Music and singing are auditory experiences. We don’t need to see the musicians or singers to appreciate their music. So why do we bother going to live music events? Why don’t we just stay at home and listen to a recording?
Photo by shaggy359
I can think of plenty of good reasons not to leave the comfort of your own home so the live performance had better be very good to persuade people to go out and spend money.
I can only think of a few reasons (but not many) why going to a live music gig might be a good idea.
Yet despite this imbalance, I still go (sometimes) to live concerts. Why is that?
It reminds me of that scene in Kramer vs. Kramer when Dustin Hoffman’s character makes a list of pros and cons for seeking custody of the kid: his cons far outweigh his pros and yet he still goes for custody.
There some deep down instinctive need to see music performed live, and no amount of logic can tease it out.
Or maybe you can? Do let me know if you can think of any really good reasons why bothering to go out in the cold and dark to a live music performance might be a good idea.
I’m mainly talking here about choral performances and other live music events which are mainly sit-down gigs. I think pop and rock concerts and summer music festivals are a whole other beast.
If we are going to ask members of the public to leave home and spend their money attending one of our concerts, we’d better know what we’re offering them!
Here are my two lists of reasons – pros and cons. Let me know what you think.
8 reasons why not to bother going to a live music performance
-
sound quality
The sound quality at a gig can often be appalling. Either the venue/ auditorium has lousy acoustics, or you end up sitting way in the back, or some technical wizard has put the microphones in really stupid places and the balance is all wrong, or the guy on the sound mixing desk is having a bad day. -
nothing to see
You’ve made all this effort to come out, so you expect to get something extra to just staying at home listening to the CD. But no, there’s nothing going on, just a bunch of singers or musicians on the stage in their own little world making sounds. You begin to count the ceiling tiles or shut your eyes to concentrate on the music. -
too expensive
You can get a CD or download an MP3 for very little these days. But if you go to a concert hall you are expected to pay an arm and leg for a half-way decent seat, not to mention an over-priced programme full of adverts (and not much else) and interval drinks way above normal bar prices. Not to mention the parking costs. -
not the best version
They may be having a bad day. The principal violinist might be off sick. The solo soprano might have a cold. For various reasons there are a few bum notes this particular evening. The perfectly balanced, accurate, director’s cut is on the recording, not necessarily in the concert hall. -
too many distractions
Police sirens outside, popcorn munching, chatting, coughing, knees in the small of your back, people pushing past to get to the toilet – you get the idea. -
uncomfortable
Sitting still for a couple of hours is hard at the best of time, but in tiny seats designed for people of five foot and under with a shared arm rest is nigh on impossible. -
inconvenient
You have to find the venue, brave the weather, travel several miles, pick a parking spot, find your friends, remember your tickets, queue for the toilet, find your seats (in the gods no doubt) – you still get the idea. -
not what you expected
You might never have seen the musicians who made your favourite CD, but you have a pretty clear image in your mind of what they might look like and how they might be if you saw them live. Then you get to the gig and they are a deep disappointment! Not what you expected at all, and now it’s spoilt it all for you. You will never be able to listen to them in quite the same way.
4 reasons (and one bonus reason) why going to a live concert is a good idea
-
can’t hear the music any other way
Going to catch the live performance might be the only way to hear the music. There might not be a recording available or the choir might be singing new songs or new versions of songs, or it might be a bunch of people brought together for this one-off concert. -
shared experience
There is something about sitting in the dark with a group of strangers and experiencing the same event. It’s like a communal witnessing of something. Even if you don’t end up talking with anybody else about it, the fact that you all shared the same live experience at the same time gives it an extra dimension. -
extras
Like DVD extras, only live. Not included on the recording are things such as lighting, staging, choreography, costumes, between-song banter. -
in the presence of greatness
In our celebrity obsessed culture, we sometimes enjoy being in the presence of someone famous. So when the world-famous orchestra or choral conductor is in town, we like to go to see them just because we can. Like touching the hem of the powerful – maybe some of it will rub off. -
magic
This is the main reason why I go to live music performances. I have no other word for it and can’t describe it in any other way. There is something additional, elusive and special about being in the presence of a group of people making music live. It seldom happens to me in large auditoria or with large orchestras or choirs, but usually in a more intimate setting, often without special lighting or other effects. It maybe takes us back to those early days when there was no separation between performer and spectator, when everyone in the village was a music-maker and the experience was truly a shared one.
What do you think? Why do you go to live performances? As choir leaders and choir members we surely need to know why before we can expect an audience to bother to come to one of our own performances!
If you’d like to leave a comment on any post, but don’t know how, or would like to subscribe to my blog so you get notified whenever I post something new, then check out: About blogs — comments, subscribing and feeds which should help.
Stumble It!
27 comments:
Hi Chris,
For me, good live music is just a richer experience. You get the visual as well as the auditory. You may not have noticed a certain percussion sound on the CD, but the theatrical aspect of a concert means when you get the visual, you see it being played and go "aha". There's more information and you notice more about the music. You get the stories behind the songs and the personalities behind the musicians. Admittedly, this can be a bit deflating if it turns out you don't actually like the artist's personality.
It is expensive though - that's the main "showstopper" for me at present. And I agree, the crowd can make or break a gig. When people scream over the top of a beautiful performance I find it really annoying. Must be getting old.
Chris,
The reason I enjoy the choral concert experience has everything to do with human connection. Not the sort you mention, however (being in the same room with a bunch of folks who are sharing the same experience).
Rather, I enjoy the choral concert when each singer is specifically, powerfully, poignantly, and personally connected to text and music ... and therefore so am I.
That factor that social scientists are now calling "emotional contagion" is there in spades in an engaging choral concert. When the singers are truthfully "into it," all involved are transported to a place both personal and collective -- we touch the universally human within ourselves, and reconnect with the universal human experience that we share as well.
But I would argue that the majority of choirs don't draw an audience in that way (yet), but they can. To tell you the truth, when I go to a choral concert, I HOPE to be engaged that way, and if I am, I'll go experience the group again.
If not, I'm far less likely to go.
Back to the choirs I believe you're writing about. I recently attended one of the world's most highly touted choirs, which performed in an intimate venue with glorious acoustics. Glorious sound, if a bit uniform and disconnected from the heart (the sound could have been SO much better). Unfortunately there were no ceiling tiles for me to count, and needless to say, I will not return.
But nor would I buy their CD's, for I would never be able to hear them without recounting their incredibly dull and boring (while technically "perfect") performance.
By the way, I believe it is significant that -- even though they are one of the world's most famous choirs -- the hall was not even 50% full, with maybe 200 people in attendance.
And yes, to your last post, most of the audience was over 50.
It's my conviction that "the C word" will not revitalize its audience or its image until all involved start tapping the untapped humanity which SHOULD BE BUT USUALLY ISN'T at the core of the music, the text, and the performance.
All my best,
Tom
Hello, I am new to your blog and I love it. I direct a 60 voice church choir in NJ, USA.
I definitely attend concerts to see and to feel more than to hear. I already know that the sound is not going to approach the clarity of my DVD...
But somehow, seeing the faces of the choir members and the musicians makes a difference, especially if they have a lot of visual dynamics. I am bitterly disappointed if the choir sings with dour or expressionless faces.
The second is to *feel*... for example, a kettle drum reverberates through the body in a way that can't be captured in even the best studio environment.
Finally, instead of listening to the music through two little speakers, the sound is coming from a wider physical range. The music is more spatial and therefore the listening experience is richer... I always try to sit as close to the band or orchestra as possible for this reason.
Arlene F.
Ah yes, Kerryn, the "theatrical" aspect of a concert, and the "personalities of the musicians". I agree. However, many choral concerts are simply not theatrical, and the homogeneity of the choir stops you from seeing the individual personalities.
I guess orchestral concerts are a bit more interesting, especially when you "may not have noticed a certain percussion sound on the CD". But I would claim that if you listened to the CD closely, you would notice different, surprising elements each time. Also in an orchestra, I see row upon row of violinists sawing at their instruments and I'm afraid I just zone out and stop noticing the music.
Hi Tom, good to hear from you.
I wonder: what for you makes for a good CD recording? What human essence comes across through just a sound recording?
I don't see why "emotional contagion" and the singers being truthfully "into it" can't be communicated just aurally.
I'd love to see/ hear a choir that you believe has this quality of engagement which can transport you!
You don't mention the music at all. No matter how good a choir is, if I don't like the music or arrangement I won't enjoy it.
I still maintain that I can be drawn in, moved and engaged by a recording and am really not sure what being at a live performance adds. Everything you say in your comment can apply equally to a recorded performance!
Chris
Hi Arlene, and thanks for dropping by. I'm glad you're enjoying the blog.
I agree with you about feeling the sound of large instruments. It's that power which makes live rock concerts more than just a musical experience.
Interesting you say you don't like dour or expressionless faces in choirs. That kind of implies there's nothing else to look at!
I know many singers and musicians who are superb but are transported to another place whilst performing. In such cases they often close their eyes, or appear to be 'expressionless' even though they are making beautiful music. Not everyone can (or should) smile and be animated whilst singing.
I have the same problem with audiences! Often I look out at a sea of dour and expressionless faces looking like they're about to fall asleep. I assume they're not enjoying the concert, but afterwards those same people come up to me to say what a wonderful time they had and they were just closing their eyes to hear the music better.
After all, music is a sound-based medium after all.
Chris
Hey Chris,
Thanks again for your blog -- good stuff, much appreciated!
As for what makes a good recording, I would say three things.
1) Technical excellence by the engineers, editors, facility (acoustics), and equipment. While I can enjoy some of those early 20th century recordings of singers, I can't take them for long -- too scratchy...!
2) Technical excellence by the choir. While a choir doesn't have to sing "perfectly" for me to enjoy their recording, if a technical element is too far "off," it will distract me. One alto consistently singing a 1/4 step flat, for example. Or really sloppy cutoffs. When those things pull focus, they affect my enjoyment.
3) The choir's connection to text and music. When choir connects to meaning and purpose, their singing improves (because the bodymind is now more unified and energized), and their tone conveys meaning in a richer, deeper, more authentic manner that touches me much more deeply than if the singers are just "singing excellently."
Which gets to your next point -- emotional contagion CAN be communicated aurally. However, our species is more visually than aurally oriented (try saying that ten times fast!), and we are affected more powerfully by the visual than by the aural. Combining the two is even more powerful.
For a choir which is connected in many of the ways I'm talking about, check out Public School 22. Here's an NPR article on them, complete with recordings and videos of them singing:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112336166
RE your point about needing to like the music, I agree, with a caveat -- IF the choir is connecting to the music and text in an engaging way, that alone will draw my interest. Even if I don't like the song. Now, if I like the song, I'll enjoy the experience that much more!
You also made a point that the "homogeneity of the choir stops you from seeing the individual personalities." That's true with most choirs, since most choirs don't have a bunch of individuals personally and powerfully engaged.
When I did a session at the national ACDA convention this last year (working with the wonderful Varsity Men's Chorus of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln), we "compared and contrasted" the two approaches. When the singers were individually engaged, the directors in the audience made comments like, "Wow! I was totally pulled in, and wanted to know more about each singer. Almost like they were now my friends, and I cared about what was going on for them."
OK, now I'm going to your "C word" post....
Ciao!
Tom
Chris,
Two more thoughts.
1) I propose (and others will verify as you read about the group and its impact) that the PS 22 Choir is a worldwide phenomenon because the singers are connected to text, music, and Self with unselfconscious abandon.
Contrast them, if you will, with not only most elementary school choirs, but most choirs of any age and level -- most other choirs are focused on "singing well," and not on the humanity imbued in the text/music, and authentically expressed by the singers.
2) While you can hear some of the results of the PS 22 singers' connection on the audio tracks, SEEING THEM creates an even stronger impression -- moving many people around the world to tears.
All my best,
Tom
Aha!!!! Finally an example from Tom!
I checked out quite a few of the PS 22 videos and my first reaction was: WILL YOU PLEASE STOP JIGGLING ABOUT!. Second thought was: why are they sitting down? Doesn't make any sense to me at all! How can they possibly engage their bodies??!!
All I see is a lot of cod 'acting' and 'emoting' which distracts from the music. I agree they are outstanding singers, but I get more pleasure out of just listening and not looking at them! I find their choice of music rather saccharine I'm afraid which doesn't help either.
Ah, well, now I know what you're talking about, and I don't like it!
This is a perfect example (for me any way) of why I wouldn't want to go and see one of their live performances.
I guess maybe we're just turned on by different things. Rather like the different teaching methods needed for different people (visual, aural, tactile, etc.), we each experience the world in different 'modes' which influence and move us the most.
Ironically I'm a very visual person, but I'd much rather listen to a CD than go to a concert!
Chris
Chris, I'll send you more examples, but that group does SOME of what I like. There are adult and high school groups out there that might appeal to you more, and do MORE of what I'm talking about.
:-)
Tom
Hey again,
I was struck by your reaction to PS 22, so I've got some more points to make.
1. This group is a pretty good example of singers connected to meaning. Their faces (on the whole) communicate that meaning.
What I don't enjoy at all is a group of singers who are DISCONNECTED from meaning. Boring, boring, boring -- to my way of experiencing choirs.
For me, the singer is the end link in a powerful chain. The poet/lyricist had compelling thoughts and feelings :: The composer did their best to give them a musical voice which honored and expressed the depths and nuances of those thoughts and feelings. :: And then the singer gets that powerful stew of humanity. If they disconnect from all that motivated the text and music in the first place, who do they serve? Not the poet. Not the composer. And certainly not the audience, who sees not a whimper of the grace and glory that's at the core of the song.
2. I'm not proposing that my ideal choir sit down, or (necessarily) do the amount of moving around that these youngsters do.
BUT, for me, there's nothing that moves me less than a choir which stands still. They're not moving, I'm not moved. Because truth to tell, it's impossible to be truthfully connected on a dynamic level with just about any text or music ... and stand still. Our bodies naturally move when we have a compelling reason to communicate something specific. AND, because of the body/mind connection, if our bodies are still, it dampens the brain's dynamism, making it impossible to "get into" a joyful "Alleluia!"
3. These kids were connecting to meaning, but they didn't connect to the Story elements (as far as I know or can tell). Connecting to Story elements might make a difference to you. Or not.
:-)
Tom
Hey Chris,
I've been thinking all morning about our exchange of ideas, and have come to the following conclusion. Basically, I agree with you on this point: Different strokes for different blokes!
You and I see choral music very differently, with me seeing it as a vital human expression of Meaning and text -- through the vehicle of singing -- and you (apparently) seeing it more as an aural medium, with sound predominating.
Do I have that right?
All my best,
Tom
Because there is NOTHING like live music. Who wants to hear autotuned, perfected, faked, twisted, plastickated, echo-chambered nonsense, when you can get the real deal?
It's like the difference between swimming in a pool and swimming at the beach. I mean, the pool is clean, and sanitised, and has change rooms, and no sand. And it's nothing like the real thing.
Hey Tom, wouldn't it be much easier to meet up in Starbucks and chew the fat??!!
I know you have strong feelings about meaning and text, but it seems sometimes that that is ALL you ever want to talk about :-)
I do understand where you're coming from, I really do. I've got the idea now. It's just that I disagree with you!
We seem to experience the world in fundamentally different ways and are turned on (and notice) different things. I'm not a text person (although I love novels and poetry) when it is spoken. It just washes over me. I don't care. That's why I don't like plays, and it's why I like foreign songs, and why I've never got Bob Dylan. I simply don't (can't?) hear the lyrics.
I'm not interested in text-based meaning. I'm interested in human expression that goes beyond text and logic. I'm interested in emotion not mediated by the meaning of words or the 'story' that's being told. I'm passionate about what is hidden and ambiguous, what leaks out between words, the non-linear, the inexplicable. I don't care about any 'story' or 'meaning of text' when music is concerned.
So we experience songs, music, and choirs differently. We might understand each other, but I doubt if we'll ever agree!
Most of PS 22's performances I read as FALSE. Their facial expressions were forced, meaningless, calculated, rehearsed. They left me cold. Sorry.
Chris
Hey daharja
I certainly don't want to hear "autotuned, perfected, faked, twisted, plastickated, echo-chambered nonsense". But I do love hearing accurate, well-recorded, un-treated music. And often it is better than the badly amplified, rotten acoustics, noisy venues of live music!
And I prefer swimming pools, or lying on the beach, but I don't like swimming in the sea!
Chris
Hey Chris,
I would LOVE to meet at a Starbucks!! Let's do it!
You mention that you felt the PS 22 kids' expressions were faked and false -- would it make a difference to you if they were not? From the rest of your post, I don't think it would.
But it is very clear that you and I get engaged by completely different modes of performance. Being a (particular kind of) play director myself, I am tied in very strongly to the visual, as I am to the truthful mental/emotional. There's almost nothing I adore more than experiencing a great play, honestly and compellingly performed.
So, we couldn't be further apart on this spectrum, and you're getting tired of my talking about my point of view. What else shall we talk about? I'm equally passionate about politics, drug abuse, and the importance of any group leader treating their charges with dignity and mutual respect.
And hey, on that last point I know we agree.
(:-)
(The above symbol was an unambiguous expression connected to Meaning -- in this case the subtext related to what I perceive to be our mutual amusement about this whole discussion, anchored in respect for each other's point of view.)
All my best,
Tom
Hi Tom
Would it make a difference to me if the kids' facial expressions weren't false? You're right, it would make no difference -- to me or anyone else. The whole point is how we, as individuals, perceive truth, genuineness, sincere, etc. It's why one person can like someone whilst another can't stand them.
It's why one person is moved by a performance and another is left cold. It matters not a jot what is going on for the performers (since we can't read their minds or feel their feelings), it only matters what the audience feel and perceive.
Which is why this whole thing is so subjective. There are no objective ways of coaching a choir or bunch of musicians to be 'truthful' or 'authentic' or 'real'. Everyone experiences life differently -- fortunately!
What you would call an "honest and compelling" performance might well be different from whatever floats my boat. It depends on our personalities, life experience and personal make-up. I have seen countless so-called 'truthful' highly-rated theatre performances that have just not touched me as I have seen them as pure artifice, whilst the guy next door loves it!
I think we are both probably quite capable of being moved by the same 'mode' of performance, it's just that we won't necessarily agree on which one! There is simply no one way of producing a live performance which will work for ANY audience. It's also (of course) culturally specific.
I think I respond like I do to your approach because I interpret it as you believing that it is the one successful way of approaching choral music in order to create a compelling performance. That is just not true in my opinion.
Do you ever get across the pond to the UK? We have Starbucks here too!
And hear, hear to your last sentence, and here's a (:-) right back at ya. May the debate continue!
Chris
Hey Chris,
I hear you about the subjectivity of artistic response, but there's lots of research about "emotional contagion," if you will. And I propose that not only does the research support it, but it's actually true -- humans CAN "read" other people's "hearts and minds." As Steven Johnson writes in his book, Mind Wide open: Your Brain and the Neuroscience of Everyday Life, "It turns out that one of the brain's greatest evolutionary achievements is its ability to model the mental events occurring in other brains."
Now, what you say is also true. People (especially in artistic performance contexts) can be fooled -- believing an external and false performance is truthful. And while that is true (I've seen it many times!), it's even more true that the majority of humans are MORE engaged by truthful performances than false...
And while they don't always know how to recognize the inauthentic, they are almost always more powerfully impacted by the authentic.
This is especially true in choral music, since the expressive paradigm is external and inauthentic -- most people haven't even had a chance to experience something different.
But even so, when that paradigm is shifted, people have an "A ha!" moment, and are engaged very differently (which I've seen literally hundreds of times, and which those college singers I quoted also allude to).
I also hear your resistance to my point, and I propose that your resistance is fairly common! I nearly incited harm to my person when I wrote (in a ChoralTalk post) that most choral directors aren't trained to illicit authentic expression in their choirs. That person assumed I was talking about the aurally expressive, and nearly jumped down my throat.
As to whether I'm really saying that there is "one successful way of approaching choral music in order to create a compelling performance," I would have to say NO. If a group is having a joyful time with the music, if their bodies are moving, if the singers are obviously personally involved on a more than technical level, I can be engaged. And if all those elements are writ large, my engagement can be writ large as well.
What I do believe, however, is that there are tools which most choral directors don't know about and don't use -- tools which can bring NEW levels of engagement to both singer and audience. And if the many groups that focus on the technical (the ones usually "standing in rows and enunciating perfectly") USED those tools, they would transform the experience for 99% of their singers and audience members. And the music would be more compelling as well.
I think we probably share a bias there, wouldn't you say? Both of us not enjoying the predominant focus on the technical? I imagine you help the singers be engaged 'away' from the technical as well, yes? We probably have a similar goal, but different means to achieve it.
Here's to a Starbucks moment somewhere in our shared future!
:-)
Tom
Hi Tom
Interesting to read what you have to say as always. I think we're straying into other areas now, so if you want to continue this particular discussion, let's do it "off line".
If humans CAN read (accurately) other people's hearts and minds, then there would be no miscommunication, no misunderstandings, and perhaps no divorce!
Chris
Hi Chris,
Well, since on THIS point we're not straying into each other's areas, I'll post here:
The notion of "reading" other people's thoughts and feelings is not literal, as you (so cynically! :-) express. It's based on the fact that, since infancy, humans learn to associate specific body language, facial expression, and tones of voice with the corresponding thought and feeling. We get so good at it that we do it automatically, and we can often/usually tell when someone is being sincere or truthful. This is the core of human empathy, as well as being a factor in just about every conversation.
Check out Paul Ekman's work and books like "Emotions Revealed." He and his team catalogued 10,000 different facial expressions and their corresponding mental emotional states.
How can that be? Because of neuroscience, a thought and associated feeling "reflects" itself differently and uniquely on the face/body/voice -- without our conscious control. And this is what humans learn since infancy.
The other thing that happens is that humans actually mimic facial expressions (again unconsciously), creating similar neurolochemical reactions in the brain of the mimicor as the mimicee. So we feel similar things as the person we're in conversation with. You beam a smile, I beam a smile. And now my mental/emotional state very closely matches yours. If I had frowned after you had smiled, this wouldn't be the case -- even if I had MADE myself frown against my inclination.
Have you ever seen a person lie, and know that they were lying? A child, perhaps? Have you ever said to someone, "What's wrong? I know something's wrong even though you say you're fine."
If you've done either of those, that's what I'm talking about.
Cheers!
Tom
I promise I won't get too technical here, but I wanted to chip in on this discussion about "reading minds". What humans do is to actively construct in our minds somewhere a mental representation of the other person's mental state - that includes both our beliefs about their Cognitive state (thoughts, beliefs, ideas, memories, hopes, intentions - everything that's not feeling) plus what we believe about their emotional (Affective) state. This process is not passive reading, it is more like constructing a 3d jigsaw puzzle with at least half of the pieces blank or missing.
We develop those beliefs based on the input we have from the other person (their current words, "body language", tone of voice etc.) BUT to it we add what we know of that person from the past (did s/he lie before and I didn't know til later that s/he had? In that case, I can't trust his body language or his/her words) and what we know about other people. Plus our own past history and so on.
That is called various things: person perception or "theory of mind" or "empathy" but it contains a healthy dose of IMAGINATION - what we ASSUME we know about the person and their communication. Such perceptions are well known to be subject to a whole set of biases (e.g. the "fundamental attribution error").
It's a fascinating area of human development and interaction which has only been noticed and explored in the last 30 years. recent general psychology text books will have this material.
So the differences in your perceptions of the same musical performance are ultimately the result of differences in your personal experiences and perceptions of the music...
regards, Deb
I don't know Deb -- get you and Tom in the same room and it all gets long and academic :-)
I totally agree with you here! Our perception of another person's mood, honesty, meaning etc. is all constructed. Hence, you and I faced with the same performer can come to very different conclusions, and therefore have very different experiences.
If this weren't the case, all theatre critics would write exactly the same reviews!
Thanks Deb.
Chris
Chris and Deb,
I invite both of you to read Ekman's "Emotions Revealed," if nothing else(:-).
While we do bring a subjectiveness to the table, our understanding of what fellow human beings are truthfully experiencing/expressing requires absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT PERSON, and it also needs very little if NO imagination. While yes, we make some assumptions, because of our shared humanness the assumptions are usually true.
Witness this: You walk down the street and you see two strangers, a man and a woman. The man's face clearly reveals upset, sadness, trauma, and pain. How can we know this, even though we don't know the man? The combinations of muscular contractions on his face, the tone of his voice, the movement/alignment of his body.
Now, I don't need to actually "draw" this for you, because you know what upset, sadness, trauma, and pain do to folks. Right? You know, for example, that he's not going to be smiling and laughing, and his brow is probably going to be furrowed. You can also recognize all the other hundreds of muscular contractions and expressions that communicate his mental emotional state.
The woman clearly cares for the man, but knows that he's going to be just fine. As she gently and lovingly comforts him (see a picture already?), her facial expressions, tone of voice, and movements communicate all of that.
You know, for example, that her face is going to look different. She won't be laughing and smiling as if she hadn't a care in the world, but neither will she have the same look that he does.
If I showed you both hundreds of pictures of mental/emotional states (of strangers), the likelihood is very high that you would successfully match them up verbal descriptors, or anecdotes of human experiences ("This person just found out that their son was hit by a car and is in the ER, and this person just got her first A+ on a college exam -- something she has tried to do for two years").
You would have little trouble.
Just as you have little trouble when you are standing in front of your choir -- you can see who is upset, who is disengaged, who is feeling great "in the moment."
Let's say that three people come to talk with a fellow director after a rehearsal. One is furious that she switched their solo at the last minute, and lets the director have a piece of their mind. One is so grateful for all that the director has done to help them get through this tough Christmas season, and one wants to tell the director a hilarious joke ... and then ask them out on a date.
Now, imagine that a camera had been trained on these three people, and YOU are watching the footage. WITH THE SOUND TURNED OFF. Because of your ability to "read people," you would be able to tell which scenario fit which person. No doubt, no need to know them, no imagination or assumptions required.
As far as all theatre reviewers giving the same review...
1. Reviews are about far more than "authentic acting." They're about the directorial vision, the staging, the interpretation of the playwright, the pacing, the set, the chemistry of the actors with each other, et cetera.
2. And yes, different reviewers are going to have lots of different ideas about all of that!
3. I would propose that reviewers are going to very infrequently disagree on "authentic acting," even as they disagree on many of the other elements. "Bob Jones was amazing as Scrooge -- I totally believed his every moment on stage and was completely taken in by his performance. The rest of the play, however, was a disaster."
As far as being academic when we're in the same room, oh how I wish we could be in the same room ... because we would be able to explore these things experientially!
Cheers!
Tom
Well, Tom, I'm afraid I depart from you in your earliest paragraphs and from then on we simply disagree completely!
You say: "The man's face clearly reveals upset, sadness, trauma, and pain. How can we know this, even though we don't know the man?"
My simple answer is that all we 'know' (and that may be a misinterpretation, it is never 'clear' - we live in a world of greys and contexts, not black and white) is that his face appears to be showing sadness, upset, trauma and pain. We know nothing about his internal, emotional or mental states.
Ttwo audience members sit next to each other watching a play. One is in tears, moved by the seemingly authentic acting and the other is left cold by the apparent falseness of the performance. Which one is right?
I'm not going to publish any more on this subject on the blog as I think it's getting too long and a little off topic. Do feel free to continue the discussion by email though.
As you say: much more easily discussed in person (although I reckon we'll still disagree!).
All the best
Chris
I have to disagree with Tom: people are not consistently good at reading each other's emotions and so on, we make mistakes too often to be considered good at it.
Can we tell the difference between real emotion and acted emotion? I tend to think that if I can't, that's good acting ....
But maybe others disagree?
regards, Deb
I'm totally on your side Deb! All humans make emotional reading mistakes ALL the time.
If you can't tell the difference then there IS no difference.
By the way, I personally believe that the only place for emotion in the theatre is with the audience. It doesn't belong on the stage (unless it happens to be a side-effect of that actions that the performers are carrying out).
Chris
Hey Chris,
OK, I agree with you. IN THEORY!! Of course we can never KNOW for sure what someone else is thinking and feeling. But I challenge you to go through even five minutes of interactions with someone without "reading" them. And being right on with your assumptions.
Yes, that man on the street COULD BE faking it (I suppose), but IF he were not faking it and not lying -- and "appeared" as I have described, other humans have a 99.9% chance of interpreting what sort of mental/emotional state he's in.
Your subjective stance makes me wonder if you're just being cynical as a matter of principle, or if you actually don't read non-verbal cues. Do you ever make assumptions about people's mental emotional states? When your singers are smiling and laughing, do you doubt that they are experiencing joy in the moment?
When you see a stranger say, "Get lost, you moron!" to another stranger, do you say to yourself: "Hmmm. I wonder what that person's feeling?" OR do you think, "Whoa. I wonder what ticked that person off?"
As to your "two audience members" scenario, I propose that an external or incompletely truthful actor can fool some people but not others, while a completely truthfully engaged actor will "engage" more people. I have been at plays where actors have fooled audience members, but I suggest that some people are more skilled at "reading" truth and falsehoods than others. And some people (rarer, much rarer) are not very tuned in to facial expressions and non-verbal cues. Anyone who finds themselves on the autism spectrum, for example, has a much harder time recognizing facial expressions.
I'm a trained Acting teacher and stage director with a heavy psychology background ... and a penchant for detail. I propose that I can be a better Acting teacher than someone off the street who's not used to reading those subtle shades of gray; I can help actors be as truthful as possible, and not get away with "faking it" as some do.
Warm regards, and thanks again for your blog.
Tom
Post a Comment