Poll
Question:
What % of your classical listening is live?
Option 1: 0
votes: 17
Option 2: 10
votes: 8
Option 3: 20
votes: 2
Option 4: 30
votes: 3
Option 5: 40
votes: 1
Option 6: 50
votes: 0
Option 7: 60
votes: 1
Option 8: 70
votes: 0
Option 9: 80
votes: 0
Option 10: 90
votes: 0
Option 11: 100
votes: 0
Option 12: 110
votes: 1
And no, live recordings don't count as "live."
0
I voted 0% because it's under 5% - it's a question of access at the moment, although if I lived in a busy area, I'm sure it would rapidly become a question of money ;D My partner practices a little which greatly increases the amount of things that I passively listen to.
We have a perfectly fine orchestra locally but I have no time, really.
I voted zero but I need to qualify that. First of all, many years ago, I used to go to a concert at least twice a week. But i listen to recordings or the radio for no less than 10 hours a day, since I listen with headphones on when i work (all work except actually counseling). So that makes the percentage negligible. Now, I go to concerts probably 4 or 5 times a year, which is not much. My recording listening time is down to about ... say, 3 hours a day.
Overall, I consider myself someone who goes to hear LIVE music quite often. In Beijing there are a lot of good concerts, but I don't go much anymore because the audiences are so ignorant thus sometimes the players (I almost hate F. Peter Flors now) almost play with contempt. Flor leading the Czech Phil played a concert so bad that I have never even heard a high school orchestra play as badly in rehearsal. Yet they got standing ovations from the ignorant audience. I'd say at least one third the time you can tell that the player knows that the audiences are mostly ignorant and just play like sh*t intentionally or without any care. I feel offended by that. But when I do go overseas like to a conference in the US or Europe, I usually try to go to a few concerts, even stopping by a city just for a concert.
There is no classical scene here in rural Oklahoma so it is 0. When I was in college and grad school I attended several concerts but at that time I listened to classical music for 5-10 hours a day so the percentage is still like 1%.
That's a tough question, of course (who keeps statistics like that?) . . . and in all events, I think you probably need to be a performer to log a percentage as high as 30% . . . and a professional to log a percentage as high as 60%. (My genuinely professional colleagues can easily trend to 100% . . . when you're busy enough with preparing and executing the concerts, you don't listen to much "canned" music, and it doesn't take much pressure on the schedule to substitute any for much, there.)
A composer necessarily listens to a higher percentage of "canned" music, since your ears need to know more than you probably have opportunity to go hear in person.
All that said, I'll cast a vote for 10% live, though that is probably on the high side for me.
Quote from: Ataraxia on January 27, 2012, 04:54:06 AM
And no, live recordings don't count as "live."
Obviously ; )
Way less than 0.1%, so 0% (3 concerts in about 7 years).
I'm not telling you. :P
Must have something to hide . . . .
About 10% probably. Usually attend 2 maybe 3 concerts/operas/ballets per month, and I'm perfectly satisfied with that, going to concert is basically a night out and that is what time-money factor allows for me now. That amounts to about 5 hours and I can imagine that do listen to 50 hours of 'canned' music a month.
The closest is 0 percent. I attend several concerts and recitals a year, but the program has to interest me before I'll pay for tickets - I will not sit in the cheap seats, particularly at orchestral concerts.
When a concert is very good, it rather trounces recordings. I saw Haydn's The Creation just last weekend, and it was spectacular, and was far more satisfying than even Paul McCreesh's recording. Such concerts are well worth the money. When a concert is not so good, like a mediocre Brahms First Piano Concerto I attended last fall, it's not as satisfying as a good recording, and it's not worth the money.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 27, 2012, 06:07:47 AM
I think you probably need to be a performer to log a percentage as high as 30% . . . and a professional to log a percentage as high as 60%.
Or you need to be Bruce. :D
Quote from: Todd on January 27, 2012, 07:02:40 AM
When a concert is very good, it rather trounces recordings.
I agree with this completely. While I'm eternally grateful for recordings - they enable hearing things that might not be heard otherwise, and enable getting to know unfamiliar works - there is nothing like the palpable sensation of sound waves traveling in a concert hall, coupled with the adrenalin of performers knowing they are doing a unique event that will not be exactly the same, even if they're doing the same program the next night.
Quote from: Opus106 on January 27, 2012, 07:12:22 AM
Or you need to be Bruce. :D
;D
I checked 60%. Some weeks are less dense than others, but on the average, I go to roughly 2-3 concerts a week.
--Bruce
I've only ever been to a couple of Performances so its pretty much 0% for me too! :D
I have decided to tell you. :P
About only 3 or 4 a year, some of it recital stuff.
So less than 1% I guess, as there is rarely a moment when I'm not playing something at any given time of day at any location...
Hey! Recitals are real live music, too!
My actual percentage is probably in the range 3% to 6% live classical music. I listen to a lot of recording these days, but I also attend a couple of formal concerts a month and hear a fair number of less formal student performances and rehearsals. Anyway, it seems like less of a distortion, qualitatively speaking, to report this as 10% rather than 0%.
Quote from: Todd on January 27, 2012, 07:02:40 AM
When a concert is very good, it rather trounces recordings. I saw Haydn's The Creation just last weekend, and it was spectacular, and was far more satisfying than even Paul McCreesh's recording. Such concerts are well worth the money.
I do agree. The problem is too many warhorses in most programs. With more intersting repertoire I'd go more often, though I've managed to hear both Turangalila live (twice!) as well as Schoenberg's Gurrelieder (devastating experince that no record can recreate, even remotely).
Quote from: The new erato on January 27, 2012, 04:26:08 PM
I do agree. The problem is too many warhorses in most programs. With more intersting repertoire I'd go more often . . . .
One solution there might be chamber and choral music; groups in those genres often program more adventurously.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 28, 2012, 04:37:42 AM
One solution there might be chamber and choral music; groups in those genres often program more adventurously.
Yes inded, and for the coming 5 months I have tickets for the following in my hometown Bergen:
Chabriers opera L'Etolie
A Madrigal programme by Les Artes Florissantes
Handel's Xerxes by the Komische Oper Berlin
A trio programme by Truls Mørk and assorted partners (Shostakovich among other stuff)
A chamber programme by Vilde Frang (Faure and Prokofiev sonatas)
Programmes by the Bergen Philharmonic (a very good outfit BTW, check their presence on BIS); tend to be pretty stale but I haven't checked their schedule for the spring.
One of Karl's comments, probably on the companion thread, about who was likely to get over 10% on the live side got me curious about my own %. (No, I was not curious before that. I don't usually keep track of how much of this or that I listen to.)
And my rough estimate is 30% live.
Would that it were more.
For the last 3 years, I've been visiting between 15 and 20 concerts a year, mainly due to my increasing organ interest.
But the amount of 'non-live' listening time at home and during (home-work-home) travelling still takes about 99% of my total listening time.
Therefore I 'voted' 0%.
10%? At least one concert each day? Impossible!
In the old days, this poll wouldn't even make sense. The old days weren't that great.
Quote from: Greg on January 28, 2012, 01:31:44 PM
In the old days, this poll wouldn't even make sense. The old days weren't that great.
They scare me. Audiences had to demand certain works they liked were repeated because they knew that they might never hear them again.
Imagine hearing something amazing, then having to rely on a failing, fading memory of it :-\
Quote from: Lethevich Dmitriyevna Pettersonova on January 28, 2012, 01:34:38 PM
They scare me. Audiences had to demand certain works they liked were repeated because they knew that they might never hear them again.
Imagine hearing something amazing, then having to rely on a failing, fading memory of it :-\
I would be buying scores and piano transcriptions like a madman...
I voted 0%. On my income, the choice between an expensive concert ticket and an inexpensive CD is a no-brainer. There may be small cheap concerts going on, but it's too difficult to get the info in time, they tend to be in remote (to me) locations, or in repertoire that doesn't excite me enough to get me out of the house. There are a couple of "event" works I might make an exception for, but they are things that will probably never be performed in Sydney.
Wow! I'm amazed I'm one of an absolute majority of 0%. Well, maybe it's actually 0.01% for me but zero is close enough.
Currently 0% due to lack of access.