Benaroya Hall, home of the Seattle SymphonyI haven't been a very good blogger this month, at least so far. It seems like I should have more time on my hands, since I have a househusband (at least for a little while longer), but I feel like I've been really busy. Maybe I'm not really busier, but my days have gone by faster since J is with me during the day (and I have someone to chat with me!).
Anyhow, J and I went to the symphony this past week. There were a couple of things distracting me during the performance (including one first violinist who violently rocked and swayed with every musical beat), so I ended up closing my eyes so that I could focus on the music. And then I began to think: why do we even need lights during a symphonic performance (aside from the fact that the musicians need to see the music in order to play)? The symphony setting definitely is catered toward the idea of spectacle: the musicians are on display, the stage is well-lit, and all seats turn towards the stage. That evening a violin soloist even wore a sparkly, shimmery dress, which added to the spectacle for me.
But don't you technically go to a symphony to listen to music? Why do you need to see anything at all? There must be a visual element of the symphony that is appealing - is it to see the conductor frantically waving his arms? (Or to see the backside of the conductor - he hee! I remember overhearing a joke that conductor Keith Lockhart (who recently left the Utah Symphony) attracted fans who primarily liked to watch him from behind!) Or perhaps the spectacle is the various instruments on stage? Perhaps people like to pay attention to the musicians (although this seems a little contradictory in terms of the symphony member's wardrobes - they traditionally wear black, which seems to suggest that they don't want to attract attention). Perhaps people want to see the soloist play and manifest extraordinary technique?
What do you like to watch at the symphony? Do you like watching as much as listening?
Posts
7 comments:
I once went to a a concert featuring a "famous" Irish fiddler, and I think part of the experience would have been lost had I not been able to watch her fingers fly across her fiddle. It was amazing. And I know Trav goes willingly to the symphony because he likes to watch them play and cares little for the music.
Really good points you bring up.
I played the violin my entire childhood and teen years and I often felt like the ONLY one who didn't rock back and forth when playing. I don't really understand why people do it -- at least dramatically -- it certainly isn't necessary in order to play.
I, like you, like to close my eyes at the symphony. I've been to the National Symphony a couple of times (a guy in the Stake works there and gives out tickets -- there's no way I could pay) and I usually close my eyes. I'd rather concentrate on the music than notice the one musician whose bow tie is crooked or something.
I almost always close my eyes when I'm at the symphony, but if I don't like the music or I'm getting bored, that's when I start watching, looking at outfits and hairdos and funny facial expressions. Ha!
Technique. Mindblowingly connecting the sound with the intent perfection of the musician. Otherwise I could just (cheaply) listen to my very amazing recordings. [Have you ever listened to work by The Academy of St. Martin in the Fields? I think their entire recording library is sublime. But I digress...]
Anyway, occasionally watching, say, the bassoons puff away in synch can give me the giggles. It's like synchronized swimming, but with big pipes. But generally, I can't believe how beautiful it is to watch a human being make something exquisite right there in front of you...
Thanks for the comments! I can understand why many of your are interested in watching the technique of the musicians. It is impressive to see.
Liz, I also know people who like to go to the symphony for people-watching (not only watching the musicians but the audience as well!). It is fun, isn't it?
Aunt Bee, thanks for the Academy of St. Martin the Fields recommendation. I'll have to check them out. I read about them a little bit on Wikipedia, and my interest is piqued.
Well, was thinking about it, and i think of all the hard work and effort that both the conductor and the instrumentalists put into the music, and I realized that the performance is not just about pleasing a crowd but performing for the sake of the performers. YOu could say the same about a singer. If it was really only about the sound, then no one would ever go to concerts (you can't hear nearly as well as you can at home, most of the time), but it is about the "live" of "live music"-- the fact that each person feels it differently on stage, the fact that it is moving and breathing even as we experience it, the fact that we are witnessing someone's life's work.
I think that is why!
I LOVE Keith Lockhart. I truly do.
Anyhow, I like the symphony because the visual aspect, especially the furiousity of the musicians' movements, adds extra electricity and something else I can't quite articulate to the experience. Somehow being there and seeing and hearing simultaneously can really change some pieces. Holy cow, like the NSO playing Stravinksy and Prokofiev? That is definitely worth it to shell out the big bucks for. I also like to go the the symphony by myself sometimes to sort of soak up the whole experience and not have to talk afterward but just sublimely float home. Maybe that's weird. I like to go with David and other peeps too, though.
Post a Comment