Thoughts on the Concert Companion and beyond from Conference
As you may have figured out by now, for the past few weeks I have been living a double life. On the one hand, I have my responsibilities as manager of the Aspen Festival Orchestra and on the other, I am building a holistic "future executive director" perspective as a League Fellow. One job causes me to deeply delve into the intricacies of orchestra operations (organizing logistics for auditions/rehearsals/performances and beyond) and the other calls for dipping into the bowls of every other administrative department (artistic, marketing, PR, development, finance, education, etc.). Living both lives simultaneously can be quite exhausting but I like to think doing well in one category makes be better at the other. Such is my life for the next year.
So, now please allow me to switch gears from the busyness of student registration and auditions to reflect on an observation from Conference. The theme for this year’s 59th annual League Conference was “ORCHESTRAS…in today’s fast-paced, multi-choice, mass-marketed, high-tech, bottom-line…world.” Coming from a bit of a tech background and being a huge advocate of using emerging technology to further any cause, I naturally gravitated toward anything that hinted high-tech throughout the week. Here is one of my many observations:
On Thursday night at the Pittsburgh Symphony concert, a fairly new device known as the Concert Companion was introduced to the audience. This device is pretty much a very tediously pre-programmed palm pilot with dynamic program notes that change with the music. It also, from what I hear, contains an added self-explanatory feature I will call the “conductor cam” that allows audience members to see what the musicians see. A good idea? I definitely think it has potential, at least it is trying something new. In my eyes, it is a step forward toward making the concert experience more interactive for the concertgoer (key for building new audiences). Perhaps in the future we can see additional improvements such as instant messaging, scrolling scores, or even program selection by vote (think “why is American Idol so popular”) to further involve and engage the audience. My only complaint about the use of the Companion was the fact that despite being its big debut, I hardly heard a peep about it until I noticed its little booth in the lobby after the concert. Let’s just say that I would have, in a second, rented a unit had it been flashed before me prior to the concert. Hopefully sometime in the near future, I will have to opportunity to actually give the Companion a test run and comment from firsthand experience.
Whether or not we see the Concert Companion thrive or die in years to come, I think it is vitally important that people are taking risks in evolving the concert experience. The real accomplishment with ideas such as the Companion or in-concert large projection screens or 3D holograms of the conductor or any of the other new ideas floating around out there is not the invention of a new device but the larger mindset that technology can be used to enhance the interactivity of a concert and subsequently capture the attention of a younger, more tech-savvy audience. This mindset and the willingness to take risks IS the future of art and I plan on exploring it throughout my professional career.
So, now please allow me to switch gears from the busyness of student registration and auditions to reflect on an observation from Conference. The theme for this year’s 59th annual League Conference was “ORCHESTRAS…in today’s fast-paced, multi-choice, mass-marketed, high-tech, bottom-line…world.” Coming from a bit of a tech background and being a huge advocate of using emerging technology to further any cause, I naturally gravitated toward anything that hinted high-tech throughout the week. Here is one of my many observations:
On Thursday night at the Pittsburgh Symphony concert, a fairly new device known as the Concert Companion was introduced to the audience. This device is pretty much a very tediously pre-programmed palm pilot with dynamic program notes that change with the music. It also, from what I hear, contains an added self-explanatory feature I will call the “conductor cam” that allows audience members to see what the musicians see. A good idea? I definitely think it has potential, at least it is trying something new. In my eyes, it is a step forward toward making the concert experience more interactive for the concertgoer (key for building new audiences). Perhaps in the future we can see additional improvements such as instant messaging, scrolling scores, or even program selection by vote (think “why is American Idol so popular”) to further involve and engage the audience. My only complaint about the use of the Companion was the fact that despite being its big debut, I hardly heard a peep about it until I noticed its little booth in the lobby after the concert. Let’s just say that I would have, in a second, rented a unit had it been flashed before me prior to the concert. Hopefully sometime in the near future, I will have to opportunity to actually give the Companion a test run and comment from firsthand experience.
Whether or not we see the Concert Companion thrive or die in years to come, I think it is vitally important that people are taking risks in evolving the concert experience. The real accomplishment with ideas such as the Companion or in-concert large projection screens or 3D holograms of the conductor or any of the other new ideas floating around out there is not the invention of a new device but the larger mindset that technology can be used to enhance the interactivity of a concert and subsequently capture the attention of a younger, more tech-savvy audience. This mindset and the willingness to take risks IS the future of art and I plan on exploring it throughout my professional career.
<< Home