Christian Thielemann scolds his audience!

[starrynight]

Then he too could have surely ignored the cool reception, as it's not part of the fee the audience paid to watch the "service provided". (Of course, I concede that there is a small chance that he might have sincerely wanted the audience to appreciate the work more ( ) and that the alleged amount of venom in his voice was exaggerated.)

The media quite frequently exaggerates stories to make them juicier, so probably quite a large chance it didn't quite happen as reported.

[Renfield]

So if I pay someone to repair - say - my boiler, and the guy won't shut up while he's doing it, but he does repair the boiler exactly as he was contracted to, do I then complain that he didn't provide the service he was paid for? I do get the point, in so far as you don't think Thielemann should make your evening less pleasant, but it's still irrelevant to the service you paid him to provide (viz. the music).

In other words,  I don't think it's related to your money; unless you're also explicitly paying him to shut up.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

The media quite frequently exaggerates stories to make them juicier, so probably quite a large chance it didn't quite happen as reported.

Not to mention once a story is filtered through GMG its "juicy" factor shoots through the roof.

[Dundonnell]

As the originator of this thread I need to point out that I did make one serious mistake in the very first post-

It was not in Munich but in Dresden that the incident took place.

This is the original report:

http://www.musik-in-dresden.de/2011/09/04/christian-thielemann-2011-dresden

[Opus106]

So if I pay someone to repair - say - my boiler, and the guy won't shut up while he's doing it, but he does repair the boiler exactly as he was contracted to, do I then complain that he didn't provide the service he was paid for?

Who's to say that Thielemann "repaired the boiler exactly"? More to the point, this is an instance of (or so it seems) the repairman complaining that you didn't pat him on the back well enough for the job done.

[Renfield]

Who's to say that Thielemann "repaired the boiler exactly"? More to the point, this is an instance of (or so it seems) the repairman complaining that you didn't pat him on the back well enough for the job done.

Which makes him a rude repairman, not a bad one. The rudeness does not impact his ability to do the job he was paid for.

[Opus106]

Which makes him a rude repairman, not a bad one. The rudeness does not impact his ability to do the job he was paid for.

Oh. I was just arguing for that he was rude.

[I guess that's it long late-night argument that I was planning to have. ]

[Renfield]

Oh. I was just arguing for that he was rude.

[I guess that's it long late-night argument that I was planning to have. ]

[Bulldog]

Which makes him a rude repairman, not a bad one. The rudeness does not impact his ability to do the job he was paid for.

I don't care how good that repairman might be, if he's rude, he's not coming back to my home.  There's more to service than just the technical aspects of the job.  Of course, you already know that.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Which makes him a rude repairman, not a bad one. The rudeness does not impact his ability to do the job he was paid for.

But you're assuming the job WAS, in fact, done properly. I'm saying there exists a flaw in the workmanship but the repairman doesn't see it. Hence he overracts to my objections and acts rudely.

I'm paying, hence the door is open to criticism.

The key is in CONVINCING me. If the repairman isn't able to, that's his problem, not mine. Yes he may still have my money but he won't get it again in the future.

[Renfield]

I don't care how good that repairman might be, if he's rude, he's not coming back to my home.  There's more to service than just the technical aspects of the job.  Of course, you already know that.

Indeed. I was in fact going to add that a rude repairman may well not be contracted again. That's your prerogative as a customer.

However, saying that he is not respecting your custom for commenting on your reaction makes the assumption that an integral part of Thielemann's service, that you are paying for, is that he please you. I see it as you paying him to create music.

To the extent that you don't see it this way, you're right.

But you're assuming the job WAS, in fact, done properly. We're saying there exists a flaw in the workmanship but the repairman doesn't see it. Hence he overracts to our objections and acts rudely.

We're paying, hence the door is open to criticism.

The key is in CONVINCING us. If the repairman isn't able to, that's his problem, not ours. Yes he may still have our money but he won't get it again in the future.

This follows from a different premise entirely. You're saying he failed in his service provision (i.e. conducting the piece properly), and then scolded the audience for his failure. But this assumes it was his conducting to blame, which we don't know.

What I am assuming, and have been assuming, is that he did his job well as a conductor, but the piece wasn't well-received.

And this is where your 'convincing the audience' argument comes in, of course. However, that argument depends on the somewhat-tenuous assumption that if a conductor conducts anything sufficiently well, it will always be well-received, which I'd dispute.

(I don't think a conductor's job description includes a duty to make people enjoy a piece of music they don't like.)

[Dancing Divertimentian]

This follows from a different premise entirely. You're saying he failed in his service provision (i.e. conducting the piece properly), and then scolded the audience for his failure. But this assumes it was his conducting to blame, which we don't know.

Well, all we HAVE are assumptions at this point. I can base my case on anything I want!

What I am assuming, and have been assuming, is that he did his job well as a conductor, but the piece wasn't well-received.

See? Assumption.

And this is where your 'convincing the audience' argument comes in, of course. However, that argument depends on the somewhat-tenuous assumption that if a conductor conducts anything sufficiently well, it will always be well-received, which I'd dispute.

No, the work might just suck. And all the conductorial pyrotechnics in the world won't add up to squat.

(I don't think a conductor's job description includes a duty to make people enjoy a piece of music they don't like.)

BINGO! And we meet in the middle!

[starrynight]

So if I pay someone to repair - say - my boiler, and the guy won't shut up while he's doing it, but he does repair the boiler exactly as he was contracted to, do I then complain that he didn't provide the service he was paid for? I do get the point, in so far as you don't think Thielemann should make your evening less pleasant, but it's still irrelevant to the service you paid him to provide (viz. the music).

In other words,  I don't think it's related to your money; unless you're also explicitly paying him to shut up.

I'm more inclined to see it as service provision, rather than an exchange of goods, where the performance is what you 'bought'.

You pay Thielemann for his services as a conductor of his chosen programme of music. If he wants to conduct something twice, it's his prerogative, and you can surely ignore his scolding, as it's irrelevant to the service provided, namely a concert of music.

I don't really agree on these points, many people who attend a concert would surely consider that they are paying to hear particular pieces of music and not just the performer.  In many cases people are probably far more concerned about hearing the music they expect rather than the advertised performer.  An unadvertised repeat of a piece could also potentially cause problems if it is relatively long, it could disrupt an audience member's schedule and cause them to miss something they have planned after the concert.

[Renfield]

I don't really agree on these points, many people who attend a concert would surely consider that they are paying to hear particular pieces of music and not just the performer.  In many cases people are probably far more concerned about hearing the music they expect rather than the advertised performer.  An unadvertised repeat of a piece could also potentially cause problems if it is relatively long, it could disrupt an audience member's schedule and cause them to miss something they have planned after the concert.

Fair enough. I disagree, but that's a matter of perspective.

Me, I think that's the conductor's prerogative, even to not play an advertised piece. I grant the conductor that right.

(And never book anything back-to-back with a concert.)

[knight66]

This is an instance of a social contract. I am with those who are not too impressed by the conductor's seeming behaviour. I pay, he plays, but he then expects his music making to be appreciated, even if people did not like it.

In a restaurant sometimes the chef decides there will be no salt or pepper available. I understand irritation if people automatically use these without tasting the dish. But there is more a kind of control thing goes on where; chef knows better. If I am paying for the food, I will have it the way I want it to the extent I have some normal measure of controll in the issue. I am not interested in what the chef wants out of this. I want want I want and pay for.

So in the concert setting; had this happened to me, I think out of perversity I would have been silent second time round. I don't like being lectured at in even a round about way.

Mike

[Renfield]

I think this really is a philosophical difference. By which I do not mean to euphemistically say this is a semantic, or otherwise meaningless disagreement*, but rather a difference in personal philosophy, like how and where you tip in restaurants.

More grandiosely, one could say some of you have signed a different social contract than some of us have!

(And there's nothing wrong with that - it just potentially illustrates why we disagree, I believe.)



*As per the pop-culture idea that semantics are meaningless.

[Dundonnell]

Little did I think when I initiated this thread with what I imagined in my utter naivety to be simply an amusing(?) anecdote that it would lead to a discussion of such magnitude ............

No one appears however to have highlighted the fact that the incident occurred in Dresden, a German city. Now I have attended orchestral concerts in the United Kingdom, in the Netherlands and in Sweden...but never in Germany or Austria.

I recall watching a video of Leonard Bernstein conducting the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra in the Sibelius Seventh Symphony in the Musikverein. The performance is a fine one but I was struck by the applause. It would be unkind and inaccurate to describe it as "tepid"; it is polite but it is restrained. There is no cheering, hollering, whooping, feet-stamping, shouts of 'bravo' or any other such demonstrations of wild enthusiasm.

Now it may be that Sibelius is not especially popular with a Viennese audience or it may be that Germanic audiences are naturally much more restrained than audiences in the United Kingdom for example.

But then...to negate my point completely ...Thielemann as a German conductor would expect that wouldn't he?

[Renfield]

Actually, imagine just how tepid the response must've been, if he - as a German (and assuming the stereotype) - noticed it!

[Dundonnell]

Actually, imagine just how tepid the response must've been, if he - as a German (and assuming the stereotype) - noticed it!

Thank you, Eugene, for being careful to write "assuming the stereotype"

You will notice that I did say "it may be that....". I am certainly making no such automatic let alone irrevocable assumption

[Renfield]

Thank you, Eugene, for being careful to write "assuming the stereotype"

You will notice that I did say "it may be that....". I am certainly making no such automatic let alone irrevocable assumption

Trust me, this is the least instance of textual potential-insult-avoidance I've had to employ tonight.


Textual PIA sounds like some kind of security protocol, doesn't it?