Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Mark wrote: >I kind of disagree about not giving the audience a bit of an idea of what >you're doing. You don't have to pontificate about it, or go into minutia, >but a tad of explanation can be good. You rarely see a painting or >photograph that doesn't describe the medium a bit. Why not music? Usually, >it's self explanatory, a guy is playing an electric guitar through an amp. >Sax into a PA, Vocal, etc. But when you're doing something that's not >evident, I think people like a little heads up. Of course, all this is >*in >addition to a good performance of interesting music*, not instead of. I >think a little explanation before your performance is nice, and can build >a >rapport with your audience. I've only had good experiences while doing >it. I agree with Mark, who brings up some excellent points: 1) it's helpful to give an audience some guidance to unfamiliar territory 2) a few words, not an entire lecture 3) the explanation doesn't substitute for a mediocre performance My primary musical focus is the classical music of North India. Since most audiences are unfamiliar with this tradition and its conventions and expectations, I always begin with a short explanation of the music itself, sometimes giving concrete examples such as the scale or rhythmic pattern which will be used, or some of the predominant melodic motives which will be heard repeatedly. I tend to be on the talkative side, so I consciously try to keep the explanation to a minimum. That is, I'll describe the melody, rhythm, movement, and mood or associations of the raga that the audience is about to hear, as opposed to giving a long boring technical/theoretical history of the musical system itself. BTW, I do the same when performing for Indian audiences who may be more familiar with vocal music than with instrumental. Many listeners have told me that they really appreciate being given some pointers of what to listen for in the music, and that it has helped shed some light on what otherwise would have been an unknown entity. My teacher told me years ago that the music should speak for itself, but that a few words might be in order to help elucidate unfamiliar aspects. She also gave me really great advice: the concert platform is NOT a classroom; never talk down to an audience; and that if giving a verbal introduction, not to confuse the audience with technical terms (either Indian or Western). Mark's third point is perhaps the most important of all -- that the music itself should be well-played and interesting, and that any introduction or explanation should heighten its appreciation, rather than serve as an apology for it. Personally, I've found the "say a few words about the music" approach to be very useful and to help connect with listeners. Of course, everyone has their own style and manner of presentation, and we've all certainly been moved tremendously many times simply by the power of music, whether or not there was any spoken introduction.