Comments on: is non-traditional better – why? http://www.nobleviola.com/2007/12/21/is-non-traditional-better-why/ Life on the working end of the viola. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Charles Noble http://www.nobleviola.com/2007/12/21/is-non-traditional-better-why/comment-page-1/#comment-7907 Charles Noble Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:27:16 +0000 http://www.nobleviola.com/wordpress/2007/12/21/is-non-traditional-better-why/#comment-7907 BTW - have you contacted the Attacca Quartet? They gave a premiere of a quartet by Dorothy Chang - played the crap out of it - you should give them a copy of your score and recording of the Quartet... http://www.attaccaquartet.com BTW – have you contacted the Attacca Quartet? They gave a premiere of a quartet by Dorothy Chang – played the crap out of it – you should give them a copy of your score and recording of the Quartet…

http://www.attaccaquartet.com

]]> By: Charles Noble http://www.nobleviola.com/2007/12/21/is-non-traditional-better-why/comment-page-1/#comment-7906 Charles Noble Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:23:57 +0000 http://www.nobleviola.com/wordpress/2007/12/21/is-non-traditional-better-why/#comment-7906 I certainly don't think that one is necessarily better than the other, except that there are segments of the audience that are better served by the different venues. I think a point of view that has been assumed (but not explicitly expressed) is that non-traditional venues are better because they are new, interesting, and go after younger audiences or previously unreachable audience demographics. I think that this review simply expresses the point of view of those who like the traditional venue experience. I agree that seeing a string quartet on the main auditorium stage at Carnegie is not a very personal (or "chamber") experience, and it's far from ideal. Unfortunately, it's become the norm due to the need for presenters to make money and for performers to make a living. Chiara made a wise choice in doing one of each - a main stage concert that would pay their fee for the city in which they appear, and a different, smaller, more intimate venue that provides more satisfaction for them (and their lucky audience). Ultimately, the best place for chamber music performances is the large living room (or great room) of a mansion - the modern equivalent of where the first chamber performances were given in the 18th century - in the homes of wealthy patrons. The intimacy is incredible, the vibe is as it should be, and it's a comfortable, casual experience. However, "average joe" isn't going to gain admittance, so maybe these bar & grill venues are a good way to go? Oh, well, if I talk long enough I end up contradicting myself... I certainly don’t think that one is necessarily better than the other, except that there are segments of the audience that are better served by the different venues.

I think a point of view that has been assumed (but not explicitly expressed) is that non-traditional venues are better because they are new, interesting, and go after younger audiences or previously unreachable audience demographics. I think that this review simply expresses the point of view of those who like the traditional venue experience.

I agree that seeing a string quartet on the main auditorium stage at Carnegie is not a very personal (or “chamber”) experience, and it’s far from ideal. Unfortunately, it’s become the norm due to the need for presenters to make money and for performers to make a living.

Chiara made a wise choice in doing one of each – a main stage concert that would pay their fee for the city in which they appear, and a different, smaller, more intimate venue that provides more satisfaction for them (and their lucky audience).

Ultimately, the best place for chamber music performances is the large living room (or great room) of a mansion – the modern equivalent of where the first chamber performances were given in the 18th century – in the homes of wealthy patrons. The intimacy is incredible, the vibe is as it should be, and it’s a comfortable, casual experience. However, “average joe” isn’t going to gain admittance, so maybe these bar & grill venues are a good way to go?

Oh, well, if I talk long enough I end up contradicting myself…

]]> By: triumvirmusic http://www.nobleviola.com/2007/12/21/is-non-traditional-better-why/comment-page-1/#comment-7872 triumvirmusic Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:19:37 +0000 http://www.nobleviola.com/wordpress/2007/12/21/is-non-traditional-better-why/#comment-7872 I like the traditional concert hall, too, but what's wrong with trying something different? The Chiara's Seattle experiment may not have been as successful as the kind of thing that has worked well in NYC and other cities, but let's not call it a failure (in fairness I wasn't there). There are plenty of reasons to try chamber music in a new setting. Here a just a few: 1) to pull in a different kind of audience - isn't it more or less universally accepted that audiences for classical music are shrinking?; 2) acoustics - are large halls like Alice Tully really ideal places to hear a quartet? Since when did chamber music become the domain of the raised platform and the procenium arch (not to mention the 2000-seat hall)?; 3) to faithfully repsect the composers' intentions - it could be that certain pieces are conceived for a more intimate setting (even informal). Finally, the Chiaras have never promoted one version of their concerts as a replacement for the other. Rather, they want to offer listeners a choice. (Also, they play like gangbusters in either setting.) Is there anything wrong with that? I like the traditional concert hall, too, but what’s wrong with trying something different? The Chiara’s Seattle experiment may not have been as successful as the kind of thing that has worked well in NYC and other cities, but let’s not call it a failure (in fairness I wasn’t there). There are plenty of reasons to try chamber music in a new setting. Here a just a few: 1) to pull in a different kind of audience – isn’t it more or less universally accepted that audiences for classical music are shrinking?; 2) acoustics – are large halls like Alice Tully really ideal places to hear a quartet? Since when did chamber music become the domain of the raised platform and the procenium arch (not to mention the 2000-seat hall)?; 3) to faithfully repsect the composers’ intentions – it could be that certain pieces are conceived for a more intimate setting (even informal). Finally, the Chiaras have never promoted one version of their concerts as a replacement for the other. Rather, they want to offer listeners a choice. (Also, they play like gangbusters in either setting.) Is there anything wrong with that?

]]>