The concert hall has several critical deficiencies for modern audiences. It creates a barrier between the performer and the audience. Interaction with the audience is difficult, and in our time of constant, intense, and varied environmental stimuli, particularly when we consider entertainment, the concert hall can seem boring to many audience members. This effect is intensified when there is only one instrumentalist - there is very little visual stimulus, there is no text to hear. The audience can only listen to the music, maybe watch the performer's facial expression, and judge the performer's skill. An even worse case is that of tape pieces, when there is absolutely nothing to look at, except maybe speakers. Another problem is the concert hall's limited idea of an audience as outside viewers who have no part in the performance, except maybe to clap or laugh.
Specifically stated, these are the problems for which I set out to find solutions in my study of performance spaces: 1. lack of stimuli, visual or otherwise, 2. barrier between audience and performer, and 3. lack of audience participation. Though these problems are not limited to the concert/recital hall, they are closely associated with the concert/recital hall. I approached the problems from several different angles. I looked at other types of musical performances and performance spaces that did not have all of these problems, or at least had them less severely. I looked at how a few other art forms dealt with these issues. I considered how people doing performances outside the arts dealt with these issues, particularly in the case of church services. And I tried to think up some of my own solutions.
It is important to note that many people, particularly instrumentalists, would say that the problems do not arise from the concert hall, but from an uneducated audience with a short attention span. I cautiously agree with this statement, particularly the short attention span part. However, that is a modern audience, and therefore the composer and/or performer has two options: cater to them or educate them. Educating the audience is a viable option, and it is saving many classical music organizations across the United States. Orchestras are printing in depth program notes. Touring artists, particularly Baroque musicians, often give little history lessons and general information about each piece before it is played, and about the instruments, too. Although this may not be the traditional, formal way to give a concert, it is not much different and is usually quite successful. Audiences get more out of the performance because they have better understanding, and may be less intimidated because the separation between the audience and performer has been lessened by the performer speaking directly to the audience.
When considering possible solutions from within the music field, my thoughts first turned to operas and musicals. The only time I have ever seen a bored audience at these types of performances was when the performance was particularly long or in a foreign language. I believe musicals are able to keep people's attention because there usually is a clear story being presented. Also, there is plenty of diverse visual stimuli, so that problem is basically solved by the nature of the performance. There are still deficiencies in the other two areas, but I have seen many cases where the audience/performer barrier has been broken down, or at least chipped at, by bringing the action into the audience and by directly addressing the audience. I have seen one interesting attempt at audience participation on this large scale: Nunsense II. In our programs we were all given bingo cards, and during one of the scenes we all played bingo. The point was to show how a particular well-meaning nun always managed to mess something up, no matter how hard she tried. After calling out about seven or eight numbers, every audience member shouted "bingo" at the same time. It surprised just about everyone, and was very funny.
Another good solution in the field of music, at least to the barrier and audience participation problems, is the piano bar, or in another form, a pianist at an informal party. True, most of the patrons simply ignore the music, or only hear it as background music. However, very often there is a small group of listeners that gather around the pianist. These people listen closely, speak to the performer, make requests, and sometimes sing along. In this situation, there is practically no barrier, and it is one of the best examples of audience participation I know in music. I believe this is made possible primarily because of the relaxed setting and small audience.
The visual arts face similar problems - an often uneducated and intimidated audience that is separated from the work by an invisible barrier. I believe this is one reason why museums often have low attendance. People are intimidated by the almost religious atmosphere. I think that the Allen Art Museum has taken several successful approaches to these problems. Art After Hours provides a more relaxed atmosphere, and has the added stimulus of music. Plus, people feel freer to discuss the works.
The Allen Art Museum's art rental is another successful solution; the person gets the chance to live with the work. It is not easy to find a good equivalent to this for music, the reasons being the time-based nature of music and the desire for a single "live" performance. However, recordings do serve a similar function, and do it very well. If a person has a recording of a piece, he or she can experience the piece several times, stretched over a lengthy time span. Sheet music adds the participation element - the audience and performer are one. This further increases understanding, and thus usually appreciation of the work. Modern mediums like the CDROM can take this even further by having participation and more visual stimuli.
The third area I examined for ideas was the religious service, particularly the Christian church service. The purpose of a church service usually is not art, even though many works originally intended for church are now performed outside of church. However, a church service is a performance, usually includes art and music, and faces similar problems to those of a concert hall performance. The church's answer (and many other religions' answer) to these problems has been to get the audience to participate. In fact, it is not called an audience, but a congregation. This emphasizes that the people have a role in the performance. They cannot (or should not) just sit back and observe; they must participate. Hymns are wonderful examples of this, and they have a long, important history in the church. Many churches take the participation idea very far, letting members of the congregation lead the service in unplanned directions, if the Spirit leads them.
Another area I thought considerably about, but have not had the opportunity to study recently, is the amusement park ride. Disney is quite adept at making their attractions total works of art. A typical attraction will include its own music, elaborate sets and artwork, an occasional actor, and sometimes audience participation. There is tons to see, hear, and do on these rides, even while waiting in line. Plus, these attractions are carefully composed - every detail is thoroughly thought out, rehearsed, and refined.
So, when trying to come up with an alternative to the traditional concert/recital hall performance, the composer (artist, performer, etc.) has several things to consider:
Taking all these factors into consideration, I started work on a recital. The first thing I decided was the approximate audience size I wanted and the arrangement of the space. After looking at several buildings, I finally decided on Peters. Peters had several things I wanted - interesting acoustical properties (all wood and several stories high), good floor arrangement, a balcony, and nice atmosphere. The atmosphere was good because it was relaxed, but not completely informal. The floor arrangement was particularly nice; it allowed me to place the audience in the center, surrounding them with music, and had space for me to have a walk through piece.
I started work on my walk through piece, an idea I had been wanting to realize for quite some time. I wanted a piece that moved through space instead of time, something which a person could experience at their own pace, taking in as much as they wanted of it. I was comparing this piece in my mind to two other ideas - modern, particularly abstract, art in which a person walks up to a work or portion of a work, pauses, and spends as much time with the work as they need/desire. I also had in mind some of the more recent amusement park rides and attractions, like those in Disney World, in which part of the ride is the line - video monitors and sounds are looped and playing, more or less to keep the people from getting board. But in some of these attractions (particularly the Magic Kingdom's Haunted House, if you've been through it), it is an integral part of the whole experience.
I was constantly thinking about the space. I wanted the piece to be written for Peters. I recorded sounds from Peters, like the sounds the front door, the floors, and the copier make. I also like the idea of the audience being in the center, surrounded by the music, and even having the music come from within the audience in some instances. Early drafts of the work included two instrumentalists in the balcony (probably clarinet and violin), a third instrumentalist in a corner, and singer within the audience. For several reasons, including a desire for simplicity, I eliminated all but the singer.
Then I ran into one of my weaknesses - I have trouble writing "abstract" or "absolute" music. My music usually has some meaning to it, and I believe audiences expect some kind of "meaning" or "message" and will read one into a work even if it is not there. That an audience does this does not bother me, but my weakness does. But, I personally was finding it very difficult to write for a vocalist without including some text, so I decided to make it a separate song. At this point, I was also having trouble with the third and fourth pieces, so I simply expressed my frustration, and subsequent revelation, in the song. To add to the idea of inspiration, to surprise the audience, and to keep from setting up a barrier, I placed the vocalist in the audience without informing the audience that there would be a song. I think it made quite a difference in the work.
I decided that the song would be a good climax for the recital, so I decided to put it in the middle of only three pieces. I was trying to tie all the pieces together thematically, and eventually I started viewing the whole recital as a piece unto itself. In viewing my overall plan for the recital, I saw that a good way to end was to have a recessional that incorporated elements of the first two pieces. By this point I was calling the pieces "movements". The third movement practically wrote itself. I just had to plan what types of sounds would be most appropriate at different points in the walk. Roughly 2/5 of the sound material was of the vocalist, 1/5 sounds from Peters, and the rest a combination of the first movement and the accompaniment of the second movement.
Always in my mind was the lobby of Peters - my choice of sounds and vocalist related to the acoustics of the room. The very first thing I did was plan where speakers, instrumentalists, vocalist, and audience would be, using the layout of the lobby. Then I wrote for this arrangement. The only changes made in this were the elimination of the balcony instrumentalists, the replacing of the third instrumentalist with another speaker, and the hiding of the vocalist in the audience.
I debated whether or not to have a title and a program, and decided to have neither. Deciding not to have a program was a conscious decision - I did not want the rattling/crumpling sounds, and I did not want people to be constantly looking at one for explanations, directions, etc. Basically it was to eliminate distraction. A program also would have eliminated the surprise of the vocalist. Since I did not have a printed program, and because attendance was decided by invitation, the need for a title was not pressing.
The recital seemed to be a success. Things went mostly according to plan, and the audience seemed pleased with the work. The processional and recessional challenged some people, but most people liked the change, even those who were challenged. The difference in setting, and the addressing of the problems I studied in my private reading, successfully helped keep my audiences attention, and pleased them. All that is left now is to further research my topic and try more ideas in my next recital.