An article that I’d heard about but not read until today – it’s in this week’s Seattle Weekly, and ostensibly it’s a review (by the excellent writer/critic Gavin Borchert) of the Chiara Quartet’s concerts in two completely different Seattle venues: Meany Hall and the Tractor Tavern.
Here’s Gavin’s excellent (and if I may say so, exquisite) set-up:
Whenever the future of classical music is discussed, on blogs or in print, you won’t be far from complaints about the concert experience and the traditions of audience protocol. The words “suffocating” and “oppressive” are likely to crop up, and the conclusion drawn is that the formality, pretentiousness, and oppressiveness of expected concertgoing etiquette is turning off the potential new audiences necessary to keep the classical world from collapse.
A couple of things puzzle me. First, the classical concert experience is, in all essentials, identical to that of dance, theater, literary events, or for that matter—barring the munching of popcorn and cheering the fireball deaths of villains—movies. Go to the performance space, buy a ticket, sit down in rows, watch and listen, try not to disturb your fellow audience members. Yet it’s only in conjunction with concerts that you hear complaints about what a crushing burden this all is. Second, why is sitting quietly considered such an unendurable ordeal? Millions of people do it every night in front of their televisions.
And here’s his almost equally satisfying conclusion:
So what have we learned? Well, maybe people behave the way they do at concerts not because it’s an artificial standard imposed by ironclad tradition but because the music sounds better that way. Maybe listeners feel classical music most deeply when they pay quiet attention to it. Maybe sometimes not clapping is OK, and we don’t need to rush in and obliterate every silence. Maybe true innovations in concert presentation—new ways of getting music and music lovers together—will be concerned not with questions of formal vs. informal, loose vs. uptight, but with what setting best allows music to work its magic.
The concert experience as we know it could stand some fine-tuning—I don’t mind hearing musicians talk to the audience, and I’ll be the first to cheer when the tuxedo finally dies—but it’s evolved into a simple, commonsense, even efficient format for the communal experience of art, whatever hall you’re in. What’s the problem?
Apparently, many readers agreed – click here to read their comments.
3 replies on “is non-traditional better – why?”
I like the traditional concert hall, too, but what’s wrong with trying something different? The Chiara’s Seattle experiment may not have been as successful as the kind of thing that has worked well in NYC and other cities, but let’s not call it a failure (in fairness I wasn’t there). There are plenty of reasons to try chamber music in a new setting. Here a just a few: 1) to pull in a different kind of audience – isn’t it more or less universally accepted that audiences for classical music are shrinking?; 2) acoustics – are large halls like Alice Tully really ideal places to hear a quartet? Since when did chamber music become the domain of the raised platform and the procenium arch (not to mention the 2000-seat hall)?; 3) to faithfully repsect the composers’ intentions – it could be that certain pieces are conceived for a more intimate setting (even informal). Finally, the Chiaras have never promoted one version of their concerts as a replacement for the other. Rather, they want to offer listeners a choice. (Also, they play like gangbusters in either setting.) Is there anything wrong with that?
I certainly don’t think that one is necessarily better than the other, except that there are segments of the audience that are better served by the different venues.
I think a point of view that has been assumed (but not explicitly expressed) is that non-traditional venues are better because they are new, interesting, and go after younger audiences or previously unreachable audience demographics. I think that this review simply expresses the point of view of those who like the traditional venue experience.
I agree that seeing a string quartet on the main auditorium stage at Carnegie is not a very personal (or “chamber”) experience, and it’s far from ideal. Unfortunately, it’s become the norm due to the need for presenters to make money and for performers to make a living.
Chiara made a wise choice in doing one of each – a main stage concert that would pay their fee for the city in which they appear, and a different, smaller, more intimate venue that provides more satisfaction for them (and their lucky audience).
Ultimately, the best place for chamber music performances is the large living room (or great room) of a mansion – the modern equivalent of where the first chamber performances were given in the 18th century – in the homes of wealthy patrons. The intimacy is incredible, the vibe is as it should be, and it’s a comfortable, casual experience. However, “average joe” isn’t going to gain admittance, so maybe these bar & grill venues are a good way to go?
Oh, well, if I talk long enough I end up contradicting myself…
BTW – have you contacted the Attacca Quartet? They gave a premiere of a quartet by Dorothy Chang – played the crap out of it – you should give them a copy of your score and recording of the Quartet…
http://www.attaccaquartet.com