MichikoS
05-27-2007, 09:37 PM
Steven, I've been thinking about the opening paragraphs of your column all week. I review classical music concerts and write about classical music professionally, so your comments were of special interest.
You wrote:
As I sat in the audience, the scene struck me as not so different from a Nascar rally. More formal, certainly. But while, at a Nascar rally, there are always a few, especially judges, who want to see perfect performance, the thrill of the event for a large number of spectators is the possibility of the grizzly high speed crash. Not that they necessarily want to see a horrible crash, but the anticipation of one is what lends the event most of its electricity.
A classical music concert isn't dissimilar. It isn't the prospect of a great performance, whether musical, theatrical that makes an audience hold its breath. It's the risk of a bad one. For the spectator, this is part of the joy of any performance, though it's impolite to admit it even to yourself. But all performances are high wire acts, on the spot with only one chance to get it right. If they don't...
Steven, I don't experience classical music performances in the way you describe, nor, I doubt, do most people who regularly attend them.
...the thrill of the event for a large number of spectators is the possibility of the grizzly [grisly?] high speed crash. Not that they necessarily want to see a horrible crash, but the anticipation of one is what lends the event most of its electricity.
Hm. The NASCAR analogy isn't accurate. Even if we stipulate that audiences are "holding their breaths" for mayhem, there is no danger to life or limb in a classical music concert. None. A recital by a soloist can be marred by mistakes, memory lapses, or distracting personal habits, but the worst that can happen is an imperfect, possibly bad, rendition of a piece of music.
In orchestral performances, the timpanist might be late on a crucial drum roll; the horn plays a clam during a key phrase; or the violins aren't together when they should be. Those imperfections are not, in themselves, enough to ruin an otherwise good performance. And nobody's going to get killed.
The closest thing to a "high speed crash" would be a sustained, irretrievable memory blankout by a pianist, or a catastrophic coughing fit by the clarinetist in a Clarinet Trio, or a fall off the podium by a conductor in the middle of a symphony, or the neck breaking off a $70,000 violin during a violin concerto -- all of which I have personally witnessed.
Steven, I don't believe a single person in the audiences when these things occurred hoped for them in any way; "electric anticipation" of untoward events was not part of the audience dynamic. Someone whose principal reason for going to a concert is to see a "high speed crash" is a sociopath, not a music lover.
It isn't the prospect of a great performance, whether musical, [or?] theatrical that makes an audience hold its breath. It's the risk of a bad one. For the spectator, this is part of the joy of any performance, though it's impolite to admit it even to yourself. But all performances are high wire acts, on the spot with only one chance to get it right.
Again, I don't agree. You seem to view audiences as voyeuristic -- entirely separate and disconnected from the performers.The pleasure of experiencing a great musical performance is in the sense of connection and understanding that occurs between the performer(s) and the audience. The desire of the concert-goer to be uplifted by musical virtuosity and excellence motivates far more than any base desire for calamity. Sure, audiences like it when performers take risks, but they are hoping for success, not failure.
In short, I think you may be overly cynical when it comes to audiences, whether NASCAR fans or music lovers. I'm glad you enjoyed the Liszt, and that is was well played, but even if the performer had botched it utterly, I must believe that your feelings would have been more along the lines of disappointment, chagrin, or even embarrassment, rather than pleasure or enjoyment.
Michi
You wrote:
As I sat in the audience, the scene struck me as not so different from a Nascar rally. More formal, certainly. But while, at a Nascar rally, there are always a few, especially judges, who want to see perfect performance, the thrill of the event for a large number of spectators is the possibility of the grizzly high speed crash. Not that they necessarily want to see a horrible crash, but the anticipation of one is what lends the event most of its electricity.
A classical music concert isn't dissimilar. It isn't the prospect of a great performance, whether musical, theatrical that makes an audience hold its breath. It's the risk of a bad one. For the spectator, this is part of the joy of any performance, though it's impolite to admit it even to yourself. But all performances are high wire acts, on the spot with only one chance to get it right. If they don't...
Steven, I don't experience classical music performances in the way you describe, nor, I doubt, do most people who regularly attend them.
...the thrill of the event for a large number of spectators is the possibility of the grizzly [grisly?] high speed crash. Not that they necessarily want to see a horrible crash, but the anticipation of one is what lends the event most of its electricity.
Hm. The NASCAR analogy isn't accurate. Even if we stipulate that audiences are "holding their breaths" for mayhem, there is no danger to life or limb in a classical music concert. None. A recital by a soloist can be marred by mistakes, memory lapses, or distracting personal habits, but the worst that can happen is an imperfect, possibly bad, rendition of a piece of music.
In orchestral performances, the timpanist might be late on a crucial drum roll; the horn plays a clam during a key phrase; or the violins aren't together when they should be. Those imperfections are not, in themselves, enough to ruin an otherwise good performance. And nobody's going to get killed.
The closest thing to a "high speed crash" would be a sustained, irretrievable memory blankout by a pianist, or a catastrophic coughing fit by the clarinetist in a Clarinet Trio, or a fall off the podium by a conductor in the middle of a symphony, or the neck breaking off a $70,000 violin during a violin concerto -- all of which I have personally witnessed.
Steven, I don't believe a single person in the audiences when these things occurred hoped for them in any way; "electric anticipation" of untoward events was not part of the audience dynamic. Someone whose principal reason for going to a concert is to see a "high speed crash" is a sociopath, not a music lover.
It isn't the prospect of a great performance, whether musical, [or?] theatrical that makes an audience hold its breath. It's the risk of a bad one. For the spectator, this is part of the joy of any performance, though it's impolite to admit it even to yourself. But all performances are high wire acts, on the spot with only one chance to get it right.
Again, I don't agree. You seem to view audiences as voyeuristic -- entirely separate and disconnected from the performers.The pleasure of experiencing a great musical performance is in the sense of connection and understanding that occurs between the performer(s) and the audience. The desire of the concert-goer to be uplifted by musical virtuosity and excellence motivates far more than any base desire for calamity. Sure, audiences like it when performers take risks, but they are hoping for success, not failure.
In short, I think you may be overly cynical when it comes to audiences, whether NASCAR fans or music lovers. I'm glad you enjoyed the Liszt, and that is was well played, but even if the performer had botched it utterly, I must believe that your feelings would have been more along the lines of disappointment, chagrin, or even embarrassment, rather than pleasure or enjoyment.
Michi