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.

“You’ve gotta give them hope.”

A friend sent me this video.  I don’t necessarily want to use this blog as a means for political expression, but I felt this video was quite inspiring. It is a beautiful marriage of words, music and visual art expressing a portion of a speech by the late Harvey Milk.

“If you build it, they will come” Conventional wisdom at its worst.

I love going to networking events.  Especially when they involve fried food and beer.  I attended another such event this evening, this one put on by Ryan Price, founder of Florida Creatives.  They are a Florida based arts and culture group with essentially the goal of bringing together people of creative minds and artistic backgrounds in order to collaborate and network. While enjoying a savory adult beverage, I met a local actor and arts blogger, Mark Baratelli.  He writes for and is the editor of The Daily City, a blog that focuses primarily on the local happenings of the Orlando/Central Florida arts and culture scene.

We had an interesting discussion, primarily focusing on the Orlando Opera Company’s recent collapse, and the ineffectiveness exhibited by the majority of arts organizations in regards to their online marketing and social media accounts.  Mark made some really good points, and got me thinking about the arts organizations I am familiar with, and how their sites probably could be a lot better than they are.

 Just because you build a website, create a twitter account, and have a Facebook fan page, doesn’t mean you’re actually using it properly.  To take the line from the 1989 movie “Field of Dreams”, starring the “dreamy” Kevin Costner, “If you build it, they will come.”  Unless your audience is coming back from the dead to see a show,(and if going by the majority of classical concerts is any indication, then some of them may be ), this marketing strategy will NOT work.

Furthermore, creating a multimillion dollar performing arts venue, (as is being done in Orlando), will not attract any number of significant new performing arts patrons.  A shiny new building will be a beautiful addition to the Orlando skyline, but will there be any people in it?  I realize they are years away from the grand opening, but if the current marketing strategies are any indication of the future, only the elite and already involved arts crowds will know anything about the concerts, operas and plays being held there.

Listen up arts administrators!  Kudos for getting on facebook and twitter, but you cannot use them as a simple mini press release.  You must engage your fans and your followers alike.  Create contests. Share rehearsal pictures. Have an artist or musician blog for the organization, (it adds the personal touch).  The point is, ENGAGE people.  In this age of shared information and social networking, the more you can make a fan/patron/client feel personally involved with your organization, the better.

So, next time you find yourself thinking, “If you build it, they will come.“, strike it, and create in your mind the revised more realistic version, “If you build it, they may come….but more likely than not, they won’t.“

 

 

“Without Culture, There is no Life.”

The title of this post comes from a video produced by the Pittsburgh Filmakers, an affiliate of the Pittsburgh Center for the Arts.

This video was made in response to the Pennsylvania’s state government proposal to eliminate ALL arts funding for the state.  As you can imagine this came as somewhat of a shock, and surely angered many people.  Yes, we are in a recession, but why are the arts and education expendable government programs and always the first on the budget chopping block?

This short video conveys the human impact the arts have on culture and society.  Cutting this funding will do more to hurt the state of Pennsylvania and will, in the long term, cost the state even more both financially and culturally.

Viva la France! Why Americans Could Use a Dose of French Renaissance

I just read a blog posting that both lifted my spirits and brought them down at the same time. Norman Lebrecht and his blog “Slipped Disc“, most recently wrote about the latest data showing that the average age of the French concert and opera patron is 32.  Great news! Right?  Yes, for the French.

Viva la Revolution! err...Renaissance

 

 

With all the junk pop culture that America exports to the world every year, its not surprising the French have always been so resistant of our influence on their culture.  After all, we clearly do not value the same things culturally.  How has a younger generation of French citizens come to love a musical genre that is so often associated in the States with the likes of “rich people” and old ladies who enjoy the occasional blue-rinse?  

According to Lebrecht:

Instead of politicians and media projecting an image of serious music as elitist and expensive, in France they present it as both aspirational and enjoyable – a good way to spend an evening and an environment where young people are likely to meet people they like.

That is definitely not the picture I get from a majority of US opera companies and orchestras.  Orchestral concerts and opera are too often marketed here as events of lavishness and the subliminal message I get is, “unless you have the money to be here, don’t come.”

Something I wish would change in the US, as I see it has in France, is standard concert dress code.  Can we please get rid of the tuxedo and black dress getup?  Seriously.  Not only does it give an heir of extreme formality, it is also very uncomfortable.  At this point I feel it is a matter of tradition, for traditions sake.  That is a stifling attitude to have, and one that prevents serious progressive change from occuring.

 Why should we, as Americans, take this same attitude the French are taking towards their culture?  Although there are many reasons of varying significance, the main reason I believe has to do with the creation of a more stable and culturally healthy society.  The classical arts require both those creating it and those consuming it to be intellectually involved.  This is not a passive form of entertainment.  Listening, (notice i didn’t say hearing), reading, drawing, painting, sculpting, playing an instrument, singing, these are all activities that require patience and keen attention to detail.   Patience, creativity and an attention to detail, are dispositions I believe no one would argue against promoting.  Hence, society as a whole benefits.

I was very pleased to hear about the additional $15 million slated for the NEA this week.  Again, it feels like drops in the bucket, but I guess its better than nothing.  Maybe president Obama should take a lesson from the French in this case and use a little bit of his touted political capital on the arts.  We sure could use it.

Posting to a passive reader: Technology in the Arts asks, “what’s the point?”

Technology in the Arts, hereafter referred to as Tech, a program within the Carnegie Mellon Center for Arts Management and Technology, recently posted an interesting question on their blog.  

 

 

After asking the followers on their LinkedIn group essentially ‘why are you here, what do you hope to use this group for, and what can you learn from it?’, the group’s followers were so intrigued that they received a whopping TWO responses, one of which was from me.  Understandably, the administrator for the post was perplexed. 

This lack luster response seemed to act as a catalyst for their blog posting about the lack of interaction occurring within arts groups on Facebook and LinkedIn.  In the posting on their blog, after referencing their lackluster response on LinkedIn, Tech posed the following questions:

So why do organizations have hundreds of passive fans? Why do groups have thousands of silent members? Are these people hoping to be spoon-fed information in the manner of an RSS reader (and if so, why are they not viewing news items)? Are they overwhelmed by irrelevant postings (e.g. the self-promotional posts that verge on spam)? Intimidated because they are actually not quite clear whether what they have to contribute will be judged as valuable or not? 

At the end of their posting they ask, what I feel, is the most important question of the whole post:

And what does this lack of interaction mean for the buzz about social media being a non-profit organization’s new best friend?

In addressing the first quote, I feel the passiveness encountered in online social media is a product of a number of things.  I will address a couple here. First, The majority of people are joining a group/cause or becoming a fan of something merely because they agree with it, or they are friends with the person who created it.  I am just as guilty of it.  I joined the Facebook group, “Save the Whales” because I mean, come on, who doesn’t wanna save the whales?  Am I passionate enough about it to engage in online discussions?  No.  That is probably why I ultimately, after the “feel good” feeling went away, I left the group.  I wasn’t REALLY committed to the cause in the way the group creator was.

Second, people generally want to be spoon-fed information.  It is easier, faster, and frankly less intellectually taxing. (That last one is not a compliment).  However, one can’t really blame people all that much.  We as a society are more bombarded than ever with constant demands for our attention.  I wouldn’t be surprised if, while reading this blog, many of you are also listening to music or watching television.  It’s okay, I do it too.  The point is, fewer and fewer people are effectively and proactively interacting in ways that amount to no more than a “thumbs up” or an “i like this”.  That is the extent of their thought process.  Bam! Done! On to the next thing.  Sorry, but that is not interacting or communicating.  That is voyeurism with a comment box.

At the end of Tech’s post, wherein they essentially ask the question, ‘what does this mean for social media being a non-profit’s new best friend?”,  I found myself thinking just that.  What does this mean for non-profits hoping to gain both supporters and their coveted charitable dollars via online platforms such as Facebook’s “Causes” application?  What does this mean for arts groups who hope to use Facebook and Twitter as an effective means to gain new fans, and more importantly, patrons?  

The Bach Festival Society of Winter Park has 273 fans on its Facebook page.  I wonder how many of those fans have actually attended a concert, and of those who have attended, who have attended more than once.  It’s a curious question, but an important one if we are to determine the effectiveness of using social networking for the purposes of sustaining arts organizations and non-profits alike.

To get a full picture of what Tech is trying to say, I recommend reading the entire posting.  I have chosen to comment on select paragraphs that I think are important.

If you’ve made it this far, CONGRATULATIONS!  Now, show me how much you’ve learned, and tell me your thoughts… please?

Thanks to Chris Foley and “The Collaborative Piano Blog” for the promo!

I wanted to take the time to thank a fellow musician and arts blogger, Chris Foley, who took the time to promote me on his blog,“The Collaborative Piano Blog”.

In is posting he says regarding my decision to start a blog:

In spite of recent commentary on the difficulties faced by start-up bloggers, it’s refreshing to see new arts blogs popping up (such as this one) at a time when support for traditional media is perceived to be on the wane.

Chris, I appreciate your support and hope to not become another failed blogger statistic.  

Some number of weeks ago I inquired with Chris as to how best start a blog.  I liked what he had done with his and thought he would be a knowledgeable person to ask.  What he said I am now realizing will surely be the case.  He said,

“pre-write some copy and get ready for the long haul.”

The long haul has indeed begun.

Ian Bostridge – the tenor to emulate, or not?

This sunday I am singing this tenor aria and this tenor alto duet from Bach’s Magnificat.  

Part of my process when preparing a piece is to look to how other professionals interpret it.  Ian Bostridge, the man in the video, happens to be the one I try to emulate most often as we both have similar lyric qualities.  I’m curious to know how other singers prepare their pieces. Do you JUST look at the music and learn it? Or do you also listen to recordings and watch other performers as I so often do in my preparation?  My only reservation about doing this is that I will inhibit myself from creating my own artistic expression of the piece.  That I am, in effect, limiting my artistic potential in a way.

Is there a distinct line between copying another person and simply using them for inspiration and possibly technique?  Furthermore, how much artistic license should a singer or any musical artist take when performing a piece?  I believe intrepreting music in different ways should always be made.  It is what keeps the art form alive and what makes every performance unique and interesting.  But to what extent?

The situation we face…

Getting started on a blog is not an easy undertaking.  The time commitment alone is enough to make me ask myself, “should I be getting paid for this?”  Well, maybe someday.

This blog will be about many things artistic, but it will also be a commentary on the arts culture in general. Frankly, let’s face it, the artistic culture in America is facing some serious problems.  Not only is it in trouble financially, as are most non-profit organizations these days, but it is in my opinion also going through an identity crisis of sorts.

The way we as a society communicate and share information today is significantly different than even just ten years ago. Here is a perfect example of how simply watching television has changed.  Newspapers are failing, the major networks are re-structuring, and statistics show that more and more people are turning to blogs and other various online media sites to get information.  The days of old-fashioned marketing and print media are coming to an end.  How will arts organizations transition successfully and seamlessly as possible into the 21st century way of communicating?  This is where we come back to the notion of an identity crisis.

The Road to Change

 

 

The identity crisis comes in the form of artistic organizations determining how to navigate through a new, seemingly ubiquitous cultural shift that pervades the American and world cultures. That new culture is social networking and online media sites.  How will opera companies, symphonies, choral societies, ballet companies, museums, and any other medium of classical art, connect to a new generation of potential art lovers?  I believe the answer lies in the realms of cyberspace.

Sites like Facebook , Twitter  and especially Youtube hold immense potential if only used properly.  The key words are “if only used properly.”  Most arts websites I visit are still using the internet like it was used ten years ago.  They are simply creating a website, throwing a bunch of information on there, and hoping that the viewer will be interested enough to come check out their artistic product.  Websites can no longer act as bulletin boards of information.  They must now be interactive as well as engaging and informative.  A leading voice in the classical arts community who’s opinion I immensely respect, Greg Sandow, thankfully understands the importance of this cultural shift.

Here are a few examples, in my opinion, of arts organizations who understand the cultural shift taking place and who have adapted accordingly: London Symphony, Seattle Opera, and The Metropolitan Opera .  As I discover more I will be sure to add them. 

So, this is the situation we face.  It may appear to be a daunting task, and to some, a useless waste of time.  However, it is happening and it WILL happen, whether we choose to recognize its importance or not.  Luckily, I am at an advantage as I have pretty much lived my entire life with computers and thus have easily adapted with the changes in technology.  Some are not so fortunate, but they can’t be blamed for not understanding the importance of it.

This is of course merely my opinion, but it seems to be the general consensus of the arts community.  In any of posts from here on, if you think I am off-base, wrong, or just plain wacky, tell me.  I love dissenting viewpoints.  It helps me to refine my own. 

Now, let’s get to work…