Today, I kick off The Development Section with an age-old tactic for high school essays written at the deadline: sound off on a debate that already has plenty of participants, peaked in fervor about two years ago, and is moving decisively in one direction. In this post, the sights are set on a point of contention for performers and audiences alike: the use of electronic devices during performances and events. Beyond the issue of their appropriateness, I explore whether it is worth continuing to embrace their use as part of both the promotion and dissemination of live art.
I should really get into the habit of checking my facts on claims like this, but in the twenty-first century, it can be safely concluded that consumers have seen an increase in the number of devices that beep, blink, buzz, squawk, screech, and otherwise emit. These devices enable us to connect to the outside world anywhere, anytime. This is generally a good thing. However, some lines have to be drawn when the squawking and the buzzing bleed into the experiences of others. Thus, most decent folks have agreed to refrain from using devices in the midst of large groups who cannot simply choose to leave – buses, movie theaters, and, to a lessening extent, live performances.
 |
| Courtesy of SplitShire; in fact, one of the first results for "concert." |
I am a curmudgeon about having electronic devices out in most social settings, and it amazes me just how many environments have become “normal” opportunities to check texts and e-mails. I often scold my parents about keeping their cell phones on the dinner table at restaurants, and if I could find a way to do it without being condescending, I would scold my friends, too. Constant access to both friends and work has led a lot of people to get their wires crossed about the relative urgency of the things on their screens. On a vain note, the vacant-eyed expression of a person trying to have a conversation with both eyes on an e-mail is scarcely flattering. People argue that “it isn't better or worse, it's just a different way,” but in the "new way," there is a distinct difference in the basic display of respect for the people in front of us. And businesses humor it rather than confront it!
This is no longer just a “kids these days” rant: arts organizations are including theater Tweeters in their marketing strategy.
Just about everybody has something to say about it, too, and like any political, social, or cultural issue in the twenty-first century, two reasonable schools of thought have set themselves diametrically apart, each with ample vitriol about the flawed cultural worldview the other school espouses. In one predictably-grumpy corner are people who, for all their grandiose statements about the value of art and lectures about courtesy to other patrons, usually bet the farm on the core argument of, “You're having fun the wrong way!”
In the other corner, we have, well, this.
The debate may rage on about what should be, but as far as what is, a sea of dimly-lit 600x600 images leave us no mystery. This is not limited to pop and rock concerts, either. In fact, though the scope of their use is exponentially greater in the world of amplified arena shows, the tone from the organizations is arguably more welcoming in the world of classical music.
Among vocal detractors, to the point of prohibiting electronic devices at concerts:
- Jack White
- Beyoncé
- Corey Taylor (Slipknot, Stone Sour)
- She and Him
- Prince
Among classical music organizations that have or have tried programs specifically promoting the use of mobile technologies:
- San Francisco Symphony
- Kansas City Opera
- Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra
- Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra
- Charlotte Symphony
I thought about orienting this post strictly around the argument that it makes no sense to spend money, time, and emotional energy getting ready to attend a concert and then watch it through a screen just like most other forms of entertainment. I thought about arguing that, rather than trying to make classical music “hip” by promoting a twenty-first century attention span, more pop musicians should be like Corey Taylor, and (sternly) encourage audiences to reconnect with the part of the mind that can create a rich and memorable experience with just one stimulus. (Granted, in Corey Taylor's case, that “one stimulus” actually involves grotesque masks, full-body costumes, flashing lights, decibel levels only whales can produce naturally, and gyroscopic drum solos.) About two paragraphs in, though, a thought occurred to me: is this all actually working?
There is definitely a correlation between the change in attitude and the current economic climate of orchestras. By the way, it is refreshing to point out that, at the moment, that climate is a good one. In fact, from my brief list of phone-savvy orchestras, two were called out by the Met Orchestra Musicians for spectacular gains in attendance and endowments.
Something that bears repeating, though (and as a career contrarian, I am happy to repeat it), is that correlation does not imply causation. Take the case of the Indianapolis Symphony Orchestra, which not only increased attendance but generated a budget surplus in 2014. A budget surplus in 2014 sounds incredible, given that the business model for a city symphony orchestra relies on donations more than ticket sales by design. But that surplus was only made possible by a musicians' contract that involved a hefty pay cut and roster reduction.
In fact, many of the orchestras that faced bitter, high-profile labor conflict in the early 2010s – like Detroit, Minnesota, and Chicago – appear on that Met Orchestra Musicians article, with suddenly-cheery forecasts. Rather than suggest that the reductions were the correct move, this only shows me that some executive boards have no intention of learning from their mistakes and excesses, but that is an argument for another article. This is all before even considering that the overall economic climate in the Western world has been better since the start of Obama's second term. (Pop quiz: was that a correlation, or a causation?)
It is too early to draw any meaningful conclusions, as electronics-enabled concert programming has really only been a major trend in this decade, but there is little in this first batch of evidence to suggest that permitted cell phone use is driving the growth of arts organizations. That leaves one argument to consider, often made by proponents of pulling out a phone during a performance: now that we have the technology to preserve and share our lives with the people important to us, why not keep a digital memento of a major event?
 |
| Pictured: my digital memento of a major event. Can you tell who is playing? |
I decided not to link to any specific video and single out some poor fan as an example of my counter-argument, but comb through this list of Foo Fighters live videos. It is instantly obvious which ones are bootlegs of professional footage, and which ones were shot by fans on cell phones. Between the constant camera blurring and the inability to hear anything besides bass, screaming fans, and the buzzing of an overloaded camera mic, what exactly do these videos preserve? What is their goal? Will the person who took them be able to actually relive some of the experience (which the fuddy-duddies say they're missing anyway) by watching? Could this be shown to non-fans, and would they be able to form an impression of the Foo Fighters? Would the band want material that portrays them sounding like this online?
While the camera overloading is not nearly as dramatic, take some time to look through orchestral pops videos taken on cell phones as well. There is one of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra playing “Lose Yourself” that pretty clearly indicates the sort of things I am talking about: dim lights, silhouettes of fellow patrons blocking some of the view of the orchestra, generally thin woodwind and string sound because of the nature of home digital recorders, and just generally poor video quality.
It is my opinion that society is too accustomed to being told that it is right. It makes basic business sense to appeal to the audience rather than criticize it, but the arts are special because of their ability to elevate us beyond basic business sense. Music and theater have long used allegory and metaphor as a catalyst for social change; why not in the direct influence on concert etiquette? If it has not already happened, caving to cell phone culture is going to have a negative impact on the integrity of the product that goes beyond the nuisance of a ringtone interrupting Mahler. -SB
Written Reflections
- Do you think the impact of cell phone use during concerts is positive, negative, or insignificant? Do you have any experience from a live event, either seeing a cell phone used or using one yourself, that affirms your opinion?
- Do you think that current attempts by classical music organizations to cater to modern technology are effective? Do you think that they could be used to enhance the concert-going experience, regardless of whether you think they have yet achieved this?
- As a performer, has an audience member's use of a cell phone affected a performance you have given?
