Has wiggling now become a no-no?

[Serial_Apologist]

I ask the above question in the wake of an odd experience for me at The Vortex last evening.

During the interval I left my place in the audience to join Hackneyvi by the bar at the back. As I was passing through, a young woman intercepted me: "Excuse me, but I wonder if you would mind moving your chair a bit to the left, because I found your swaying to the music kept blocking my view of the band, and putting me off".

I have always "moved" to music, managing to find the unlikeliest of rhythmic structures in the abstractest of post-serialist music and free improvisation. Anyway, as the gentleman that I still just about am, I apologised, adding that, not noticing that I had been wiggling, I had assumed it to be the room, indeed the whole earth that was shaking to the music, and concluding that in any case I always watched jazz with ears rather than eyes, I said I would stand at the back for the remainder of the gig, so she was welcome to take my seat.

Now, one of the things some of us learned back in the 60s was that it was OK, after all, if we tapped on knees or even physically moved in response to classical music at formal concerts. And nowadays, of course, people elect to shake their booty to the most horrendously mechanized beats to be devised since the Nuremburg rallies. From the back of the Vortex, what was clearly evident was that the complaining lady had a point, as I observed - and not for the first time - an entire audience sitting motionless for an entire set like rows of tombstones.

What do others feel about the protocols governing physical movement when seated at jazz gigs? Am I just not British enough, or just soooo un:cool2: by today's standards?

S-A

[Rumbaba]

This was touched on (sort of) in the 'Jazz gives me the blues' thread, prompted by Billy Jenkins' rage at jazz becoming a thing you do a degree in, an academic pursuit if you like. It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing. If an entire audience is sitting motionless then, whatever it is, it ain't jazz.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

hear! hear! ahem .... can't stop the wiggling man ..... not possible ..... what a drear woman S_A .... and a drear audience! shan't go there then! i weave and bob in classical recitals too .... us ageing beats is a social embarrassment innit ...

ain't nowhere i can do my jellyrolll ... my mojo is turned off etc etc

has modern culture become completely onanistic/solipsistic? no more the joint is jumpin/the house was rockin ....

[hackneyvi]

I ask the above question in the wake of an odd experience for me at The Vortex last evening.

During the interval I left my place in the audience to join Hackneyvi by the bar at the back. As I was passing through, a young woman intercepted me: "Excuse me, but I wonder if you would mind moving your chair a bit to the left, because I found your swaying to the music kept blocking my view of the band, and putting me off".

I have always "moved" to music ... Anyway, as the gentleman that I still just about am, I apologised, adding that ... she was welcome to take my seat.

... I observed - and not for the first time - an entire audience sitting motionless for an entire set like rows of tombstones.

Ah!, so, her remark caused you to stand, SA!

I think you should feel wholly free to move to moving music. The woman was expecting too much and whilst she might have asked to reorganise the chairs a little for other reasons, she can't expect to have the best view if she's sitting near the back. Them's the breaks. To suggest that you were putting her off is rather a comment on her own value of the music; putting her off what? Don't like the view? Shut your eyes then or look elsewhere. My concluding feeling about the remark is that it was selfish and foolish.

Beside you, me, the lady who lit the birthday cake, I was surprised at how little movement there was by the punters, seated or standing. There were one or two slower numbers where perhaps one wouldn't swing around but in general it seemed to be music which would lack all purpose if it didn't inspire song and dance! The customers clapped well-enough but they had sticks up their arses as an audience.

Is this something that occurs now because the room is long and cramped when full?

My memory of the Stoke Newington venue is of a squarer, more open space and the longer bar, allowing more room for unobtrusive movement and even dancing. At Dalston, there's none. In fact, seeing it full last night, the Vortex had the stiffness of a jazz library rather than a place for fun.

I had a smashing time - first experience of a big band - and didn't get to sleep till after 4 am. I may have to be careful about later evenings on a Sunday (they didn't finish till 11.30pm) but it was a lovely, unexpected antidote to the disappointment of the Oto gig the night before. Amongst several others, I'll be looking for more chances to hear Paul Clarvis again.

[Serial_Apologist]

He's a great geezer, Paul Clarvis, and always shows what a great time he is having on the stand. I was once at a duo thing he did with Liam Noble, and the range of styles the two of them covered was unbelievable. On one ragtime-type number Paul played spoons, like one used to see in those ambling street bands around the poorer districts of London. Stu Butterfield - the drummer in the first set last night - happened to be sitting next to me in the audience, and I turned to him and said, "Well now you know, Stu: if you want to be a real Cockney jazz drummer, you have to learn to play the spoons".

[salymap]

I would have thught wiggling was okay for jazz and pop but frowned upon by most at 'classical' concerts.

A programme tapper in rough time with the music nearly drove me mad at an RAH choral concert years ago.

[french frank]

I would have thught wiggling was okay for jazz and pop but frowned upon by most at 'classical' concerts.

A programme tapper in rough time with the music nearly drove me mad at an RAH choral concert years ago.

I suppose it depends on what other people are doing. I've never been to a classical concert where more than one person - maximum - in the entire hall was swaying, tapping fingers, nodding head, jiggling shoulders or any other such conspicuous activity. They're always sitting by me . I think, though, I would take the first opportunity to move elsewhere rather than ask them to stop ...

The only people allowed to sway are the performers , I suppose because that focuses attention on them and the music. Talented programme tappers don't offer the same interest.

[hackneyvi]

A programme tapper in rough time with the music nearly drove me mad at an RAH choral concert years ago.

I suppose it depends on what other people are doing.

The only people allowed to sway are the performers , I suppose because that focuses attention on them and the music. Talented programme tappers don't offer the same interest.

I think permissible noise depends on the noise the music makers are making. At the Vortex during a solo piano recital, a man in front of me was crisply rustling a sweet paper, just twirling it in his fingers because he was bored! I put my hand lightly on his shoulder and very quietly asked him to stop. He was very apologetic and stopped. Then he started again a moment later before stopping for good.

At PizzaShed, a guy standing by me was rattling his change during the very soft guitar intro to a piece. Again, quiet request. Stops, starts, stops, starts again, then realises and takes his hands out of his pockets. I feel my comment was fair.

What's being asked for isn't just silence but also self-awareness and control. But equally, these are places of enjoyment and if a dance piece is being enjoyed.

I have wondered if, actually, the aspect of the concert which is being paid for by some classical concert-goers isn't actually the music played but the silence it's played in.

[hackneyvi]

Talented programme tappers don't offer the same interest.

PS: A John Cage piece was played a couple of weeks ago which included as instruments 2 rolled up magazines. But I found myself getting huffy at the flapping of the stapled, two sheet programme notes.

One thing about the free improvised music I've been hearing live lately is that because so often the musicians (intentionally or not) imitate noises which might just as well be environmental, I feel it obliges one to be tolerant of some degree of environmental noise during the gig. There isn't much of it, say at Cafe Oto, but the first time I went, a lad walked to the toilet in shoes loud enough to hear over the music and I bridled. Yet, the violinist was making creaking sounds with her bow on the instrument which were little different from creaks of the Ercol dining chair seating. Some of the audience 'looked' at the offending creaker but it pulled me up; why admonish free incidental noise from a member of the audience which is no different in substance to sound you've paid to hear?

But then, would I feel the same about someone performing a beautiful accompanying hum to an Elgar melody during his cello concerto? I doubt that I would.

[french frank]

I have wondered if, actually, the aspect of the concert which is being paid for by some classical concert-goers isn't actually the music played but the silence it's played in.

I think that's very acute. I have heard music-lovers say that they enjoy the social aspects - and you can interpret this quite widely, I suppose - of concert-going. That's totally unimportant to me. I like the idea of the music and music-making being somehow 'contained' in the surrounding silence of the hall. I'm not sure that that's what I'm 'paying for' but it certainly enhances my enjoyment. And I am paying to listen to the music not the accompaniment of the audience. There's also the point that some people find it much easier to filter out distractions .

When you say, "I think permissible noise depends on the noise the music makers are making", I suppose that's where Cage comes in because for him the music making can be a wider term than the sounds/noises the professional performers are making, in addition to whatever sounds the performers are making by whatever means.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

there are two elements to consider here ..

one is the individual listening and hence the 'irritation' or disruption of attention engendered by 'wiggling' .... the other is hearing and watching a performance in a social context in which wiggling may or may not be the appropriate norm [e.g. concert hall v club] but is certainly part of the social response to the performance ... indeed may be vital .... [clapping in time, yells of approval, singing along etc are all acceptable or required in some performance settings] clearly where there are different expectations as to the nature of the performance setting there will be dispute as to fitting behaviour ... whether or no some individuals will disregard norms of acceptable behaviour whatever the circumstance

the nature of the performance adds to the complexity; e.g. Tom Arthur and Sartre's Croissant the other night on JLU would have left me still, and the long silence at the end of each piece indicates they held the audience in a still and quiet enthralment [small as that audience sounded] ... there was little to wiggle to! ... but a lot to pay attention to ...


we are also embarrassed or offended by wiggling on the tube for example ... where the norm is a self absorbed distance from others .... the issue is a social as well as aesthetic one

[Serial_Apologist]

there are two elements to consider here ..

one is the individual listening and hence the 'irritation' or disruption of attention engendered by 'wiggling' .... the other is hearing and watching a performance in a social context in which wiggling may or may not be the appropriate norm [e.g. concert hall v club] but is certainly part of the social response to the performance ... indeed may be vital .... [clapping in time, yells of approval, singing along etc are all acceptable or required in some performance settings] clearly where there are different expectations as to the nature of the performance setting there will be dispute as to fitting behaviour ... whether or no some individuals will disregard norms of acceptable behaviour whatever the circumstance

the nature of the performance adds to the complexity; e.g. Tom Arthur and Sartre's Croissant the other night on JLU would have left me still, and the long silence at the end of each piece indicates they held the audience in a still and quiet enthralment [small as that audience sounded] ... there was little to wiggle to! ... but a lot to pay attention to ...


we are also embarrassed or offended by wiggling on the tube for example ... where the norm is a self absorbed distance from others .... the issue is a social as well as aesthetic one

Thanks calum - nicely put in context. As to saly's point above, yes, I can understand the irritation if the person tapping is tapping both loudly and inaccurately. As FF says, one is imposing unacceptable demands, probably, on many people's capacities for filtering out sounds extraneous to what they have paid to hear. And not only sounds can be off-topic - as I well recall from a Barbican gig ruined by one person, seated several places away, shaking the entire row of seats with his body movements.

If only the whole joint had been a-rockin' along with him, eh?! Ho hum...

[eighthobstruction]

Perhaps the lady was intimating....stop yer wiggling about and get on with it....