would indicate why.

In the following sections, van Bree lays out some basic guidelines on everything from “Monitoring the Scene”, where he explains how to monitor your organizations presence on the Web, down to the nitty gritty of using your Twitter account as a means to avert potentially damaging customer service situations.  I found the section on Blogging particularly interesting because he really goes into the “why” of blogging, and not just that one “should”.  According to van Bree, the first question your organization should ask itself about blogging is “why should our organization have a blog?” I’ll let you read the interesting details of the answer for yourself, but I’ll give you a hint as to what the answer is not………another way to market your events.

The section titled “The Long Tail” was quite interesting but also caused me some concern.  The notion of “the long tail” is a phrase coined by author Chris Anderson to describe the sales strategy of online retailers like Amazon and Netflix and the popular classical music label Naxos.  The business model is essentially this: sell less of more. In other words, offer a wide range of products, but keep very little on hand, the idea being you can cater to every niche market there is, minus the high over-head.  The reason this business model causes me some distress is because of the possible long-term ramifications of “niche-market” mentality.  The Pixar movie “Wall-E” immediately comes to mind.

In “Wall-E”, the cute little robot bearing the same name as the movie title, discovers the remainder of humanity not on earth, but confined in a spaceship.  In this future state of humanity, humans are all morbidly obese with tyrannosaurus-like baby arms dangling off their bloated torsos.  Everyone is relegated to their own personal hover craft equipped with everything from personal televisions playing only what the viewer wants, to feeding devices that supply sugary goodness at the push a of a button.  The new humans are so enveloped in their own niche-world that they don’t interact with others, and forget what its like to experience simple things such as eating solid food and enjoying real human interaction.  Instant gratification- the new way of life.  Work – overrated.

It is a clear mockery and social commentary on the condition and seemingly likely trajectory our western culture is taking. Okay, yes, this is obviously an extreme scenario.  However, I can’t help but notice the similarities, albeit to a far lesser degree, in the idea of catering only to niche markets.  At what point do niche markets become so small that marketers learn exactly how to market to every specific person’s taste and individual likeness?  No one would ever need worry about seeing an ad they don’t like, or for that matter, one that makes them think something outside what they already know.  No one would ever be challenged to think beyond what they already know and like.  To relate this idea to orchestras; how narrow can they market themselves and get away with it?

Don’t get me wrong.  I like the idea of orchestras changing their strategies and adapting to a new social and economic environment, but at what cost to the art and more importantly to the audience?  I see this on two ends of the spectrum; too main stream on one end, and too avante garde and eccentric on the other.  Should orchestras and operas appeal to the masses and only perform Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony and Puccini’s La Boheme?  After all, those concerts will sell, but at what cost to the art form’s future?  On the other end of the spectrum, if orchestras only performed new music and/or less palatable music from the likes of Schoenberg or Berg, can they hope to survive in today’s economy and culture of instant gratification?  In the end, either way, a niche audience has been appealed to.

A happy balance between the two would seem to be the easiest answer.  However, it seems given the current state of affairs many orchestras are exhibiting safe programming.  But is “safe” REALLY what people want?  I don’t pretend to speak for the masses, but to me, after a while, “safe” starts feel a lot like “boring” and unexciting.  I realize it is easier for me to be a side-line commentator on the matter, yet I feel these are relevant issues facing the future of orchestral music in this country.

To be fair, van Bree is not talking about the kind of “niche markets” environment I’m railing against.  He is talking about the ability of companies such as Netflix and Naxos to offer an enormous variety of music and movies to a wider variety of consumer. Variety is not what I take issue with.  The issue is marketers knowing which color of the variety spectrum you fall into and then never marketing any other colors to you, thus, for lack of a better phrase, causing you to see everything with rose-tinted glasses…or whatever color glasses your may prefer. That being said, I think many involved in orchestral management would agree that the type of niche environment I am referring to is also an issue faced by programmers and artistic directors across the country.

In part two of my commentary I will touch on the remaining sections of “Orchestras and New Media” wherein van Bree discusses matters such as Adapting Press Materials to fit online media, Measuring Results of online press releases and social media site usage, and two brief case studies of the Chicago and London Symphonies.

Stay tuned….

A lazy blogger moving does make

It has been little over a week since I made the move from Orlando to D.C., and I’m finally settling in to my new place.  I knew that this blog and and my daily rereading routine would be interrupted, but I didn’t think I would be out of commission this long.  It is discouraging to say the least.

Time to refocus priorities and realign actions more in tune with producing content for this blog.  Here is what you, the reader, can expect in the coming months:

• Classes begin in a couple weeks, so I plan on getting a lot of new material by way of class discussions.  Marketing for the Arts is one class title, so expect material related to that
• Also, I will be singing with two choral groups and possibly soloing, so expect some ruminations on particular works and requests for artistic feedback.
• The new seasons are gearing up for the National Symphony, Washington National Opera, among numerous others, so expect an artistic review or two.
• And as always, I continue to plan on writing about various topics related to the arts.

The long haul continues….

Re-evaluating value

Why do we have to defend the value of the arts? Why do I constantly feel as though I have to convince people the arts are valuable?  Why is art seen by many as a luxury; merely a form of entertainment void of any greater intrinsic value?  These are the questions that kept popping up in my mind the other night as I sat arguing with my father over the value of having public arts funding.  Yes, I realize not everyone has the same level of appreciation for art as I do.  To each his own.  However, I feel we as a society have lost our “cultural direction” when the majority of people don’t see the intrinsic value the arts hold.  When value is measured in terms of how much “it” costs, as opposed to what “it” does or accomplishes, then something is amiss.   Okay, maybe I’m just a little worked-up right now… just a little.  However, this kind of attitude isn’t only towards the arts.  It is also the attitude towards education and teachers, more specifically arts education and arts teachers.

Of course everyone touts the importance of a good education, quality teachers, above standard schools, but not very many people seem willing to put their money where their mouth is.  A similar situation is true for the arts in this country, albeit to a lesser degree of enthusiasm.  Just like teachers, artists barely eek out a living providing a service highly valuable to every civilized society.  What is wrong with this picture?  How is it that we value the skills of a professional athlete, someone who more often than not gives nothing back to their community, by rewarding them with outrageously high salaries?  The answer lies in what our society values most.  And clearly, in the case of athletes vs artists and educators, the value is placed on the income, and more importantly the amount of commercialism, created by each respective profession; in other words, the profession that gets the best (ROI): return on investment.  For an interesting commentary on value from the perspective of someone well versed and passionate in the area of non-profit/philanthropy, see this blog post by Ian David Moss and his blog “Createquity”.

Whenever I think about these issues of which profession is more important or more valuable, I think of a line from the movie Mr. Holland’s Opus.  In the movie, there is a scene where Richard Dryfus, playing the high school music teacher, is arguing with the school principal over the proposed budget cuts taking out the music program.  The principal asserts the precedence that math, english and science classes must take over extra-curricular activities such as music.  The response from Mr. Holland essentially goes, and I am paraphrasing, ’sir, with all due respect, without the arts and music it won’t matter if the kids can read or write, because they won’t have anything to read or write about.’ I love this line because it speaks to the heart of why artistic expression and creativity are so vital to a well-rounded education.

Focusing all our energy on testing, scoring and numbers is a game of meeting quotas and not about education.  I have a strong inckling that the arts are not important to schools right now simply BECAUSE they cannot be tested the way writing, reading, and math can be.  I understand we have a huge education issue in this country, and that our youth are falling far behind world standards.  I don’t pretend to be an educator, but I do have friends who are, and they don’t like the way our schools are operating these days.  If we keep going down this road, our children will be very good at taking tests, but will be fat, inarticulate and uncreative due to cuts in physical fitness and arts classes.  Slippery slope you may ask?  Look at the rising rates of child obesity, early onset of diabetes and lack of interest in anything other than what can be texted to a friend, and ask yourself that question again.  Our future as a society depends on being creative and innovative.  How will we ever achieve that when the youth of today, who will be the adults of tomorrow, have never learned how to think creatively?  I have managed to go off on a tangent, and yet interestingly enough, I’m right on topic when it comes to how we as a society value these two areas of society.

Bottom line: art is, for the most part, not a product that can be valued in terms of its physicality or substance.  Yes you can talk in terms of jobs created by it and tourist dollars brought in, but it doesn’t fix the over-arching question of why it is valuable in and of itself.  It is something that creates spiritual and emotional value in humanity.  It helps build community.  It fosters self-understanding and awareness, both with oneself, and with one’s fellow man.  If that isn’t an example of intrinsinc value, then I don’t know what is.  Now the challenge comes for us as arts advocates and administrators to MARKET MARKET MARKET our little butts off, all the while using this general premise of intrinsic value as our underlying guide.

Here is a little imagined inspirational story I read over the weekend on the Americans for the Arts blog.  Its little things like this that keep me going whenever futility starts to creep in.  Enjoy.

(Attempted) Reading this summer

I know it is perhaps a bit late to suggest a summer reading list, but hey, some of us work full time.

Currently I am in the middle of reading three books at once.  I don’t normally attempt such things, but they are all generally related in subject matter.  The connecting theme being music.

Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain, by renowned psychiatrist and neurologist Oliver Sacks, delves deep into the physicality of music and the brain.  In the book, Sacks offers interesting commentary and insight regarding rare brain conditions caused by music.  One of the more well known conditions, synesthesia, is fleshed out with many interesting real life stories of those who have the rare condition of “seeing sound”.  Some of the more extreme and less commonly known about topics deal with conditions such as “musical epilepsy”, “musical seizures”, “the science behind catchy tunes”,  ”cochlear amusia”, and “musical savants”, just to name a few.  This is a great read for anyone interested in the “why” behind the musicality of our species.

The Queen’s Throat: Opera, Homosexuality and the Mystery of Desire, by Wayne Koestenbaum, is definitely a read reserved for the opera lover. With the attention to detail and a style comparable to that of social philosopher Michel Foucault, this book delves into the subtleties and obsessive intricacies of being a truly die hard opera fan and admirer of all things “diva“. With a chapter entitled “The Codes of Diva Conduct”, one can only imagine the details he expounds upon. I’m about half way through it, and it reads like a diary with many short sections/chapters, each with its own confined narrative. Sections titled “Diva Prose”, “The Shut-In Fan: Opera at Home” and “A Pocket Guide to Queer Moments in Opera”, are sure to keep your wit wholly satisfied. I will admit, I am not quite the opera fanatic to the extent this book assumes the reader is, so there were moments where I did not get punch lines or quite understand the significance of certain dates/moments, etc. That being said, there is still plenty good to be gained from reading it.  I can’t get through a few pages without thinking of Kathleen Battle and all her divalicious goodness!

The Rest is Noise: Listening to the Twentieth Century, by The New Yorker music critic Alex Ross, is a must read for every classical music lover interested in gaining a deeper understanding and appreciation for music created within the last 100 years. Ross’ knowledge of music and eloquent style bring to light many interesting historical tidbits of the twentieth century as told through the music and musicians of the time.  Not just a book about music, it also delves into the cultural forces behind the music created.

To quote Opera News contributor Jonathan Rabb, “Ross’ achievement is all the more astounding because it makes music essential to the understanding of history beyond the history of the music itself.  And what could matter more than that?”

Needless to say, I have my work cut out for me before fall term begins August 24th.  The Rest is Noise alone tops out at almost 700 pages.  I would be most grateful to receive comments from those of you who have already read these works and perhaps have some suggestions for further reading.

(Note: In case you are interested in purchasing any of these titles, and in the interest of supporting private book outlets, I have linked to a privately owned bookstore whom I support, Urban Think. The cost of all titles ordered online is only $1 above the price listed on Amazon, and a part of all proceeds goes towards a local literacy fund.)

Rethinking booing

Since my last post dealt with untimely praise at concerts, I felt it best to follow that with a post about currently unacceptable forms of disapproving behavior, namely booing.

A while back I read an article dealing with the topic.  The man behind the article is columnist, author and libretist, Terry Teachout.  Mr. Teachout is the drama critic for The Wall Street Journal, and you can read his daily musings via his Arts Journal blog, “About Last Night“.  The topic of the article centered around the controversial act of booing at artistic performances. The article was apparently prompted by the recent “controversy” over booing and catcalling that occurred at the Met opening performance of “La Sonnambula”.  When the designer of the performance, Mary Zimmerman, walked on stage, she was met with boos and hoots from the audience.  An act American concert goers are not necessarily comfortable with, thus the controversy.

The thrust of Mr. Teachout’s article is essentially this: A booing audience may not have enjoyed what they saw or heard, but at least they’re actually paying attention enough to realize it.

In pointing out that he’s rarely, if ever, heard booing at broadway shows or classical concerts, Teachout asks:

Is this a good thing? I’m not so sure — especially when you consider what usually happens at the end of a Broadway show. Most of the theatrical performances I see in New York receive standing ovations. Time was when audiences reserved that special gesture for a performance of equally special merit, but in recent years it has become a near-reflexive response to anything short of a crash-and-burn disaster.

I couldn’t agree more.  And it points to something I mentioned in my previous post about “reactionary applause”.  Is this behavior spurred by, as a theory offered by Teachout suggests, the shear expense incurred to see a show?  In other words, are theatre and concert goers exhibiting a bit of the old ego saving mentality, “I paid a lot for it, so it must be good.”?  That is certainly a very likely possibility. Especially in today’s economy, nobody wants to think they have just thrown down a hundred dollars to see a “half-ass” performance.

But what about booing?  Why don’t we see more of it in the concert hall and in the theatre?  Part of the answer is simply fear. Fear of retribution from other patrons and other actors, I think, play a big part in why we hear more cheers than jeers.  But why boo? Isn’t it just rude? According to Teachout, not if you think about it on a deeper level.  After referencing a quote from opera producer Francesca Zambello, saying that she sometimes looks at booing as a sort of “…badge of success.”, Teachout offers an explanation as to why he thinks that is so:

Because the people who booed Ms. Zambello’s “Lucia” and Ms. Zimmerman’s “Sonnambula,” unlike the ones who spring to their feet at the end of a third-rate musical, were making it clear that they’d paid attention to what they saw and heard. No, they didn’t care for it, but at least they were involved with it, and such involvement can be the first step toward a deeper, more thoughtful response.

The audience was more involved with the performance.  That is a statement that every artist wants to hear.  This isn’t to make light of the fact that booing still stings the ego.  No one likes to be on the receiving end of it, nor am I suggesting that anyone should.  However, one can walk away from the experience perhaps with a better understanding of what they did, or didn’t do.  Constant praise, regardless of quality, does not promote improvement.  It merely leaves the person being praised with a false sense of security and a fluffed ego.

Please hold your applause… until you feel compelled to do so.

I’ve quickly realized since beginning this blog that most of what goes into it isn’t the writing, but rather the research behind the writing that takes all the time.  That being said, I’ve discovered many wonderful and interesting voices out there, all having their own interesting angles and perceptions about arts culture, where it is, and where it is going.

Most recently I came across Alex Ross, music critic of the The New Yorker.  After a general perusing of his site, I can now understand why fellow arts blogger and opera enthusiast, Olivia Giovetti, candidly lists Mr. Ross on her blog under a list of links titled “Obsessions”.  His knowledge of music history is simply uncanny.  He is a wealth of knowledge and musical insight that someone like me can only hope to have one day…. I digress.

A post on his blog that caught my attention dealt with the history of applauding at classical concerts.  Namely, the act of applauding during performances and in between movements.  This is an action I have wavered on both for and against, but have yet to settle upon a solid position either way.
As history attests, the currently acceptable etiquette of only clapping at the very end of a full concert is one that is historically quite a new custom.  One of the more interesting theories as to why we moved from clapping to not clapping posits that the change symbolizes a shift of classical music moving from a “middlebrow” “music-for-the-masses” mentality, to a more “highbrow” or “elite” mentality.  Apparently clapping is uncouth.  For a full and well detailed synopsis of the subject matter I suggest you read the post for yourself.

Personally, I don’t find clapping necessarily distracting, but more so the constant little unnecessary noises of crumpling paper or the always dreaded crinkling of cellophane candy wrappers.  Seriously, does it really take 45 seconds to unwrap a cough drop?  However, the act of clapping in principal is not offensive to me.  I think it is something that shouldn’t necessarily fit into a format.  You come on stage: we clap.  You play your piece (all however many movements, and only when we are absolutely sure you are finished): we clap.

robotic applause

This kind of regimented ritual only adds to the stuffiness and elite qualities that are too often attributed to classical music.  I think if the momentum, energy and emotion of a piece compel you to clap, then you should clap.  Often times I feel clapping is an almost “forced” action.  It is as if the audience feels they MUST clap, and so does so with feigned enthusiasm.

Opera viewing etiquette is somewhat different.  As opera is a theatrical expression of emotions, story and music, it is often the case that clapping occurs throughout the performance and at different points depending on the quality of the performance.  This would seem a more realistic expression of appreciation and enjoyment.  I recently viewed a Metropolitan Opera production of Donizetti’s “La Fille du Regiment” in which both Natalie Dessay and Juan Diego Florez both received applause throughout their

performances.  This wasn’t distracting for me as a viewer.  Granted, I wasn’t actually there, but I felt the applauding only added to theatrical experience.  Almost like studies that show how viewers found comedic sitcoms more funny if they heard others laughing at the jokes, thus the inclusion of laugh tracks.

Alex Ross ends his post with an insightful quote from the author Christopher Small’s book Musicking. Small says:

The silence that will greet tonight’s performance while it is in progress suggests a different attitude [from the audience behavior of past eras]. Those who wish perfect communion with the composer through the performance can have it, uninterrupted by any noise that may signal the presence of other spectators. On the other hand, while our attention is without doubt active, it is detached; we no longer feel ourselves to be part of the performance but listen to it as it were from the outside. Any noise we might make would not be an element of the performance, as were the sighs and murmurs of the Parisian audience, but an interruption or distraction. I have even known the minute clinks and jingles of a female listener’s Charm bracelet to put its wearer’s neighbor in a rage. Who we are, then, is spectators rather than participants, and our silence during the performance is a sign of this condition, that we have nothing to contribute but our attention to the spectacle that has been arranged for us. We might go further and say that we are spectators at a spectacle that is not ours, that our relationship with those who are responsible for the production of the spectacle—the composer, the orchestra, the conductor, and those who make the arrangements for tonight’s concert—is that of consumers to producers, and our only power is that of consumers in general, to buy or not to buy.

Clearly, am I just as guilty of Small’s criticism as noted earlier in this post where I complain about the “crinkling of cellophane wrappers.”

This sentiment expressed by Small is both uplifting and depressing for me.  Uplifting because it pointedly expresses a sentiment I have held for some time, but have not found the eloquence to express.  Depressing, because it exposes a cultural mentality towards orchestral music that is counterproductive and anti-progressive.  It shows that we culturally treat this kind of art as holier than Thou entertainment, not to be disturbed or disrupted without following the proper protocols.  This is an attitude that  I realize, as well as many of my fellow arts bloggers do, is part of our cultural heritage in desperate need of critical discourse and new valuation.