ihatemusic

Posted: **Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:55 am**

I went to a performance on saturday night where one of the acts were a collection of musicians playing extremely quiet music. Lots of silence, small noises. I'm sure you all know the drill.

The audience was fairly small, very intimate, all known to each other, & invited, as the performance was held in someone's house (of sorts, hopefully I'll be able to post some photos that were taken soon).

I was fairly drunk.

As the performance went on, I became unable to help myself 'chiming in' with the group, occasionally making audible squeaks on the concrete floor with my shoes, clinking my glass against the metal pole next to me. Nothing loud, not too often, just trying to engage with the music on a level beyond simply listening. A couple of others in the audience started to do the same, and by the end of the performance, the 'group' had doubled in size.

This blurring of the audience/performer was more interesting to me in many ways than the music produced, and I doubt it would have happened in a more 'formal' setting. I figure that;

*the key to making successful music in this style is attentive listening, taking equal consideration of the intentional actions of the rest of the group and the unintentional collaboration of the surroundings. A lot of the time the building's air conditioning was louder than the group, so whether the noise I'm making is intentional or not shouldn't be a consideration.

*to play as little and as quietly as one can is often an exercise which is more interesting to the musicians than the audience. It's a very worthwhile exercise for the musicians involved, but it often doesn't translate to an engaging experience for the audience. By refocusing my own listening from one of a passive audience member, to listening with the idea of making appropriate, if uninvited contribution to the whole I got a new perspective on a performance which wasn't entirely engaging me. I think I got a lot more from the performance by participating as I did than I would have otherwise.

But here's the rub. and hopefully something to turn this from long winded rubbish to discussion worthy topic.
As I said, all these musicians are known to me personally, I doubt I would have started 'playing along' in a more formal setting, for example, in a 'legitimate' venue with a ticketed audience.
Is an uninvited contribution, however appropriate, unacceptable behaviour? was I being a dick here? anyone got any other good audience joins the band stories, appropriately or otherwise?

Posted: **Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:37 am**

sometimes i feel the urge to make sound during performances. usually i don't, but i think any improvisor performing in a public setting should be prepared for the unexpected.

jpeatt wrote:was I being a dick here?

sounds like "no" from your story, but every situation is different. i'm sure if you chimed in at a rowe/nakamura performance there would be more than a few annoyed audience members. can't speak for the musicians though.

if i was playing and you chimed in, i'd be stoked.

Posted: **Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:04 pm**

>>*the key to making successful music in this style is attentive listening, taking equal consideration of the intentional actions of the rest of the group and the unintentional collaboration of the surroundings. A lot of the time the building's air conditioning was louder than the group, so whether the noise I'm making is intentional or not shouldn't be a consideration.

wrong. plus, your premise refers to the 'unintentional collaboration of the surroundings', yet you fully admit that what you did was intentional.

>>*to play as little and as quietly as one can is often an exercise which is more interesting to the musicians than the audience. It's a very worthwhile exercise for the musicians involved, but it often doesn't translate to an engaging experience for the audience.

that's subjective, and your perspective. I assume, therefore, that you knew everyone in the audience, and that they definitely all felt this way, right? and that you've known everyone from every audience of every concert that you've attended of a similar nature, and that all of them felt as you do?

>>By refocusing my own listening from one of a passive audience member, to listening with the idea of making appropriate, if uninvited contribution to the whole I got a new perspective on a performance which wasn't entirely engaging me. I think I got a lot more from the performance by participating as I did than I would have otherwise.

How nifty for you.

>>But here's the rub. and hopefully something to turn this from long winded rubbish to discussion worthy topic.
As I said, all these musicians are known to me personally, I doubt I would have started 'playing along' in a more formal setting, for example, in a 'legitimate' venue with a ticketed audience.

ticketed audience or not, whether its your buddies or Rowe/Nakamura, Carnegie Hall or your friend's basement, it doesn't give you the right to 'join in'. If you're there at the concert, shut up and listen, or leave if you don't dig it. In fact, it's probably more unacceptable if you know them personally, unless, perhaps, you don't like them. You don't explicitly state whether or not they're actually friends of yours.

>>Is an uninvited contribution, however appropriate, unacceptable behaviour?

yes. the fact that you so naturally throw in the word 'appropriate' to describe the situation is the height of presumption, I think. I would consider it just as unacceptable for musicians to 'join in' one of my performances as I would non-musicians . The fact that the contribution is uninvited makes it inappropriate by definition.

>>was I being a dick here?

yes.

-mm

Posted: **Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:07 pm**

I wouldn't be nearly as obnoxious in my answer as my friend Matt (maybe because I know both of you?), but I tend to agree with him.

Posted: **Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:12 pm**

mitch wrote: I would consider it just as unacceptable for musicians to 'join in' one of my performances as I would non-musicians .

Since what jpeatt described himself doing was in fact making music, I fail to see why you would make that assumption.

Posted: **Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:30 pm**

mitch wrote:>>*the key to making successful music in this style is attentive listening, taking equal consideration of the intentional actions of the rest of the group and the unintentional collaboration of the surroundings. A lot of the time the building's air conditioning was louder than the group, so whether the noise I'm making is intentional or not shouldn't be a consideration.

wrong. plus, your premise refers to the 'unintentional collaboration of the surroundings', yet you fully admit that what you did was intentional.

------

i think jpeatt was referring to intentional/unintentional sounds as coming from the perspective of the performing musicians. it doesn't matter if his contribution was intentional or unintentional. sounds happen. audience members shift, cough, and make sound. to be still and perfectly quiet will not happen. did we not learn anything from 4'33?

also, is it your place to say "wrong"? you spend the rest of your post talking about subjectivity but yet are willing to make a blanket assumption that this is "wrong"?

>>But here's the rub. and hopefully something to turn this from long winded rubbish to discussion worthy topic.
As I said, all these musicians are known to me personally, I doubt I would have started 'playing along' in a more formal setting, for example, in a 'legitimate' venue with a ticketed audience.

ticketed audience or not, whether its your buddies or Rowe/Nakamura, Carnegie Hall or your friend's basement, it doesn't give you the right to 'join in'. If you're there at the concert, shut up and listen, or leave if you don't dig it. In fact, it's probably more unacceptable if you know them personally, unless, perhaps, you don't like them. You don't explicitly state whether or not they're actually friends of yours.

--------

i am so tired of the "shut up and listen" arrogance from performing musicians. this music tries to be district from its roots, why then is it stuck in the european concert hall style listening? there are more ways of hearing music than this. i think there is a clear difference between actively talking and ignoring the music (talking on the phone, etc... in which case, yeah, leave), and making small additions to the music that jpeatt did.

>>Is an uninvited contribution, however appropriate, unacceptable behaviour?

yes. the fact that you so naturally throw in the word 'appropriate' to describe the situation is the height of presumption, I think. I would consider it just as unacceptable for musicians to 'join in' one of my performances as I would non-musicians . The fact that the contribution is uninvited makes it inappropriate by definition.

---------------

the level of arrogance in this posting coming from you is almost comical, if it didn't frustrate me so much. you of course make a distinction between musicians and non-musicians and then go on to assume that jpeatt is not one (what's the difference anyway? isn't he making and helping to organize sound too?). part of the charm of this music, for me, is that it can allow for interaction with the environment (invited or uninvited does not enter into it... sound events just happen) and to help dissolve the relationships between "composer", "performer", and "listener".. for you, you are taking a classical concert hall mindset with a music that is able to remove these distinctions. this is a threat to musicians who pride themselves on being "professionals" and not surprisingly, is met with the kind of arrogant response we got here from matt.

i think it's pretty clear who's being the dick here. personally it sounds like it made the event somewhat special. god forbid we break the mold of what a "concert" should be.

Posted: **Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:04 pm**

mitch wrote:wrong.
[..]
How nifty for you.
[..]
shut up and listen
[..]
inappropriate by definition.
[..]
>>was I being a dick here?
[..]
yes.

don't be so fucking precious.

Posted: **Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:33 pm**

guys.

m

Posted: **Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:44 pm**

the varied responses here only further support my point that every situation is different. be sensitive to the musicians and the audience and you will rarely make the wrong decision. if there is one matt in the world, then that's enough for me to want to be careful when making sounds during a show. like i said before, most of the time i choose not to.

Posted: **Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:00 pm**

i apologize if my response was out of line or if my tone was sour, it was mostly a gut response to the rude tone of the other message - if my reaction was rude as well, that doesn't help things much.

most of the times i choose not to as well, as i have had concert experiences ruined by disrespectful audience members. p_ano said it, though, for sure... each experience is different. i just didn't want to rule out what seemed like an interesting and novel concert experience for a blanket rule one way or the other.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:11 am**

If it adds to the concert, then it's cool. If it takes away, then it's uncool. Totally subjective and unmeasurable but that's the way I see it.

If someone had gone up to jpeatt and said, "Man, you're ruining this gig. Can you stop it, please?" but he didn't THEN he'd be a dick. As it turns out, people started joining in and enjoyed it which makes it OK for me.

It's not like he went up and starting breakdancing or something (which may well've been equally cool, I suppose) but added an extra nuance into the sound. Isn't improvisational/experimental music about dealing with unexpected consequences of your actions?

Personally, I'd completely love for an audience member to feel that they can add something into any music I play. Someone being so into it that they have something to add is thousands of times more impressive, to me, than polite applause.

I think that Mitch needs to look deeply at why they make music (I get the impression that they do). Is it so that the audience can have a good time and get into some music or is it solely that they can be the mighty performer, sat on their throne-stage?

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:15 am**

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:08 am**

Gaendaal wrote:I think that Mitch needs to look deeply at why they make music (I get the impression that they do). Is it so that the audience can have a good time and get into some music or is it solely that they can be the mighty performer, sat on their throne-stage?

Or how about something in between? Are you saying that any performer that didn't want the audience to make unnecessary noise during his/her performance has an ego problem? That shounds pretty silly to me.

Its all about context. Jpeatt knew the musicians and the audience (it was a gig in someone's house) and so therefore he probably had a good idea how others would react to his actions.

I have to say that if you don't know in advance how the musicians and the rest of the audience will feel about you joining in then really you should keep quiet unless indicated otherwise. As much as anything to keep you from looking like a bit of a prat.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:25 am**

Richard Pinnell wrote:Or how about something in between? Are you saying that any performer that didn't want the audience to make unnecessary noise during his/her performance has an ego problem? That shounds pretty silly to me.

Yeah, you're right there. Mitch's post just seem overly precious, I guess. My stance is that I'd much rather have someone joining in musically than what you usually get at gigs; which is people stood with their backs to the stage, chatting away. It boggles me the amount of times I've been to gigs and there's some guy shouting "I LOVE THIS BAND THEY'RE MY FAVOURITE BAND AND THIS SONG IS THE BEST SONG THEY DO!"

Some guy tapping a glass seems like small beer after that.

Richard Pinnell wrote:As much as anything to keep you from looking like a bit of a prat.

Possibly. On the other hand, people being willing to look like prats can make some of the most exciting and fun experiences.

It's a hard one to judge, definitely. I wouldn't say that everyone should drag their instruments along to every gig they go to and start tooting away as they see fit but neither would I say that people have to sit there passively, staring blank-eyed at the players.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:33 am**

I remember a Cage-performance some years ago, organised by the university. Played was a simultaneous combination of his "song books", likely combined with some other piece(s) - maybe 15 people on stage... it was general hurly-burly, anyway. And so, one performer contributed by preparing pancakes on stage.

Hungry, I actually thought about leaving the auditorium, going on stage and asking for a pancake.

Even though the performers more or less knew me, and I myself worked with the "conductor" of that project before, I think I'd been in trouble. Knowing the "conductor", I imagine he'd probably have stopped the concert, insisting there's a difference between performance and happening - I'd "disturbed a performance", as opposed to "joined a happening".

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:32 am**

Right now, at this particular moment in time, extraneous noises or indeed other events are a plus for me ? it?s part of why I enjoy improvisation, and also why I?m really glad there are improvisers like Adam Bohman, Romual Wadych and Mattin, who take into account the whole performance situation, not just the making of music.

So with that in mind, whether an audience member?s behaviour is acceptable or not is fundamentally up to the performers to decide. They might like it and choose to incorporate it. They might hate it, and ignore it. Or they might hate it and choose to incorporate it. If you, as an audience member, decide you ?want to be part of the show? (as Oxbow?s Eugene Robinson puts it) then you have to acknowledge that what you are doing has consequences. These might take the form of, say, an annoyed musician deciding to explore the sonic possibilites of pouring a pint of Becks over your head. "Intervening" is a two-way street.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:22 am**

dealing with your own need to be heard by disrupting a previously stated agreement on who needs to be heard (which is what a concert is after all) seems arrogant, indeed, and likely as a self-aware expression only if intended to sabotage, i'd say.

and of course i think the audience should participate, but when invited. it should be agreed upon by everyone concerned, prior to the concert.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:43 am**

Thanks for the responses. Yes, this gig was a very specific context.

Mitch: yes, I would call most of the musicians my friends, or at least acquaintances towards who I am positively disposed. I appreciate that you find it equally disrespectful regardless of the musicians involved, that's admirably fair handed.
Your point about my own judgment of my contribution as appropriate is an entirely fair one. I was talking about generalities more than specifics there though, and I suppose you did too.

when snailed says:

from the perspective of the performing musicians. it doesn't matter if his contribution was intentional or unintentional. sounds happen. audience members shift, cough, and make sound. to be still and perfectly quiet will not happen.

that's exactly what I'm talking about. thank you

When I say that I find quiet music more often a rewarding experience for the musicians than the audience, yes, that's obviously subjective, but it's based on my experiences of being an audience member of such situations versus my own active participation in them. I feel comfortable backing my position, if you disagree, more power to you.

I don't know why you would assume I'm not a musician, though. Perhaps because of what I noted as my contribution? It's just what I happened to have access to. Or maybe due to a lack of suitable 'respect'?

As Gaendaal said, if someone had come up & asked me to stop, I would have. There were many people present who would have felt comfortable asking me to shut up, shoot me nasty looks, or slap me, in an appropriately percussive manner, so as to contribute to the whole in their own way. and yes, Richard, I had a pretty good idea of how people would react, and that it would either be cool, or someone would quietly ask me to can it.

Ordinarily though, Mitch, I would leave a performance that I'm not engaged by. I do it all the time. The set up of this gig meant that leaving during a set meant walking out a metal door, then down three flights of stairs to the lift ( we were essentially on the roof of a 15 story building),. It wasn't really workable and probably would have made more noise than I actually did. There have been many times I have wanted to make far more negative interjections into other people's performances, and I haven't. There was one particular instance (another cooking related performance, funnily enough I think I just hate these), where despite being requested by the performer to not feel obliged to keep quiet, I didn't walk out hurling abuse, despite wanting to. I didn't want to give them the satisfaction of getting any interaction from the audience. I just left.

Gaendaal said

Personally, I'd completely love for an audience member to feel that they can add something into any music I play. Someone being so into it that they have something to add is thousands of times more impressive, to me, than polite applause.

But that wasn't really the case here. I wasn't really engaged by the performance UNTIL I decided to start chiming in. Then a different way of listening kicks in, which for me, brings with it a different set of aesthetic parameters.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:50 am**

to respond briefly to maRi & matt....

maRi

dealing with your own need to be heard by disrupting a previously stated agreement on who needs to be heard (which is what a concert is after all) seems arrogant, indeed, and likely as a self-aware expression only if intended to sabotage, i'd say.

Fair cop. But no intent to sabotage.

matt

you have to acknowledge that what you are doing has consequences. These might take the form of, say, an annoyed musician deciding to explore the sonic possibilites of pouring a pint of Becks over your head. "Intervening" is a two-way street.

also true. I did speak to the performers afterwards to make sure I hadn't given them the shits, and to apologise if I had, but all good.

Posted: **Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:00 pm**

maRi wrote:and of course i think the audience should participate, but when invited. it should be agreed upon by everyone concerned, prior to the concert.

Signed in triplicate?

jpeatt wrote:The set up of this gig meant that leaving during a set meant walking out a metal door, then down three flights of stairs to the lift

I have this image now of some minutely quiet set with the dull hum of you going up and down in the lift echoing in the background...

I didn't quite get the impression that you started joining in because you weren't engaged in your first post. I see what you mean now. Hypothetically, as I don't think someone tapping a glass would be heard over a Wraiths gig, I'd probably like to chat to someone after a gig who felt the need to add something to the music. If their answer was "because I was bored shitless and needed something to do" then that would really make me think about the music I was trying to make.

I do agree with Matt's point in that if you want to chime in then you have to be wary of the musicians chiming back...

ihatemusic

INTERVENTION!

INTERVENTION!

Re: INTERVENTION!