"Much like a simulcast of a rock concert or a boxing match, the orchestra's concerts will be heavily produced affairs, shot with multiple cameras and overseen by directors who specialize in live production. Viewers seated before 50-foot screens will see close-ups, medium and long-range shots of Dudamel and the orchestra's musicians, views of Disney Hall and the audience, as well as glimpses of the backstage action. Live interviews, and question and answer sessions will round out the transmission package."
"Transmission package?" We, meaning Americans, are so used to things being 'packaged' for us, filmed at the very best angles, directed by the very best directors, etc. It seems like I could get a better seat and more for my money by watching this "LIVE!" instead of buying a seat. Will these "LIVE!" 'packaged' events ever give actual live experiences a run for their money, or do you they they drive people INTO the theatre, opera, orchestra performance, etc.?
There is nothing that can compare to the dynamism (is that a word?) and electricity in the air that comes as an exchange between performer and audience in a live performance. But these "LIVE!" broadcasts do seem like a good introduction to the genre. By showing them in places like stadiums and arenas, you strip away the pretense of "high society" that comes from having to be appropriately dressed in an ornate venue. There are a lot of "common" folk that don't buy into that pretense and thus, eliminate opera and the symphony, for example, from their choice of entertainment. Plus getting to see some backstage views and maybe even interviews and additional information would certainly spark interest in the genre. I think it would inspire many to attend their next performance at the actual theatre- if it is possible for them to go. Hopefully then they can see that there is really no substitute for being in the same room as the performers.
ReplyDeleteIt almost seems as if it were two different genres formed from this.. the digital opera and the live opera. Kind of like seeing a film versus seeing a play (in some ways).
It also seems like a good moneymaker, if your house is full (no seats avail) for a concert, why not broadcast it too and try to get as much awareness and income out of one event as you can. With youtube and other online distribution, your performing arts group could become a household name fairly quickly-- if the art's good enough!
That being said, I honestly feel there is no substitute, and if audiences become accustomed to seeing the art in this way, it could be detrimental to the art. There are some things that, even with our technology, it is difficult to capture- the timbre of the instruments and the acoustics of the hall, and the intimate connection with the audience are just a few.
I think that Live! performances will appeal to people who already enjoy live performances and will add this to what they already do, and people who think they might enjoy opera/concerts/etc but don't want to shell out the money, spend the time, dress the way they are "supposed to", etc.
ReplyDeleteI am not hugely optimistic that it will drive people into the concert hall. There may be some, but if people are hooked by the production packaging, then why would they give that up for something else?
Most people that I know that have gone to the opera simulcasts are people who already go to the opera, or at least have the interest in the opera but maybe not the finances, transportation, and other barriers.
I agree that there is no substitute for a live performance, but the people that go to a televised show will either go because they don't necessarily want the real thing, or as an addition to attending live performance.
Great comments so far. Another question: This may bring in audience members, but will it bring in DONORS? My thought is no, but please, argue with me.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that simulcasts can bring audience into theatres for live performances. For example, someone who has little/ no prior experience in watching a live orchestra performance is likely to feel more comfortable watching taking their first step into a movie theatre (that they might frequent otherwise anyway) and not dress up for the performance. Going to a live performance has more barriers - transportation, distance, higher ticket price, not having someone to go with, not knowing much about orchestras, not knowing what to wear, to name a few. On another hand, simulcasts offer an alternative with fewer barriers to audience, especially those who are not yet interested enough to "go all the way" and pay for a ticket in its full price for a live performance. Assuming the LA Phil has no great financial issues and has the money to invest in such a project while maintaining its quality, I believe that this can be a worthy investment. Although audience numbers will not go up instantly, I do believe this venture will bring the orchestra-at-a-movie-theatre goers into the concert halls in the future. Think about all the possibilities! Children going to the movie theatre with their parents may grow up to enjoy a live performance because it will have a special place in their memories. Children and youth who get to go to simulcasts as a part of a school field trip will grow an interest in such performances. With that said, the LA Phil may be nurturing a whole new generation of live performance goers and perhaps even subscribers in the long run!
ReplyDeleteI think donors may not be interested in donating money to this specific project right away, but if there is an education/ community building/ etc focus, then I believe the money will come in as well. Also, local theatres and nearby businesses that may welcome the extra customers thus local authorities and foundations may then invest in such venture.
Okay, so I've spent the past couple days thinking about this because my initial reaction was that I just don't know enough about the factors surrounding this issue to have an informed opinion. Alas, I still feel that way. Sorry if that's a cop-out. On the surface I think LIVE! sounds like a great idea. At first I was a little skeptical of the $18-$25 prices, but I really don't know what people will pay. I don't know the LA Phil's financial situation but it would be hard to imagine that they'd take on a task like this if they couldn't afford it.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am quite worried about the future of classical music in this country and LIVE! could be a small step towards quelling my fears depending on how successful it is. I don't know how often, if at all, orchestras consider this existential threat but it certainly does feel like as the baby boomers, um, move on, how will the following generations support orchestras and the arts in general. These thoughts and concerns are based on my own experiences, so I may be (and hopefully will be) wrong. Not to go too far off topic but I even think about how younger generations have little or no concept of noblesse oblige, which may also result is less support for the arts down the road.
So, again, sorry to be a cop-out but I just don't know how well a program like this will do or if the LIVE! format can or will replace actual live shows. If it is successful, I'd hope donors would follow, but who knows.
The goal of venture is branding, creating its brand image of orchestra arts at a local and national level. It may not generate immediate result in bringing more audience buying a seat in a music hall. But I personally see a positive side of this in a long run. Especially, with those so-called ‘affairs’ being transmitted, it’s really a good way to shorten the distance between high art and audience. People just love back-stage stories.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, art advocacy needs collaboration among different organizations, at different locations, with different people. This venture is helping L.A. Phil. build its collaborative win-win relationship with movie theatres, broadcasting studios, producers and directors, and many many potential partners that may help garner excitement for orchestra arts at different levels.
This LIVE idea only started less than a decade in arts world. It's still hard to tell whether its downside is over its advantages. But I believe the "Only in the state does man have a rational existence." If the LIVE thing is breaking into the non-profit arts, we just need to find the rational and make it beneficial.
Oh, for the donors, I think it may attract another different kind of donors. For example, LIVE needs substantial technique support, right? So, if Bill Gates only spends money on Computer-related ventures, this may be a good detour for him to consider spend some on arts~
ReplyDeletePersonally the “transmission package” sounds like way too much control of the performance to me. With backstage action and interviews this seems like it would feel more like a TV special on the Symphony Orchestra rather than actually sitting and watching the performance. And if audiences get accustomed to these “extras” as the performance itself, they may not see the value of actually being within the energy and space of the performer, they may just want their backstage action. I would hope that this could act as a stepping stone to expose a new audience to the genre, but in reality I think it will be more for those people who WANT to be at a live performance but can’t because of cost/transportation/distance. And unfortunately LIVE! won’t eliminate those barriers for that audience so that they can make it to a the concert hall it will just give them the chance to experience something rather than nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteNow if they offered discounted tickets in collaboration with those who attended a LIVE! simulcast, or addressed some of the other barrier issues people associate with attending a classical music performance they could introduce the genre to a new audience in a familiar and comfortable environment and give them some incentive to go to a live performance.
I'm in favor of the LIVE! simulcasts for many of the reasons already mentioned, specifically, removing barriers and creating accessibility. I don't foresee packaged events having a marked impact on live event attendance. Those who have interest and means will continue attending live performances, and those who do not have access to live performances (for whatever reasons) will have an opportunity to experience a performance on a different level than if they were just watching a DVD at home. Unfortunately, ticket prices may still be out of reach for some and folks in rural communities may still be impeded from attending, due to lack of proximity to a major/minor city.
ReplyDeleteDonors? If campaigns geared toward fund raising for the LIVE! program are created, LA Phil may stand a chance at attracting new donors. A new donor profile may be created through LIVE! Maybe.
This was a great article and timely. The benefits are obvious, it gets their program to a wider audience that would not attend otherwise. But this is not new, merely the technology is making it better than what was previously (in some cases, currently) available. NBC orchestra in NYC played live and was a huge success. (It's killing me that I can't recall the conductor!) You can still hear the MET on public radio stations on Saturday afternoons. Some of the broadcass are live, others recorded. But they are playing to an audience that wouldn't or can't make it to the MET. And that the LA Phil is in "HD" shouldn't matter. Everything is in HD. That it's done with multi-cameras and on a professional level making the experience better, for some, than being there is understandable. But it's getting the LA Phil program out there to a whole new audience. Does this hurt the LA Phil and lessen the likelihood that people will want to actually go to the LA Phil instead of watching it on HDTV? Maybe. But it would be an opportunity missed by the LA Phil if their DEVO department and Marketing gurus don't pounce on the number of people who are watching the broadcast. The audience has come to them, now figure out a way to bring them to a live performance in person.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to say that LIVE! is better than Live because "it depends" on the audiences viewing it. A person may enjoy a silmucast because its a little more relaxed and they can make comments to their friends with out sneers or stares from performers. On the other hand, some audience members may like to be close to performers and experience the same environs and culture climate of the performers. As some have mentioned, I think LIVE! performances may eventually generate larger audiences because people could interest friends to attend who feel intimidated by the elegance or "sophistication" of some performance venues. As for funding, the right audience members will have to say if its a success or not to produce LIVE! performances. Its kind of like getting the "cool" kid in school to say your cool, then everyone else will think so too. Who knows? The rich and upper class may sponsor simulcast performances in order to keep "undesirables" from attending certain venues. Hmmm...
ReplyDelete