Noise or silence: who decides?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's called 'Pipedown'.

Here they are on M & S's recent change of policy:

Marks and Spencer stops its piped music!

From Wednesday 1st June all branches of Marks and Spencer will be free of piped music, following a decision by its executive. ‘We’ve listened to customer feedback, and the licence to play music in all our stores has now been cancelled with effect from 1st June 2016′ said Gary Bragg. This decision, which will save Marks and Spencer money, is the result of years and years of determined campaigning by Pipedowners and other people, who have refused to be fobbed off with bland dismissals. Marks and Spencer remains the UK’s biggest chain store, a national institution. So this is a great day for all campaigners for freedom from piped music.

Millions of customers will be delighted by this news. So will thousands, probably tens of thousands, of people working in M&S who have had to tolerate non-stop music not of their choice all day for years. Congratulate the management, especially the new CEO Steve Rowe, by emailing M&S at chairman@customersupport.marksandspencer.com

I had no idea of this excellent news. I shall start shopping there with immediate effect. I never used wire clippers at M & S, but I did switch off their ghetto blasters on two occasions, subsequently staring into the security cameras to show I wasn't going to lie down easily.

[french frank]

When you go to an exhibition, what is IN the exhibition is the choice of the curator (often the same as the artist) NOT the person who goes to the exhibition.

But you're missing the point with your comparison with the programming of a concert: that you don't know until you've paid your money that the exhibition - which is what you've paid for - is ruined by intrusive music. And, as you admit, may not even be well done.

It's the point at which a sound accompaniment is deemed 'essential', or 'part of the exhibition' that exhibitions become less attractive for people who don't like aural wallpaper, whether 'well done' or 'badly done'. As I said: the ubiquity of other people's choice of music. The alternative would be to put the nice music/sounds on the audio guide which you could at least switch off if you found it trying. No, you MUST have it because the curator wants it so. No choice for the consumer.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But you're missing the point with your comparison with the programming of a concert: that you don't know until you've paid your money that the exhibition - which is what you've paid for - is ruined by intrusive music. And, as you admit, may not even be well done.

It's the point at which a sound accompaniment is deemed 'essential', or 'part of the exhibition' that exhibitions become less attractive for people who don't like aural wallpaper, whether 'well done' or 'badly done'. As I said: the ubiquity of other people's choice of music. The alternative would be to put the nice music/sounds on the audio guide which you could at least switch off if you found it trying. No, you MUST have it because the curator wants it so. No choice for the consumer.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[jean]

Nor could I.

[De Lassus]

If exhibitions are going to increasingly use an aural dimension to enhance the experience it would be good if there were some time slots that did not have this. both for those who just don't like it and for the deaf and hard of hearing community. Hearing aids amplify all sounds and the more general background noise there is the harder it is to focus on what what one wants to listen to.

[Cockney Sparrow]

If exhibitions are going to increasingly use an aural dimension to enhance the experience it would be good if there were some time slots that did not have this. both for those who just don't like it and for the deaf and hard of hearing community. Hearing aids amplify all sounds and the more general background noise there is the harder it is to focus on what what one wants to listen to.

This seems like a very good basis for demanding amendment to these sound intrusions. They would have to seriously consider this as there must be legislation they need to comply with as to the special needs of the hard of hearing. (If they turned off their hearing aid, they couldn't hear a fire alarm..)

[MrGongGong]

But you're missing the point with your comparison with the programming of a concert: that you don't know until you've paid your money that the exhibition - which is what you've paid for - is ruined by intrusive music. And, as you admit, may not even be well done.

No, you are missing the point in considering sound as not part of the exhibition.

Many places DO have special events for those who have difficulty in the ways they are normally presented and i've worked on a fair few in my time.

BUT the point that seems to be lost is that

No choice for the consumer.

the "consumer' isn't the one to decide the content

It's a bit like going to a restaurant where the chef has spent considerable time creating a balanced dish and then demanding that instead of the shittake mushrooms in the mushroom risotto a tin of spam is substituted as "the consumer" doesn't like mushrooms.

I'm thinking of going to an orchestral concert next week but I don't like clarinets is it OK for me to insist they are replaced by kazoos as I find them more listenable ? and after all I AM THE "CONSUMER".


There is plenty of "choice" if that is what you want. If people REALLY wanted choice they wouldn't go to things curated and assembled by others.

[jean]

Many places DO have special events for those who have difficulty in the ways they are normally presented and i've worked on a fair few in my time.

The key word here is normally.

I have no difficulty at all with the way the British Museum normally presents its collections - not something set in stone of course, but revised and rethought from time to time, though never with musical accompaniment.

Until very recently, that was normal for special exhibitions, too. I suspect the newly-designed special exhibition galleries at the BM have been provided with state-of-the-art sound equipment which they're determined to use on all possible occasions; I hope by drawing people's attention to what isn't quite yet the new normal I may be able to help prevent its becoming so.

It's a bit like going to a restaurant where the chef has spent considerable time creating a balanced dish and then demanding that instead of the shittake mushrooms in the mushroom risotto a tin of spam is substituted as "the consumer" doesn't like mushrooms.

It's not like that at all. In your example, every aspect of the dish is the work of the chef, or curator. A bit of raw onion is not at all interesting until incorported into a dish with other ingredients, when it is transformed into part of a larger whole..

But in the case of the exhibitions considered here, there are particular works which have existed complete in themselves for centuries. Appreciation of them may well be enhanced by their being juxtaposed with other works, which may be borrowed from other collections for the purpose. But musical composition formed no part of their original conception.

If people REALLY wanted choice they wouldn't go to things curated and assembled by others.

If people want to see particular works of art, often the only choice they have is to see them as part of a special exhibition.

.

[french frank]

If people REALLY wanted choice they wouldn't go to things curated and assembled by others.

So, if people wanted choice, they wouldn't choose to go to an art exhibition? Is that what you're saying?

[MrGongGong]

So, if people wanted choice, they wouldn't choose to go to an art exhibition? Is that what you're saying?

No
I'm saying if you want to be able to choose everything, what you see, what you hear while you see, how many people are there with you, what the temperature is and so on then I would suggest going to things curated by other people is probably always going to be a disappointment.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No
I'm saying if you want to be able to choose everything, what you see, what you hear while you see, how many people are there with you, what the temperature is and so on then I would suggest going to things curated by other people is probably always going to be a disappointment.

By your reckoning, I'm definitely starting to think curators are an arrogant bunch - something I would never have said 10 years ago.

[Sir Velo]

So, if people wanted choice, they wouldn't choose to go to an art exhibition? Is that what you're saying?

If you know there's going to be an audio element then it's your choice to go or not. Personally, if it's approved or authorised by the artist I think you have to go accept it as part of the overall package.

[MrGongGong]

The alternative would be to put the nice music/sounds on the audio guide which you could at least switch off if you found it trying.

To a sound artist that's the equivalent of suggesting that harpsichords should all be replaced by electronic instruments or better still a sample played off laptop
The intimate sound one gets listening on headphones is a completely different thing (without going into ideas of co-presence etc etc) entirely to listening through loudspeakers.

[jean]

If you know there's going to be an audio element then it's your choice to go or not. Personally, if it's approved or authorised by the artist I think you have to go accept it as part of the overall package.

But we are not talking here about the sort of exhibition where the original artist has any input into the exhibition at all.

[jean]

To a sound artist...

I see no reason for the inolvement of a sound artist in an exhibition of ancient Egyptian artefacts.