|
richard barrett
|
 |
« Reply #195 on: 17:48:21, 31-08-2008 » |
|
... perhaps you could also inform them as to which facts and indeed which composers you are basing this assertion upon, if any, since those "civilians" may be under the impression that you are speaking from a position of having researched the subject rather than merely giving vent to unfounded supposition.
Why? Would you claim that performance is an undesirable end in itself and that audience presence/satisfaction is paramount? I don't see why my opinion should have anything to do with your coming clean as to who you're talking about, but obviously performance is pretty meaningless without an audience. I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise, but you seem to have some hitherto unrevealed information up your sleeve. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian_Lawson
Posts: 59
|
|
« Reply #196 on: 18:18:01, 31-08-2008 » |
|
obviously performance is pretty meaningless without an audience. The point is that performance without an audience is not meaningless to the composer. (not any particular named composer just the breed in general) Okay you might be the one to turn down a performance by the Chicago Symphony on the grounds that they don’t expect much of audience (perhaps you would go as far as recommending someone who might be a better box office success) but I would predict that not many other composers would be so generous. Yes, it’s only an assertion (and my message from which all this has followed was only an anecdote) - so you are going to have to take it or leave it - same as everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #197 on: 18:21:52, 31-08-2008 » |
|
You said "for many composers... (a)n audience is neither here nor there." Who are these many composers?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MT Wessel
|
|
« Reply #198 on: 18:39:44, 31-08-2008 » |
|
Well .. Er ... Obviously the performers are the audience and it serves them bloody well right as far as I'm concerned. Er .. by the way I am currently listening a version of 4:33 with no performers strictly for Zen Bhuddists and to hell with English classical music. What is English classical music and what is this thread about anyway? Nurse! I need my medication ...  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 19:52:23, 31-08-2008 by MT Wessel »
|
Logged
|
lignum crucis arbour scientiae
|
|
|
|
marbleflugel
|
|
« Reply #199 on: 19:06:59, 31-08-2008 » |
|
I wonder if Ian is implicitly rather than explicitly referencing salon performance and the earlier chamber music repertoire. (Incidentally,I learnt from a David O Norris show about Liszt yesterday that he first coined the term'recital' to give the circus atmos of his appearances a bit of class).
I lately joined the London Composers' Forumwhose chair has come up with the clever idea of drop-in work-in-progress workshops in a central London foyer,sort of an interactive forum.This strikes me as encompassing what I think Ian is trying to express and sharpening the ears of the passing trade by way hopefully of audience development.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'...A celebrity is someone who didn't get the attention they needed as an adult'
Arnold Brown
|
|
|
Ian_Lawson
Posts: 59
|
|
« Reply #200 on: 19:08:26, 31-08-2008 » |
|
Who are these many composers?
Any composer, for example, who thinks it is a problem should a venue favour performances likely to put bums on seats rather than those likely not to. This implies that it doesn’t matter to that composer whether the venue attracts an audience, and that audience figures should not be a criterion in decision making. In other words the audience figures should have no bearing. (i.e. they should be meaningless) Of course this doesn’t mean that any audience a composer might have is meaningless to the composer (in the same way the performance [with or without an audience] isn’t meaningless to the composer) But, at the same time, composers are often found claiming that small audiences should not be a deterrent to programming new work. So it is in this less self-centred sense wider sense that many composers believe that audiences are unimportant. Do you disagree? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #201 on: 19:20:28, 31-08-2008 » |
|
I would still like to hear of an example of a composer, let alone many composers, for whom audiences are "neither here nor there", but I can see you're determined to dodge that particular issue.
Be that as it may: the word "audience" covers a multitude of actual and possible situations of which size is not the only (or even the most) important measure. I would prefer to play to fifty appreciative people than a thousand indifferent ones. In other words saying that small audiences oughtn't to be a "problem" is not at all the same thing as saying that audiences are unimportant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marbleflugel
|
|
« Reply #202 on: 19:35:38, 31-08-2008 » |
|
This afternoon I dropped into The Space to pick up a mike I'd forgotten and found the Martin Speke Quartet playing impressionistic/ driven improv to,what,12 people. But 12 attentive people.I have to say I found the attendance figures melancholy, but inthe best sense the quartet were playing for the music and the audience beningnly happened tobe there apprehending it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'...A celebrity is someone who didn't get the attention they needed as an adult'
Arnold Brown
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #203 on: 19:59:25, 31-08-2008 » |
|
'Who cares if you listen?' as Milton Babbitt famously didn't ask, or mean really. Although the ivory tower mentality advocated in that article can certainly be seen to have fuelled the flames of a particular type of mid-20th century attitude amongst American serialists in particular which held that an audience, or a communal understanding of this kind of music, was of little or no importance to its intrinsic value, and that its intrinsic value was all that mattered (perhaps working on the assumption that the super-listeners of future generations would take up the slack).
But that was then. This is now, and I don't know a single composer for whom listeners are unimportant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #205 on: 20:48:53, 31-08-2008 » |
|
for many composers, a performance is a desirable end in itself. An audience is neither here nor there ...I don't know a single composer for whom listeners are unimportant.
Neither do I. I can't keep track of these shifting goalposts I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ian_Lawson
Posts: 59
|
|
« Reply #206 on: 21:25:47, 31-08-2008 » |
|
I can't keep track of these shifting goalposts I'm afraid.
Well let me remind you where you’ve put them. You’ve moved them from what was a general discussion about whether or not the size of an audience should be a factor for (hypothetical) venues when considering booking events to a place about how important the composer’s audience is to that particular composer. (You’re not thinking of yourself by any chance are you?) Anyway, when you have finished perhaps you can put the posts back where you found them and generally tidy up a bit - and don’t forget to turn the lights off. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 07:41:34, 01-09-2008 by Ian_Lawson »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Dahm
|
|
« Reply #207 on: 01:15:02, 01-09-2008 » |
|
Why is this debate even happening? Of course composers care about an audience! And Ian admits to realising this. Many composers, though, (and yes, I include myself in this category) would be justifiably concerned for the future performance prospects of their work if funding were placed solely in the hands of an establishment whose sole interest is the money taken through getting bums on seats. Generally there is a subtle difference between an artist's desire to engage an audience, and a venues desire to attract an audience. Be that as it may: the word "audience" covers a multitude of actual and possible situations of which size is not the only (or even the most) important measure. I would prefer to play to fifty appreciative people than a thousand indifferent ones. In other words saying that small audiences oughtn't to be a "problem" is not at all the same thing as saying that audiences are unimportant. This is about as lucid as it could conceivably be. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Grew
Guest
|
|
« Reply #208 on: 02:03:55, 01-09-2008 » |
|
Be that as it may: the word "audience" covers a multitude of actual and possible situations of which size is not the only (or even the most) important measure. I would prefer to play to fifty appreciative people than a thousand indifferent ones. In other words saying that small audiences oughtn't to be a "problem" is not at all the same thing as saying that audiences are unimportant. This is about as lucid as it could conceivably be. Not as we see it. The true artist cares only for his art, and writes not for his own coterie in the present-day, but for humanity in general five hundred years and more into the future. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Dahm
|
|
« Reply #209 on: 02:10:29, 01-09-2008 » |
|
Be that as it may: the word "audience" covers a multitude of actual and possible situations of which size is not the only (or even the most) important measure. I would prefer to play to fifty appreciative people than a thousand indifferent ones. In other words saying that small audiences oughtn't to be a "problem" is not at all the same thing as saying that audiences are unimportant. This is about as lucid as it could conceivably be. Not as we see it. The true artist cares only for his art, and writes not for his own coterie in the present-day, but for humanity in general five hundred years and more into the future. Perhaps, but as we see it, chasing the 2508 AD audience simply mustn't be subsidised. Especially given that the infernal 'art' that results risks alienating the 2208 AD audience.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
