John Farrell wrote in 040712 MMDigest:


>> I agree with all the points Spencer Chase made in his post today,
>> particularly his condemnation of people who chat or create other
>> distractions while music is being played -- in my view they deserve
>> to be flogged.


I'm sorry, but I (also a musician) have to reply to this.  This runs
counter to what music has been for most people most of the time, namely
an art which is _part of our life._  Music and all other arts have been
_salt of life_ , to be used as appropriate in various situations:

 * as background music for entertainment; this was the standard
valuation of music up until almost the end of the 18th century in
almost all situations (and it was _not_ liked at all by many musicians,
of course -- see Haydn's Surprise Symphony) and is still the standard
at parties, street fairs, even in jazz pubs.  Only the most elitist
jazz club will assume that you are quiet during the music.

 * as part of larger spiritual event: religious activities (from joy
to mourning), other forms of "emotional situations" (love songs!);

 * as (part of) a political activity (from war songs to the
interpretation of, e.g., Verdi's and Wagner's music as "national
music", to some aspects of, e.g., Mozart's music, for example, the
up-to-then unheard German(!) text of the Magic Flute);

 * etc., etc.

Of course, _some_ of these situations are today associated with
"no distraction allowed during the music", but others definitely allow
distractions or other activities or even require them, e.g., parts
of religious ceremonies.

(An interesting example where I was the "victim": Is it allowed that
people rise and leave the church during the final piece of the organ?
I have played in churches where this was "right"; and in others where
it was definitely "wrong".  Of course, one selects the music according
to these habits ...)

(Another example: At my doctoral graduation, a violin player and a
pianist played some pieces.  The standard approach in that situation
is to be quiet during the music, but neither to clap at the end and
not even to express that one is interested in the music, e.g., showing
intent listening, which I did and which resulted in quite a few
comments of the sort "one could see that you should have studied music
instead of computer science" to "this was no concert!"  Sorry that
I behaved wrong. 

This variability of "behaving to music" requires some sort of learning
and mutual agreement when more people meet.  For many situations, there
are standard behaviors, but for others one has to "set the stage" so
that people know what's going on.

Just putting a roll into a piano is certainly not enough of a signal
to tell how one should behave, in the same way that putting a CD into
a player does not tell the people around whether they should listen
(to that great interpretation of Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto)
or "just feel well" (to the same music, which is so well-known).

The main idea is that we can _agree_ on how to appreciate music in each
situation; not that we enforce a fixed way of appreciation which is
"right at all times".

Okay, I probably read more into the paragraph I cited at the top, but
still it was a good trigger for my ramblings...

Regards
Harald M. Mueller