Adventurous non-programming

Thanks for this piece! I've always been interested in how audience members, including myself, engage with the artists during a performance and I've always found that the intimacy and the informal nature of jazz clubs are very conducive to a high level of interaction and the creativity of the artists is easily apparent. In the best performances, I do feel like I'm part of the creative process of the experience, that there is a real dialogue between artist and audience, and that's a major reason why I go see live jazz.

But I find myself in a different state of mind when I attend classical concerts. It's an entirely different set of expectations. Like Yvonne alluded to earlier, we've been trained to expect a crafted program--and artists and programmers have also been trained to craft programs. As much as we like to think that we make connections across the lip of the stage, this seldom really happens at classical concerts. It is, more often than not, more of a presentation than an interaction. While some people love the current system, I'd prefer more interaction. I'm the type of person who goes to pre-concert lectures to try to understand programming choices and I get excited when a conductor steps off the podium with a microphone to say a few words. While it isn't a change of repertoire per se, recontextualizing the repertoire can easily change the mood of the artist, audience, venue, etc.--those sorts of interventions can easily change the experience for everyone involved and engaged on another level.

While I think there is a part of the classical music audience that attends because of specific repertoire, I also think a large part of the audience that we do capture and the audience that we want to capture does not have that sort of in-depth knowledge? (And would they even want it?!) It's easy to list names and pieces on ads and that means something to some people, but very difficult to concisely describe why you, the potential audience member, should attend. It's definitely easier said than done, but I think that if we want to draw more people to classical concerts, we need to find ways of communicating not just what is being presented (and assuming that people know what "Beethoven Symphony No. 3" menas), but why it is being presented. Why is it worth your time and money?

With a group like King Singers, Emerson String Quartet, or Chanticleer (I just mention because I have seen them adjust their repertoire mid-concert) they have their reputations of quality music-making to rely upon and the fact that they are primarily touring so their audiences change from city to city so I think it's easier to be flexible with repertoire if they so choose because people will sepnd time and money for them. But with a lesser known group who may be known for some particular area of expertise, or with a large orchestra who has to sell and differentiate 20+ weekends of concerts to basically the same stagnant audience, that's a tough job which calls for a high degree of alignment between the programmers, artists, educators, PR managers and marketers--yet another thing easier said than done!!

[Also, just to toss an example out there involving communication through new and accessible technology, in their summer parks concerts, the NY Philharmonic had people text message their choice for an encore before and during the concert. You can say what you like about the American Idolness of it, but I know I would've been more excited about the encore when it was performed!]

Orchestras working with jazz musicians as guests often find it a real challenge to pin down programs (which they need to do in order to hire/arrange music, book musicians and plan rehearsals), precisely because there's a completely different culture of programming and planning in these two realms. It's not hard to understand why when you look at all the logistical realities of pulling together an orchestral concert – but understanding doesn't make it any easier!

Although there once was a time when audiences would buy orchestral subscriptions knowing only dates and artists, I can't imagine it happening today, but then has anyone been game enough to try recently?

The closest you get are those pops concerts where what's promoted is a theme or a couple of "hook" pieces. (Even then, it's all been decided by the time you pick up your program book at the concert.)

Same goes for a lot of period-instrument groups. In some cases they're not promoting an actual program because the artistic decision-making hasn't been finalised at the time of promotion (ahem!); sometimes it's because the full program is too long and unfamiliar and generally off-putting to be a marketing asset (some Harp Consort or Hespèrion XXI programs would fall in that category). But still, as evidenced by printed programs, the "set" on the night is predetermined and usually nothing other than encores/ornamentation/cadenzas is left to chance.

You're right in saying that a small ensemble has genuine scope for varying the program on the night. With a large ensemble like an orchestra the practical constraints are greater. Not to mention that we've trained audiences to come expecting to hear a crafted program.

Does it even matter that we're there if it's all planned? Absolutely it does. Our physical presence and response may not influence the choice of program that evening, but that doesn't mean that the artists don't respond to the audience vibe or that listeners don't contribute in subtle ways.