Following on from applause

[jean]

I'm sure it's the confusion between hijab and jilbab which is to blame. With a smidgeon of jihad perhaps.

[teamsaint]

And yet many people do have problems with others', erm, bodily involvement in music. There is of course the problem of the person sitting somewhere in the same row of interconnected seats whose movements are crazily out of sync with one's own... and from another person's pov that can be one's own distracting movements. As happens I was once told off for swaying to the music, and informed that my movements were very distracting visually. To which I replied that for me music is above all a listening experience, though I had to admit to myself that the visual can be an important component of the live musical experience, especially in jazz or improvised music, where body language and communicative vibes can count for so much; and my accuser said "We don't all listen to music with our eyes closed you know!". In fact the above experience was at a jazz gig - at The Vortex, one of London's prime jazz venues! I subsequently looked up and there the audience was, spread out in front of me (I had moved to the back to indulge my jiggle tendencies), sitting stock still like rows of gravestones to this incredibly rhythmically involving music that was imploring me to put more than just my head into it, thinking, what are all these people here for??

Oh dear.

but if you think Jazz audiences are bad, ( I don't think we have live jazz round here ) you want , or rather don't want to try folk gigs.

one extreme or the other. Total reverential silence , or so much talk you can't hear the music at all.

we actually had to move from the middle to the front at a Bellowhead gig, ( the loudest band on the folk scene) to avoid the jabber. And they were the headliners. Support bands are like lambs to the chattering slaughter.

and don't get me started on beer in 4 pint milk cartons.....i mean, you wouldn't put milk in a Watneys Party Seven can....

[maestro267]

Some observations, if I may.

Recordings, and the ability to listen to music in the privacy of one's own home, has a lot to do with most of the unwritten "rules" of how to behave at a concert. No one should clap. No one should cough. No one should breathe. No one should exist.

On a recording, there is no applause between movements, only absolute silence. There is no rhythmic swaying, by players or audience members, and no one can become annoyed by your own rhythmic swaying. Add to that the fact that we each experience the same piece of music in different ways, and you see how music can be an incredibly private experience. So when we have to share this private experience with other members of the public, it very often goes wrong. Others 'ruin' (in whatever small ways) our own unique, individual experience of the music with their own unique, individual experience.

So it could be said that it's recordings' fault that we have these confrontations. Before recordings, the only way you could hear music was either hearing it in concert or playing it yourself.

[MrGongGong]

So it could be said that it's recordings' fault that we have these confrontations. Before recordings, the only way you could hear music was either hearing it in concert or playing it yourself.

Wot mr Magritte painted

[Zucchini]

I'm sure it's the confusion between hijab and jilbab which is to blame. With a smidgeon of jihad perhaps.

Duly amended to burka

[french frank]

Total reverential silence

The word 'reverential' is frequentially used. Wrongly, in my view It's just that some people apparently experience the music - in all its aspects - internally, without having any instinct to sway, snap fingers, clap. It isn't a 'less natural way'. I never understand the common assumption that part of the pleasure of concert-going is 'sharing the experience' with others. If people take pleasure in sharing the experience, they do. That's them.

It doesn't mean everyone reacts in the same way or takes pleasure in the same things. People can be appreciating something just as much without spontaneously externalising their enjoyment. It's just that they are the ones most likely to be disturbed by others. Like Proust, I'd happily invite my favourite string quartet to play for me in my own home, without the nodders and swayers!

[LHC]

Some observations, if I may.

Recordings, and the ability to listen to music in the privacy of one's own home, has a lot to do with most of the unwritten "rules" of how to behave at a concert. No one should clap. No one should cough. No one should breathe. No one should exist.

On a recording, there is no applause between movements, only absolute silence. There is no rhythmic swaying, by players or audience members, and no one can become annoyed by your own rhythmic swaying. Add to that the fact that we each experience the same piece of music in different ways, and you see how music can be an incredibly private experience. So when we have to share this private experience with other members of the public, it very often goes wrong. Others 'ruin' (in whatever small ways) our own unique, individual experience of the music with their own unique, individual experience.

So it could be said that it's recordings' fault that we have these confrontations. Before recordings, the only way you could hear music was either hearing it in concert or playing it yourself.

An alternative view could be that recordings, and the ability to listen to music in the privacy of one's own home, has also led to an increase of selfish behaviour at concerts. People are used to listening to music in an environment in which they don't have to pay any regard to the effect of their behaviour on others; they can fidget, flick through the CD booklet, munch their way through a pack of biscuits or peanuts, or chat to a friend on the phone. As this is how they normally listen to music, they naturally adopt the same behaviour in the concert hall, and are then surprised when those around them take issue with this.

With regard to people who move in time to the music, a couple of years ago my partner and I were sat in the choir seats for a performance of Beethoven 5 at the Proms. During the finale, we both noticed that there was a man at the back of the one of the boxes on the other side of the hall who was enthusiastically dancing along to the music in a most energetic fashion, arms and legs flailing all over the place. As he was at the back of the box he didn't seem to be disturbing anyone, and he would have been unobserved by anyone not sitting in the choir. We both found it highly amusing.

[teamsaint]

The word 'reverential' is frequentially used. Wrongly, in my view It's just that some people apparently experience the music - in all its aspects - internally, without having any instinct to sway, snap fingers, clap. It isn't a 'less natural way'. I never understand the common assumption that part of the pleasure of concert-going is 'sharing the experience' with others. If people take pleasure in sharing the experience, they do. That's them.

It doesn't mean everyone reacts in the same way or takes pleasure in the same things. People can be appreciating something just as much without spontaneously externalising their enjoyment. It's just that they are the ones most likely to be disturbed by others. Like Proust, I'd happily invite my favourite string quartet to play for me in my own home, without the nodders and swayers!

interesting song here from Paul Armfield.

the opening song from his LP Up- Here.

Click on the Up Here album, and click through to the song Shh...

http://www.paularmfield.com/

I know Paul . I don't think he would want" reverential" silence, but no doubt he would like folks to pay attention, or at least keep quiet during the set .

by the way, he's a terrific songwriter.

[vinteuil]

... some people apparently experience the music - in all its aspects - internally, without having any instinct to sway, snap fingers, clap. It isn't a 'less natural way'.
/ ... / People can be appreciating something just as much without spontaneously externalising their enjoyment. It's just that they are the ones most likely to be disturbed by others. Like Proust, I'd happily invite my favourite string quartet to play for me in my own home, without the nodders and swayers!

... Couperin justly reminds us to avoid undue externalization of expression in his Art de toucher le clavecin -

"A l’égard des grimaces du visage, on peut s'en coriger soy-même en mettant un miroir sur le pupitre de l’épinette, ou du clavecin."

The word 'reverential' is frequentially used. Wrongly, in my view ...

... 'frequentially', forsooth!

[Serial_Apologist]

I never understand the common assumption that part of the pleasure of concert-going is 'sharing the experience' with others. If people take pleasure in sharing the experience, they do. That's them.

For me the enjoyable aspect of listening in company consists in the pleasure to be derived from that which one feels is being experienced by others at the same time. It can, for instance, be pleasurable communicating a mutual recognition of something good happening by sharing a glance of acknowledgement "across a crowded room". Con-viviality. It does not have to mean both, let alone all parties experiencing that enjoyment in the same way. In that respect it's in its own small way akin to lovemaking (from memory!) - yet another antidote to solipsism!

[french frank]

"A l’égard des grimaces du visage, on peut s'en coriger soy-même en mettant un miroir sur le pupitre de l’épinette, ou du clavecin."

... 'frequentially', forsooth!

Reverently - frequently; reverentially - frequentially

Btw, my objection to 'reverential' in this context is that this is people interpreting what other people are thinking/feeling, which they can't possibly know. Intense, silent concentration doesn't have to be reverential. It can be anything - and only the silent person knows what's going on in his/her head. It could be appalled loathing.

[teamsaint]

Reverently - frequently; reverentially - frequentially

Btw, my objection to 'reverential' in this context is that this is people interpreting what other people are thinking/feeling, which they can't possibly know. Intense, silent concentration doesn't have to be reverential. It can be anything - and only the silent person knows what's going on in his/her head. It could be appalled loathing.

I think my use of that term was really to make the point that extremes of expectation of behaviour are not always helpful.
In a folk music gig, amplified perhaps, the kind of quiet and stillness that is asked of Classical concert hall audiences isn't really necessary, or isn't the norm. Audience members might for instance be reacting not to what actually works well for the majority of those attending, but to the name on the bill, and the person/group performing at any moment. I didn't mean to suggest that people shouldn't sit or stand silently, quietly, impassive, only that their expectation that others should do the same might be either inappropriate, or not applied by them uniformly , for all performers, for example.

[Beef Oven!]

I think my use of that term was really to make the point that extremes of expectation of behaviour are not always helpful.
In a folk music gig, amplified perhaps, the kind of quiet and stillness that is asked of Classical concert hall audiences isn't really necessary, or isn't the norm. Audience members might for instance be reacting not to what actually works well for the majority of those attending, but to the name on the bill, and the person/group performing at any moment. I don't think I was suggesting that people shouldn't sit or stand silently, quietly, impassive, only that their expectation that others should do the same might be either inappropriate, or not applied by them uniformly , for all performers, for example.

I think it's got more to do with the type of people that different musics attract, rather than anything intrinsic to the type of music/performance.

[teamsaint]

I think it's got more to do with the type of people that different musics attract, rather than anything intrinsic to the type of music/performance.

But people at folk gigs , for example, often react differently to the same kind of music, EG, chatting while the support band is on, and sitting silently ( which might be a good way to react) during the headline act. I have seen this happen, and I'm sure many others have too.
Different norms apply. The norm at a folk gig, for instance, is that it is ok to exchange comments, in a way which would be thought inappropriate in a classical concert hall. Folk audiences, are quite capable of "concert hall style" silence and stillness, for example.

[Beef Oven!]

But people at folk gigs , for example, often react differently to the same kind of music, EG, chatting while the support band is on, and sitting silently ( which might be a good way to react) during the headline act. I have seen this happen, and I'm sure many others have too.
Different norms apply. The norm at a folk gig, for instance, is that it is ok to exchange comments, in a way which would be thought inappropriate in a classical concert hall. Folk audiences, are quite capable of "concert hall style" silence and stillness, for example.

Chatting through the Fidelio Overture, and then reverential silence when the Schoenberg pc and DSCH 8 come on? I don't think so.