Talking about music
Andrew Clark writes in Saturday's FT about the trend in conductor's chatting about the music prior to performing a piece. He comes down firmly against it.
One of the things that those of us who are "selling" opera these days are concerned about are those things that keep people from experiencing it. One of the most clearly identifiable is the intimdation factor of the experience. For many people the fact that they don't know opera, that they don't speak the language in which the opera is sung, or that they have to "dress up", discourage them from trying it. I recently observed a set of focus groups that expressed some of these concerns. At the beginning of the session a number of attendees categorically refused to go to the opera. And yet, after having explained to them that there would be a simultaneous translation, they didn't need to dress up, that the story of the work would be printed in the program, their resistance was worn down and they were inclined to give it a try.
So, given this information, wouldn't the kind of pre-performance talk that Clark is decrying be more of a help rather than a hindrance?
He makes some good points. First I think that it has to been in the right context and the right kind of talk. In the film Howard's End Helena Bonham Carter is attending a lecture in "Meaning in Music", where Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is described as having "goblins." Of course such utter nonsense would be laughable today, but it does illustrate a valid concern. I'm not sure that audiences need to have music described to them in such simplistic terms (the second of Clark's opening examples). Non-program music shouldn't be interpreted to mean something that it wasn't (I won't go into "director's opera", because I think these are two different things). And by its nature, as Clark says, music is more powerful than words. Even in vocal music, the power and meaning of the work is greater than any words that one might use to describe it. The greatness of opera is the ability to convey an emotional meaning for which words alone do not suffice.
And yet there are times, when to a novice, an explanatory note isn't out of place. Certainly with some new works, I've appreciated the odd comment or two before hearing it. But ultimately, I think Clark has it right that pre-performance lectures and program notes are the ticket. I think it is clear that this kind of thing should be made available with greater frequency to enhance the experience for those it might help and who want it. But like Clark, I like the opera house and concert hall to be free from someone intruding on my experience. I like to listen to the music and get from it what I want. Not what someone else thinks I should.
One of the things that those of us who are "selling" opera these days are concerned about are those things that keep people from experiencing it. One of the most clearly identifiable is the intimdation factor of the experience. For many people the fact that they don't know opera, that they don't speak the language in which the opera is sung, or that they have to "dress up", discourage them from trying it. I recently observed a set of focus groups that expressed some of these concerns. At the beginning of the session a number of attendees categorically refused to go to the opera. And yet, after having explained to them that there would be a simultaneous translation, they didn't need to dress up, that the story of the work would be printed in the program, their resistance was worn down and they were inclined to give it a try.
So, given this information, wouldn't the kind of pre-performance talk that Clark is decrying be more of a help rather than a hindrance?
He makes some good points. First I think that it has to been in the right context and the right kind of talk. In the film Howard's End Helena Bonham Carter is attending a lecture in "Meaning in Music", where Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is described as having "goblins." Of course such utter nonsense would be laughable today, but it does illustrate a valid concern. I'm not sure that audiences need to have music described to them in such simplistic terms (the second of Clark's opening examples). Non-program music shouldn't be interpreted to mean something that it wasn't (I won't go into "director's opera", because I think these are two different things). And by its nature, as Clark says, music is more powerful than words. Even in vocal music, the power and meaning of the work is greater than any words that one might use to describe it. The greatness of opera is the ability to convey an emotional meaning for which words alone do not suffice.
And yet there are times, when to a novice, an explanatory note isn't out of place. Certainly with some new works, I've appreciated the odd comment or two before hearing it. But ultimately, I think Clark has it right that pre-performance lectures and program notes are the ticket. I think it is clear that this kind of thing should be made available with greater frequency to enhance the experience for those it might help and who want it. But like Clark, I like the opera house and concert hall to be free from someone intruding on my experience. I like to listen to the music and get from it what I want. Not what someone else thinks I should.
posted by Rich Russell at
9:21 PM
1 Comments:
I think pre-performance lectures are a good thing, just as long as they are definitively scheduled and definitevely OVER before the start of the concert or opera, so those of us who could not, or chose not to, attend may walk in sit down and experience the concert or opera un-pre-digested.
I have done both and enjoyed both. Just as long as it's something you can choose, not have forced on you if you're not up for it.
"A Brief History of _____", "Meet the Performers" or "Meet the Composer" type presentations can be very interesting & helpful for the audience members, whether newbies or experienced in music. [And BTW, the GRANT $$ that accompany MTP or MTC presentations are very nice for those trying to earn a living in the Arts...]
Post a Comment
<< Home