ANST - Audience Disdain?

[karl muller]

>Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:15:26 -0600
>From: Gunnora Hallakarva <gunnora at bga.com>
>To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
>Subject: ANST - Audience Disdain?
>Reply-To: ansteorra at Ansteorra.ORG
>
>NOT a captive audience, trapped and forced to listen.

i agree. the audience should not ne forced to listen when they don't 
want to. but when an area is reserved for performances, and an 
announcement is made that the performances are about to begin, those who 
stay in the area should at least have the courtesy to be quite during 
the performance. i saw one gentleman get anger and loud simply because, 
as he put it, 'i was sitting in this chair first and i don't think i 
should leave just because you want to do your stupid songs.' 

>
>It is up to the performer to accurately judge the atmosphere -- there 
are times when ANY performance is inappropriate.  If the
>audience is in no mood to listen, the performer has no business 
performing.  Being sensitive to the mood of the audience is the
>biggest and most important skill any performer must learn.

if we are supposed to recreate all to good thing about the middle ages 
like honor and chivalry, shouldn't we also be recreating things like 
courtesy and good manners? if the performer is bad, we should sit there 
politely, applaud when they're finished, then afterwards offer some kind 
words of criticism and try to direct them in more positive direction. if 
we turn our backs to them, they'll never know what's wrong or learn how 
to do it better.

>
>Furthermore, if a performer's piece is boring, or just plain bad, well, 
having backs turned on one is far from the worst that can
>happen.

no, the worst we can do is not try to help them. turning our backs and 
not learning what's wrong doesn't help us help them.

>
>A GOOD performance will captivate the audience.  You could have heard a 
pin drop when Thomas of Tenby staged his dramatic presentation
>of "Maldon" a while back.  If a performer isn't good enough to capture 
the audience's attention and keep it, then that audience
>reaction is a clear message, too.

i've seen great bards try to perform before an unruly crowds, and seen 
them die. not because they couldn't perform, not because their piece was 
boring, not for any other reason other than the audience would not give 
the performer the courtesy of listening.

>
> if the performance
>is not good enough to enforce silence on its own, then that's a more 
accurate assessment of the performer's skill at guaging the
>audience, and their skill at performance, than any Laurel's judging 
form could be.

i once went to a fighters event. there was nothing but fighting going 
on. at feast, they had a belly dancer perform. she was attractive with a 
nice shape and wore a skimpy outfit. and she danced fairly well. but as 
the music started, the voice volume in the hall increased. and as the 
music got louder, the voices got louder. i was sitting in the second row 
of tables, and even though i could plainly see the dancer, i could only 
hear about half the music. the next day i saw her again and told her i 
had enjoyed her performance. (i use to date a girl who danced 
traditional middle eastern dance so i know some of the finer points of 
real belly dance even if i'm not an expert.) she refused to believe me 
and said she wouldn't dance any more. i don't know if she carried though 
with her statement, but i would hate to think we lost a dancer because 
the audience didn't have to manners to watch quietly.
km

>
>::GUNNORA::
>
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.