Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Live Tweeting the Symphony?

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the do-not-want dept.

Social Networks 166

Lasrick writes "Tom Jacobs at Pacific Standard describes desperate attempts to engage with younger audiences on the part of arts organizations who are scrambling to make their productions more interactive. But who really is more engaged: A live-tweeting audience member, or someone staring silently at the stage? Quoting: 'Not surprisingly, many performers and older patrons of the arts hate this idea, which they regard as pandering to the young. But thankfully, the debate over participatory art needn’t devolve into a depressing bout of intergenerational warfare. The controversy raises a number of questions that are hard to answer: Is sustained focus even possible in mass audiences anymore? If not, what have we lost?'"

cancel ×

166 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WHY IS MY WINDOWS TIME 1 HOUR FAST ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156791)

This damn thing always screws the time on these changes !!

Check yours !!

Re:WHY IS MY WINDOWS TIME 1 HOUR FAST ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157629)

Fret not the hour. Rather, try to figure out why you're living in 1935. I blame voters.

Key is relevance, not interactivity... (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156809)

I don't think the "younger generation" (read: damn kids) necessarily need interactivity. Although they don't watch TV much, they still watch a lot of video. Although they play games, they have an unprecedented tolerance for cutscenes. Just because they tweet all the time does not mean you need to have the tweetstream intertwine with the Now that you present.

What places like the symphony need are simply content that is more relevant to those they want to attract. It's hard to sell traditional symphonic material to younger crowds, so provide that but also a bit of more contemporary stuff.

They've already been doing that in a limited way with movie scores. An more advanced form of this is the rock band Guster, who is going around to a few select cities and playing many favorite songs that have been re-cast to work with the full symphony playing. The results are spectacular.

That way you get younger listeners to understand why you might want to attend a full symphony, and will probably get them to attend more events. But you have to get them interested first.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156831)

Heck, evolve!
Look at Apocalyptica!

Sounds like Rock music, but all done on classical instruments!

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156859)

Respect to Apocalyptica. (chest thump)
They were the first awesome thing I also thought of when I read Superkendalls comment. Word up SuperKendall, you hit the nail on the head.

Artists out there, don't give in to techno trends, make your art form relevant to your audience. They will come if you succeed. On the side then, art forms which grow the skills of focus and concentration over periods of time get my kudos. (Sorry for being AC)

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (4, Informative)

bimozx (2689433) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156895)

I have to fully agree with this. Like one of those Final Fantasy music orchestra concert that have been held a few times for the last few years. Or maybe the Legend of Zelda anniversary concert. You can bet those who attend both of these concerts are younger audience. I'm afraid people who tries to preserve Classic music is actually oblivious to the fact that those musics DO exist in the minds of young people, it's just that they are delivered through a different media and experience.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157325)

I was at the Symphony of the Goddess in NYC. It sucked. All the "grown-ups" sitting around me were rednecks, emitting loud screams every time something different showed up on the projectors (they were projecting cut scenes and gameplay videos from the various games), like little girls screaming to Justing Bieber. There was a beautiful violin solo during the second movement, and the morons went screamed excited through the entire thing. "It's a solo! FUCK YEAH! YAHOOOOOO! Oh wait, it's over now. Is that Epona jumping over the broken bridge to the Gerudo Fortress? YEAH!! OH YEAAAAAAAAH!".

I don't think they are enjoying the music as much as the nostalgia, remembering the game play when they listen to the same "background noise"; being orchestrated is just a small detail.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (2, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156997)

I've heard pretty much all the greatest classical music. It's good, but I've run out, and have had to look elsewhere for new material. Symphony orchestras aren't the place to look. They seem more interested in telling you that you're a dirty rotten pirate for even thinking of recording the music as they play, even when it's over 100 years old. The Meyerson in Dallas is plastered with signs that say recording devices are not allowed. They really seem to fear that if digital recordings leak out, there won't be anything left for them to play. Lame. No young person will have much sympathy for that attitude. I sure don't feel their phantom pains. Indeed, if they are helping to prop up extreme copyright, I'd as soon see them die. I want to know why they don't seek out new stuff. Is it that they're leaning too hard on copyright? Get out of the rut, quit being so boring. Where's some new material? Who composes orchestral music today?

Soundtracks have some good stuff-- who could not like the theme to Star Wars? Then there are video games. Established music venues were dismissive until fairly recently, but finally they are recognizing that some games actually have good, original music. I think there's a great future in synthesizing everything. The orchestra as it exists presently is obsolete, and an impediment.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157759)

Where's some new material? Who composes orchestral music today?

Some movie soundtracks are quite good, eg. Gladiator.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158045)

You stupid moron. These symphony orchestras derive their revenue streams, in part, from recordings. I realize that you Slashdot mother fuckers like to think that everything should be free, but you just can't sustain a world class orchestra by giving shit away.

God, you people are such assholes.

Tell you what, why the fuck don't you show up to your job today and tell them you don't' need to be paid.

As for you hearing all the classical music there is, you are full of shit.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158259)

Maybe if more people heard them more people would show up to listen to them? The only assholes here are those expecting to paid for playing way out of copyright music here.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (5, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158451)

Umm...you don't pay Beethoven or Mozart because they have a copyright. You pay the Dallas Symphony for the performance...their work...it's their job to play music.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (2)

LordNightwalker (256873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157073)

What places like the symphony need are simply content that is more relevant to those they want to attract. It's hard to sell traditional symphonic material to younger crowds, so provide that but also a bit of more contemporary stuff.

No, what places like the Symphony need is to get off this stupid idea that kids/teens belong in the opera house. Teens rebel against the older generation, rejecting everything they stand for, and that's a normal and natural phase in their development. Some kids/teens may genuinely be into classical though, and that's fine. Just don't try to push your notion of culture onto the ones who show no interest. Classical music is an acquired taste, not a forcefed one: don't be the Jehova's Witnesses of music.

I used to play the piano as a teenager, yet even then I never really got into the whole classical music thing. But I've matured, learned to appreciate somewhat better audio equipment and the subtleties it exposes in the source material. Classical became a lot more enjoyable since I'm not playing it over shitty cans/buds anymore. I guess being exposed to more classical-ish music in the scores of many great movies, during pivotal and emotionally gripping scenes, has also helped in that regard. I see similar tendencies among some of my friends. So yes, as people mature they tend to broaden their cultural horizons. The opera house will always have an audience; it will always be an older crowd.

An more advanced form of this is the rock band Guster, who is going around to a few select cities and playing many favorite songs that have been re-cast to work with the full symphony playing. The results are spectacular.

That way you get younger listeners to understand why you might want to attend a full symphony, and will probably get them to attend more events. But you have to get them interested first.

That's great, and I definitely applaud artists who try to make classical more accessible by making it more contemporary. But don't expect this to draw the crowds to the opera house anytime soon. There's a huge difference between having a symphonic orchestra accompany you on a contemporary work, and three hours of Mozart.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (5, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157159)

Teens rebel against the older generation, rejecting everything they stand for, and that's a normal and natural phase in their development.

No, it's not. Maybe in your culture it is, but the rest of the world finds it bizarre. Other languages lack the "teen" suffix to the numbers 13-19 so they don't even know what a "teenager" is. Plenty of older children the world round are well-behaved and wish nothing more than to follow in the footsteps of their parents.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157981)

If that's the case, how do they establish their own identity as an independent thinking human separate from their parents? I recall growing up in an authoritarian household that I quickly figured out that I hate being told what to do all the time. This led me to clash directly and indirectly with my parents at the time, until I grew up and moved out.

Now, I'm always happy to go home and visit. I get along with my parents far better than I ever did when I was forced to live by their rules instead of my own.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

sycodon (149926) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158061)

I quickly figured out that I hate being told what to do all the time.

It's called being immature.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157195)

I somewhat share your sentiments in that I used to loathe classical music when I was younger but now I appreciate it. I think the issue is "taste" and it takes years to develop an ear for quality and professionalism. It's not to say that the post-production work on say Ke$ha's latest album is not professionally done (it is), but that I can finally discern the art/ technique/ craftsmanship of a seasoned violin player. That was something I could not appreciate when I was younger because I didn't realize how hard it actually is. I learned it by listening to a lot of bad orchestra, thanks mainly to my little brother belonging to one in elementary and middle school.

So yes, it will always be an older crowd. That's because it takes years to develop an ear for it. In short, experience.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157155)

tl:dr

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157173)

Has symphony EVER been attractive to youth?
All those "performers and old patrons of the art" were once youth more interrested in Frank Sinatra than classical music.
Why does classical music HAVE to appeal to everyone of all ages all the time?
What makes classical music so special that it is often treated as if it were objectively superior music to all other forms of music.
I like some forms of classical music, I didn't like any when I was younger (mostly because popular classical music sucks so badly). Why is that so bad?

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157299)

There are two kinds of people: Those that are rhythmic, and those that are melodic.
Rhythmic people listen to hip-hop, drum & bass, etc.
Melodic people listen to classical music, a-Capella singing, or some forms of metal, etc.

So the exact same reason some people don't like hip-hop is the reason other people don't like classical music.
Classical music is to us rhythmic people what hip-hop is to you melodic people.

As a rhythmic person myself, classical music simply is really really *really* bad music to me. No groove, no rhythm, always this arrhythmic shit that constantly brings you out of ever building a (swinging) feeling. That's no music. That's *crap*.
(Notice the analogy to how other people talk about hip-hop "not being music"?)

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157351)

You do understand that this entire conceit of rhythm people and melodic people is absolute horseshit, right?

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157643)

There are two kinds of people: binners, and those baved by Grace.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157747)

You do understand that this entire conceit of rhythm people and melodic people is absolute horseshit, right?

Back in the day it was innie vs. outie (navel) and waddie vs. rollie (toilet paper).

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157785)

My stack of CD's currently next to my work desk is composed of club promo CD's from 2010 to 2013, a collection set of classical works by various composers, one Miles Davis CD and a Ben Folds Five CD. I play guitar (flamengo, electric and bass), drums and piano. Currently at home I'm listening mostly to Kensington, Atoms for Peace, Jens Lekman and Deadmaus.
Am I a rhythm person or a melodic person?

Re: Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

Pale Dot (2813911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158051)

The label "classical" is itself ambiguous. Just look at the so-called classical music charts. Classical music is a catch-all for movie soundtracks, recordings by groups led by wand-waving wizards (a.k.a conductor), songs sung or composed by Italians, and music too weird to put in any other category.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158089)

Sure as fuck you're not a "hip hop" person. Be glad for it too.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (2)

grcumb (781340) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157471)

Has symphony EVER been attractive to youth?

It's all in how it's presented [youtube.com] .

Note to all: Not a rickroll. It's a masterpiece of symphonic comedy.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157257)

Bullshit premise: Young people do not "tweet". EVER.

*Actual* young people think Twitter is this awkward place full of middle-aged loser dads and lame PR companies who all want to be "cool" and don't realize how horribly cringe-worthy they are, and how ridiculous it is that they all flock to Twitter, of all things, to be "in with the youth" again.

If somebody thinks young people "like" Twitter, it's solid hard proof, that he doesn't know *shit* about the youth. Another loser dad...

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (2, Interesting)

sycodon (149926) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158121)

Twitter is for those narcissistic people who have run out of loved ones, friends, and acquaintances willing to put up with them incessantly prattling on about themselves and how great they are.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1, Troll)

hackula (2596247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158533)

Twitter is basically a pipeline of Youtube comments without any videos. 50% spam, 50% moronic.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

OwenT (2778847) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157653)

I think this hits the nail on the head. It's not about lack of focus, it's about lack of interest, and classical music doesn't suddenly get 'cool' because it's on Twitter.

If you want to sell classical music to people, get them interested in it - get them involved in making it. Teach them the history - there's so much history there, and it brings it alive. Listen to Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony. Now learn the story behind it and listen again:

http://www.pbs.org/keepingscore/shostakovich-symphony-5.html [pbs.org]

Teach them that classical music still gets made, and new things happen:

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/13/151712146/first-listen-hilary-hahn-and-hauschka-silfra [npr.org]

...so in case you can't tell, I'm a classical music fan. I wasn't, actually: like a lot of people, I had nothing against it, but didn't know a lot about it. Getting involved got me into the music. I have my issues with the idea that classical music needs 'saving', but I think more people could be fans and it's only about getting them interested.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157767)

And realize that only a small fraction of the population is going to get interested in it, no matter how you try to sell it.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158149)

In the same way only a small fraction of the population is going to "get" interested in grammar?

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157715)

It's hard to sell traditional symphonic material to younger crowds

Must not be too hard in general, since the people who like now it were once the younger crowd.

Re:Key is relevance, not interactivity... (1)

hackula (2596247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158399)

Our local orchestra started doing an annual Radiohead cover show for charity a few years back. It sells out the second tickets go on sale.

False comparison (4, Informative)

starX (306011) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156849)

"But who really is more engaged: A live-tweeting audience member, or someone staring silently at the stage?"

I know this is Slashdot, and I'm going to take a leap and say most folks here aren't in the performing arts, but I am, and your comparison is a false one. A live-tweeting audience member isn't necessarily engaged with the performance, but more importantly, audiences seldom sit silently and stare at the stage. The whole point of live performance is that the audience provides instant feedback to the performer and vice versa, and to each other. Some of the most energetic audiences of Shakespeare plays are teens (or younger children) who haven't learned to loathe the classics yet. The real question is what do audiences and performers gain by adding interactivity via twitter (et al) to the mix vs. what is lost.

I'll float out there that, in many circumstances, phones and other wireless devices can cause interference with wireless microphone and backstage comm systems, so asking audiences to turn of their devices is a matter of ensuring that we don't get noise through AV systems. This will not affect all circumstances, of course, but it is a hard-deck restriction in many.

Re:False comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157121)

"someone staring silently at the stage" would be more typical in classical music such as the example described in the article. I don't know about the performers, but as a member of the audience I don't want people clapping or screaming their lungs out (or even flashing lights with their phones) every time the soloist finishes a crescendo or hits a glory note because I'm actually trying to listen to the music, including the quiet parts.

Regardless, the performer won't get any feedback from a tweeting audience unless s/he happens to be reading twitter during the performance. There's also a bigger point to be made that people buried in their phones might be having a lot of interaction with people or things far away, but are disengaged from the things happening right in front of them.

Re:False comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157483)

You reckon they ban cellphones for interference reasons?! ...nothing to do with the glow of the screen moving in a dimmed room when people nearby are concentrating, or when they ring during a quiet passage, distracting the entire audience?

Re:False comparison (3, Informative)

starX (306011) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158217)

You reckon they ban cellphones for interference reasons?! ...nothing to do with the glow of the screen moving in a dimmed room when people nearby are concentrating, or when they ring during a quiet passage, distracting the entire audience?

I don't doubt the lights may factor in to it, but depending on the model of phone, carrier, and location in the theatre, if someone has their cell phone on, you will hear it in my rig. Fortunately the PA system is more forgiving than our comms because we get interference on those almost every show; there's always someone who "forgets" to turn it off.

Re:False comparison (2)

fermion (181285) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158345)

We have discussed this [slashdot.org] in reference to movies. The overall jist was that many people would be distracted by a phone during a movie, therefore we all have to put our phones away because a few do not have the ability to focus.

I find phones to be slightly distracting during a movie, but I also find rowdy children and patrons who cannot stay seated for 180 minutes to be distracting as well. We deal with some of this, but not others. I argue that the real reason movies do not want texting is that it kills first weekend sales. If soclal media lights up that a movie sucks during the release on the east coast, by the time the movie hits the west coat everyone decices to go to see something else.

Focus and attention span is the key here. There is a assumption by the majority of young people that they must be constantly entertained, constantly engaged. This has always been the case, but the expectation has increased. While the kids of the 70's were transformed by Sesame Streets 3 minute edutainment bites, and the 80's by constant music input, todays kids have constant access to a wide range of media, never having to sit and think about what they are doing, watching, listening to. It is an ever changing random input of junk. There is no need for focus, analysis, understanding of the process.

Which is neither here nor there. Except to say the if phones are not acceptable at movies, then why at symphonies, which are not your pop concert where phones do seem to be acceptable, while still distracting but does not matter because at a pop concert few really seem to be paying attention anyone. The music is background. But many are paying attention at movies either.

In any case, a symphony, which is classical music, which is music from 200 years ago that has been distilled to take the vast majority which is crap and only includes what is critically acclaimed, uses an artistic language that is no accesible to the average person. Not because it is difficult but because it takes time. By allowing tweeting you are giving this person something to do during the concert. Could through this exposure the person learn the language of classical music, maybe. But it is an obtuse language and to learn it one must be focused. It is an exciting language.

To get a feeling for this, listen to New Horizon in music appreciation. [youtube.com] It is really funny, but like al inside jokes it is only funny if you know the references.

Format not the problem, content is (2)

kraln (1477093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43156903)

I've been to Video Games Live several times, often at Wolftrap in VA. The house is constantly full to capacity, everyone has a great time, and the volunteers all say the same thing: "This is such a bigger turnout than _insert_classical_music_here_". Classical music is great and wonderful to listen to, but you shouldn't be surprised it doesn't draw the under-40 crowd.

Brain breakers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156923)

Is sustained focus even possible in mass audiences anymore?

Nope, and you can blame information overload for that.

Tweeter not audience, but working (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43156937)

Someone tweeting blow-by-blow from the audience should be considered a promotions worker, not the same as someone who paid to witness the performance. Quite different. The former works to entice future concert attendance by young people. Completely legitimate function.

Sustained focus (5, Interesting)

lorinc (2470890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157003)

Is sustained focus even possible in mass audiences anymore? If not, what have we lost?

As an associate professor at the university, I can tell you many students have lost sustained focus, even in very small groups. If an explanation takes longer than 5 minutes, you lose them. If a problem takes longer than 5 minutes to solve, you lose them too. Starting 2 years ago, I modified all my lectures to have like "breakpoints" very often, so that no-one gets lost.

However, I think we already lost the Cartesian approach to breaking problems into smaller tasks. If you give them a rather simple but big problem, very few students are able the break it down and solve each part. Most will just try a global solution for a few minutes, then try the internet for a global solution, and finally get bored and say it's too complicated. One of my hypotheses is that the internet permits to solve most of the problems instantaneously, so you don't need sustained attention anymore. For the few cases where it is needed, well, that's the difference between the elite and the others...

Re:Sustained focus (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157047)

However, I think we already lost the Cartesian approach to breaking problems into smaller tasks. If you give them a rather simple but big problem, very few students are able the break it down and solve each part. Most will just try a global solution for a few minutes, then try the internet for a global solution, and finally get bored and say it's too complicated.

Man, that is a scary observation. I hope there are still enough problem-solving people in the world to keep things going, we can only use so many people to man the toll-booths when we need more people who can build roads...

Re:Sustained focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157347)

When I first watched Idiocracy, I found it to be a rather silly, lowest-common-denominator movie. I recently watched it again and fear that is exactly where the world is headed.

Re:Sustained focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157885)

No kidding it's scary for the future. That's why even though I have also observed that tendency more and more, I refuse to give into it. Ordinarily I try to customize my lectures to try to fit the audience, and I still do that for most things. But on this one point ("astonishingly low attention spans"), no. My rationale is two-fold: 1) if students haven't learned the ability to sustain their attention for a prolonged period of time in order to solve "big problems", well, they need to learn to do so, because that skill is important; B) if they are unable to learn or apply such a skill when it becomes necessary for the task at hand, then they really aught to drop out of university and prepare for those toll booth jobs in their future, because their impoverished skillset won't be good for much else.

Re:Sustained focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157277)

Well, I don't know when this started, but beeing a student right now, a big part of the problem seems to be that few of the classes are in anyway interesting to me.

I sure don't have a long attention span, but when a teacher tells makes his point in 1 line but then feels the need to explain the whole point again in 50 lines, I fully stop listening.

Say you have to explain substraction.
You start with: substraction is a process we can use to determine the outcome if we take an amount of something and we take away a few of said amount.
Right after you said that, I will think to myself: Thats bloody handy, I could use it for if I have a few apples and give one away to tom to determine how many apples I have left.

A sure way to make me stop listening for the next 10 minutes is then for 10 minutes give examples of how I could use it for knowing how many apples I have left after giving 2 away to frank or how many pears after giving 7 to jessy. Its what I managed to think up in my head in the 5 seconds after you told me about substraction.
So there I sit, 10 minutes thinking about something else, sadly after 8 minutes you told us what multiplying is, but I didn't listen yet, so I missed that.

It would be more interesting if after you tell me about something, I get a little time to think about what it could be used for and then if there are questions about what its useful for, you answer those questions. Don't assume we are all too stupid to be able to think something up ourselves. If you however go from that standpoint, can you expect us to actually try and think of the possibilities? We don't have to. Same with how you make your classes. We don't have to solve a 5minute+ problem anymore, you don't make them.

This starts from a young age, I would say, for the first X years of school, you don't have to study for anything and then suddenly they make it so you can't succeed anymore without studying. Well, what do you know, the one damn thing I don't know how to do is to study.

The problem with education is we try to educate everybody at the same level for the first x years, and to ensure everybody can follow, we use the lowest possible level. So all those above that level have fuck all to do and by the time they get to make their own choice in dificulty, they don't know how to study.

Re:Sustained focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158745)

You are the definition of a low information voter.

You are the reason politicians can't speak about anything for linger than 30 seconds, even when they do what they are talking about.

You are the reason ladders have so many stickers on them telling you not to do things that no one in their right mind would ever do...because you would.

You are the reason reality TV exists.

You are the future and I am afraid.

Re:Sustained focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157415)

However, I think we already lost the Cartesian approach to breaking problems into smaller tasks.

Hey professor - you ever think of teaching them how to do this or at least pointing them in the right direction?

Re:Sustained focus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157491)

this is taught....in elementary school. Break down the problem to simpler parts.
I mean, seriously? You can't explain beyond that. Simplify and organize your thoughts. People want the big/ final answer through a simple google search instead of thinking about it.

Everyone should have the IBM slogan above their desks:

THINK

Re:Sustained focus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158223)

Strangely, when students are introduced to Algebra many of them don't tend to make the connection to earlier math for some reason. It's a whole new world replacing 1+?=3 with 1+x=3, and being asked to solve for x. That's why Algebra generally needs to be re-taught to students, even though it isn't any different than what they've learned before. It was that way a generation ago at least, and I suspect it was the same in my grandparents' generation.

There's also a huge disconnect between basic math and word problems. If you have one orange and three people, how many more oranges do you need so that everyone has an orange? I can understand how people struggle with something like that, especially when getting into more complex equations, so it really does come down to how well the situation is explained.

The bottom line is that if the teacher is finding that their students are struggling with the problems, maybe the teacher needs to try a new tactic to teach them properly instead of relying on tenure to let them get away with bitching and moaning about how stupid the youth of today are while continuing to do things the same way they always have.

Re:Sustained focus (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157789)

However, I think we already lost the Cartesian approach to breaking problems into smaller tasks. If you give them a rather simple but big problem, very few students are able the break it down and solve each part. Most will just try a global solution for a few minutes, then try the internet for a global solution, and finally get bored and say it's too complicated.

Has top-down thinking ever come naturally to most people? I'm not sure, but I suspect that it's a learned skill.

Re:Sustained focus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157965)

"I think we have already lost the Cartesian approach" -- that kind of talking is what made me sleep during lectures. Why not just say, people have problems breaking problems into smaller tasks? Why involve some french philosopher?

Re:Sustained focus (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158317)

He did both. Are you saying this is too much information for you to process?

Re:Sustained focus (1)

hackula (2596247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158645)

He's gotta use that Phd for something!

Re:Sustained focus (1)

hackula (2596247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158631)

Which subject? I studied Philosophy, Poli Sci, and CS and graduated just a few years ago. Pretty much every class was fully engaged throughout my entire college experience in those subjects. Especially for Philosophy, engaging with what the professor is saying kind of the entire point. CS is not quite as engaging (a bit more lecture, a bit less discussion), but I would not think that someone who lacked this skill would even be capable of doing software development (and obviously most are upon graduation to some degree or another).

Hey, brats (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157035)

This isn't a movie. These are real human beings performing in front of you, for you. Have some decency and be there instead of connecting to someone somewhere else. And GTF off my lawn!

Heaven help us when they start to drive. (1)

locofungus (179280) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157075)

So these young people of today are unable to maintain concentration for the usually under an hour of a typical classical concert either side of the interval?

What is going to happen when they have to drive more than a couple of miles and will have to maintain concentration on a boring road with little excitement to recommend it.

It is true that if you are even a little adventurous in your classical music going then you are going to have times where the music totally fails to engage you and the mind wanders. Fortunately, your and other peoples lives do not depend on you concentrating and all that is expected of you is to sit still.

Tim.
BBC Proms goer standing through 40+ classical concerts over 8 weeks each year.

Re:Heaven help us when they start to drive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157323)

What is going to happen? They're going to have their lunch eaten by kids whose parents aren't so short-sighted as to protect their little cupcake from hard work and thinking and stuff. In my city, this means mostly immigrants: Russians, Indians, Chinese, some others. Go to a classical concert here, the audience is 40% older people, and 60% 15-30 year-olds from those groups, and their parents didn't make 'em go. They enjoy it.

Half my family is music teachers, and they enjoy teaching kids from those groups . They listen, work hard, are polite, creative and know how to have fun (which is super important). Why? Because they don't expect mommy and daddy to entertain them, and they are self-motivated. And don't tell me about the "learn-by-rote" stereotype - the parents that are coming over here are well aware that's suboptimal, avoiding that learning style is one of the reasons they came over here.

The ability to focus on learning an art (in this case music, but there are many possibilities) has obvious advantages, you shouldn't need to explain it to anyone. But again: it makes you a better engineer, doctor, lawyer, writer, whatever.

From skill in an art comes appreciation for nuance and high-calibre performances. In other words, enjoyment, which = audiences.

Re:Heaven help us when they start to drive. (1)

hackula (2596247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158685)

Most have no problem watching 9 hours straight of Battlestar Galactica. I think this has more to do with the subject of focus rather than ability to focus. I enjoy classical music and go see it fairly frequently, but put me in a club with a rap concert and I will be asleep in 5 minutes flat. It is just a matter of taste.

sustained focus (1)

l3v1 (787564) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157163)

"Is sustained focus even possible in mass audiences anymore? If not, what have we lost?"

Of course it is possible. It requires only one thing: quality performance. If you pick the wrong topic, and you combine it with awful realization, all you get is a couldn't-care-less audience. A lot of people say that it's because today's audience is inferior in many ways, but I don't agree with that. If you create a really good performance, people will like it. And that doesn't mean that you have to make something shocking, disruptive or gory, and it doesn't have to always be interactive either. Also, I'd like to add, that I'm not an "older patron", but if I'd see someone playing with their phones during a performance, I'd just like to smack'em hard. It's not like someone forces you to sit through something you don't like. And even if you don't like it, that's no reason to worsen others' experience.

One more thing: "The core audiences of the theater, opera, and symphonyâ"older, white, well-to-do elites [...]" - Really? I mean... really?! This seems crazy to such an extent I can't even easily wrap my head around it. Holy crap. You people should really visit Europe more. I'm serious. I've been to a number of theatres and concerts (meaning jazz, classical, and similar, not big summer festivals) in some european countries, and sometimes even I'm surprised by the percentage of younger (i.e. approx. 16-30) attendees.

"More and more Americans, for instance, hail from cultures in which art tends to be participatory [...] rather than something to passively observe." - I have to say, I've never felt "passive" during a couple-of-hours long concert. If you do, either the performance is junk (it happens, unfortunately), or you really should find something that you like and stop torturing yourself.

Wagner or Debussy? (1)

nightcats (1114677) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157187)

Well, are we listening to the complete Der God-Damn-Her-Dung (I'd be tweeting my ass off) or La Mer? All seriousness aside, however: in defense of those darn kids, most of the music heard at such events was made before there was recording. Lots of repetition. Certain performers have tried to deal with that by editing out (or down) thematic repetition. Yet that, too, is considered blasphemy in most quarters: how dare you not play every single note that Mozart or Beethoven wrote?

But what probably matters more than that is quality. Once upon a time in America, about 75 years ago, Rachmaninoff, Stravinsky, and Bartok lived in the same hood, within blocks of one another, in L.A. Toscanini, Stokowski, Horowitz, Rubinstein, Bernstein, all lived in this country and gave life to our culture. Walt Disney made a famous film with great music; our American Mozart, Gershwin, was an icon. Now, orchestras can't pay their musicians and a once-great culture is draining or drifting out of our cities. What rotted first, the chicken or the egg? Did we abandon quality or did it leave us? And, leaving America alone and taking a broader view: where are the new great composers? Since Shostakovich died (1975), has there been a significant symphonic composer? Can you name one?

Re:Wagner or Debussy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157231)

Paert. I'd make a case for John Williams. Arguably Howard Hanson. Some others. You know, the guys who are sneered at by critics and "real" composers.

Re:Wagner or Debussy? (1)

In hydraulis (1318473) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157777)

Alfred Schnittke.

Re:Wagner or Debussy? (1)

jonwil (467024) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158287)

+1 for John Williams, he is an amazing composer and conductor.
If there is a news bulletin anywhere in the world with a more awesome theme than NBC, I have yet to hear it :)

Tweeting isn't about measuring attention spans. (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157211)

But who really is more engaged: A live-tweeting audience member, or someone staring silently at the stage?

The person staring at the stage is more "engaged" as far as the production itself. When you get immersed into media the point is to forget where you really are and the distractions that come with it (like your smartphone). Hence, someone who stops to tweet about a performance by definition has to break some of their focus on the stage to do the tweeting, and if they were that tuned into the event they would forget to do it.

Remember when you went to the movies and something really fantastic or unexpected happened in the film? Remember how fucking dead quiet it got in there (when the movie itself wasn't playing any music)? No babies crying, nobody getting up to go to the bathroom/concession stand, half the audience forgetting they have popcorn in their hand? That is what they call "riveted to their seats" engagement. And nobody is tweeting or doing anything because they don't want to take their eyes off the screen or miss any dialog from crunching popcorn.

The controversy raises a number of questions that are hard to answer: Is sustained focus even possible in mass audiences anymore? If not, what have we lost?

I don't think any of this is really about focus or engagement. It's about money. Or to be more precise, marketing. Advertising loves social media, and viral marketing especially. It's not enough you come to the movie/concert/performance and paid admission. If you're not using social media to talk about -- and by extension advertise -- the event you're not giving enough back to the makers for the entertainment they gave you they feel now. These theater groups, symphonies, etc are all dealing with the same thing: an aging audience. They need fresh blood, and not just fresh blood but fresh blood that will get the word out. In today's world social media is the hottest thing in advertising, so they want tweeters in their performances.

Teenagers will always be impatient (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157219)

I was, and when I got older, it got easier for me to relax and take it slower (I'm 30 so I'm not that old, just recently grown up). It's all about getting into the right mood. I don't see why they should make some radical changes to appeal to the young. Come on, sure we have Twitterz and all kinds of silly entertainment, but we're still people. Technology is just a detail. People still think fireworks are cool and they still make babies and want a safe neighborhood despite playing war games in their spare time.

Are we really that afraid of the younger generation being alien to us? And why is everybody trying to be "cool"? The kids look up to you, it's not the other way. And if they think you're stupid, they either change as they grow or make sure they don't become like you. What value does it have trying to appease them by being someone you're not?

NO young person EVER used Twitterr! EVER! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157229)

Twitter is only and EXCLUSIVELY used by men in their mid-life crisis and PR companies posing for famous but loser people. All of which want to be "cool" and "hip" and "in with the youth of today", but don't know *shit* about the youth. Like the fact that *all* young people think Twitter is extremely uncool and lame and awkward. Partially because it's populated by the aforementioned losers. Like your awkward dad at your party when you were young.

Obvious tweet (2)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157235)

Beethoven got dat fully sik bass. #yolo

Re:Obvious tweet (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157781)

Movement's coming out.

Re:Obvious tweet (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157813)

Tchaikovsky used cannons in his percussion section. Beat that, Beethoven.

Re:Obvious tweet (1)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158277)

@Tchaikovsky dont even know what the drop is. #yomommasofat

Re:Obvious tweet (1)

RDW (41497) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158299)

Tchaikovsky used cannons in his percussion section. Beat that, Beethoven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellington's_Victory [wikipedia.org]

'It has had somewhat of a renaissance in recent years as it forms the centrepiece of the Battle Proms Concerts that take place at stately homes around the UK. This is the only concert series known to play the piece with the full complement of 193 live cannon: modern technology has allowed it to be played using electronic firing devices, operated by the orchestra percussionist.'

'Beethoven had no illusions about its merits, and responded to similar criticism in his own time: "What I shit (scheisse) is better than anything you could ever think up!"' [a response that wouldn't be out of place on Twitter].

He originally scored it for a giant robot ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panharmonicon [wikipedia.org] ), but they couldn't build one big enough at the time.

Plato had the same complaint 2300 years ago... (2)

fantomas (94850) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157259)

2300 years ago Plato was complaining that the invention of writing [wikipedia.org] had affected memory and attention span.

The complaint that things aren't as good as they used to be, and the young don't have the wisdom of the old, is not a new phenomenon.

Re:Plato had the same complaint 2300 years ago... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157805)

2300 years ago Plato was complaining that the invention of writing [wikipedia.org] had affected memory and attention span.

The complaint that things aren't as good as they used to be, and the young don't have the wisdom of the old, is not a new phenomenon.

IIRC we find that sentiment stated on clay tablets from long before Plato.

sustained focus ?? (1)

manquer (1950350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157269)

The assumption that sustained focus in mass audience was possible in earlier age is just fanciful, ppl did and will always find things to distract attention from the subject. If the subject is not good enough to capture the attention of the audience the minds are going to wander no matter what

Re: sustained focus ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158097)

Exactly! After all, when did the image of the husband dragged out to the theater by his wife and promptly falling asleep ever go out of style?

What now? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157273)

'Not surprisingly, many performers and older patrons of the arts hate this idea, which they regard as pandering to the young.

Well, the alternative is you can remain a venue for only the old, in which case your art form will die with the Baby Boomers.

You think that's preferable, right?

Is that a trick question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157301)

Do you tweet during sex? Why not?

Change the content, not the format (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43157367)

Symphonies and Opera are pretty much the pre-electronic definition of the total multi-media experience. A big orchestra in a big hall with great sound can be mind blowing even for the drippiest online-phone addicted loser. The issue is that so many of these concert halls are still playing the same pop-classic stuff for the last 100 years. Play something by a composer who's not dead! Change the arrangement a little. Update your design and posters to be more modern and provocative. Just add one or two electronic instruments! This tweet stuff misses the point entirely. You already have a really compelling format for media saturated people, you just need to find stories, sounds and a communications style that younger people can get excited about.

No, Because coding requires concentration (2)

cruachan (113813) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157387)

It could be true that your average Jock is progressively loosing the ability for sustained concentration (did they ever have it, really?) but I see no shortage of talented young coders writing complex code. You can't do that if you can't do sustained concentration.

Maybe we're going to end up with more of an intellectual elite again compared to the masses - which would not be desirable of course, but I don't think we're going to loose that ability from the population, per se

Nodame (2)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157425)

There is more than one way to attract young people. Twitter and Facebook are unlikely since you're already telling people about something they already know but aren't particularly interested in. Youtube might work, but I doubt watching a video clip will attract most people. And then there's this: educating people while entertaining them. I learned more about appreciating classical music from this than I did my entire schooling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodame_Cantabile [wikipedia.org] http://www.youtube.com/show/nodamecantabile [youtube.com]

It's about respect. (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157497)

Like waiting for the music to end when you applaud. As a (amateur) musician, the greatest disrespect you can give me is when you applaud directly after a solo. And yes, I know it is not meant disrespectfully. But please think of the musicians.

Re:It's about respect. (1)

Legion303 (97901) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158091)

"the greatest disrespect you can give me is when you applaud directly after a solo."

Huh. I see you've never played in a rowdy bar.

The point is largely missed (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157685)

TFA:

arts organizations who are scrambling to make their productions more interactive

That's all swell and spiffy, but consider that popular culture has been given a general dumbing-down, for decades.
You can blame a lot of people, e.g. Godless Commies, and the Semi-Conscious Liberation Army, the Tri-Labial Commission, and so forth, but the bottom line is with the individual. We all have to spend time finding useful bits of culture, and preserve them.
By the time my little guy is a teen, we'll go enjoy that symphony. I myself have been mostly a slacker in this regard, but the occasion of being a father and understanding the importance of passing the torch to the next generation cannot be understated.
It's about our Precious Bodily Fluids.

Turn off the bright screens! (1)

gravis777 (123605) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157841)

I don't think the question should be whether a tweeting teen is focused, but how much their tweeting is distracting others. Even in a performance hall (as opposed to a movie theater) the light from a cell phone or tablett can be extreamly distracting. If I was in a performance hall that allowed tweeting, I would probably look for another performance hall (I just happen to be in an area where there are several I can choose from). Yeah, I may be attached at the hip to my phone, but I know when to turn the thing off!

On top of that, many performances and arrangements are copyrighted (despite the fact that the source material is public domain). AFAIK, any mobil device that can tweet is also a recording device. Any hall I have been in in the past couple of years, if you pull out your phone at all in the hall, either before, after or during the performance, you are first given a warning, then asked to leave, as you could be using it to capture the performance. Now, I guess all I have to say is "I'm tweeting" and I can bootleg an entire performance.

No, I don't like this at all. Have enough respect for other patrons and turn your mobil devices OFF (not just to silent or vibrate) when you go to a theater or performance hall. If you are on call or something that night or that week for your job, don't buy tickets for that night, or get someone to cover for you.

It starts a bad precidence. Soon, people will be tweeting in broadway shows, then in movies. We need to stop this, not encourage it!

Re:Turn off the bright screens! (1)

gravis777 (123605) | about a year and a half ago | (#43157849)

Whoops, forgot to close my italics tag!

Hockey games (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158031)

While at our regional team's hockey games I regularly observe around 1/3rd of the audience on their various smartphones. This isn't just during intermissions or even slow parts of the games, but during fights, people smashing into the boards in front of them, etc. I think they look up when the crowd goes mad for a goal; I think.

I don't understand as these tickets aren't exactly cheap but unless these people are somehow interacting with the game (say voting on who goes on the ice next or if the last call was a good one) then I would be willing to bet that these people are going to wake up one day and say, "For this year the budget says Season's tickets are out and awesome data plan is in."

Next time I go I plan on bringing binoculars, not to watch the game, but to peek over people's shoulders to see what fascinates them so.

What have we lost? (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158193)

Nice things.

TWEETS ARE FOR TWITS (1)

lxrslh (652069) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158251)

Tweeter mostly appeals to those losers who have been raised up by over-indulgent boomers and taught that their every thought and action was valuable and meaningful and MUST be shared with the world at large. I hate when TV shows think its cool/trendy to post tweets of viewers in real time, 99.5% of which are moronic and distract from the viewing experience for everyone else. However, I grant that it can be useful to broadcast breaking news of importance to citizens, not including tweets from entertainers and politicians.

Torrent (2)

cgfsd (1238866) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158253)

Why would kids go to a concert when they can just wait for the torrent to download? If they are too cheap to spend $.99 for a song, why do you think they would shell out $25+ for a Symphony ticket?

Mod parent up. Cost is the issue. (1)

Kludge (13653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158415)

Old people wondering why young people are not going to live performances anymore? It's called cost. Price of tickets has been going up and up, and young people's incomes have been going down and down. A live performance is too damn expensive for young people anymore. I'm middle aged and I seldom go to concerts because they cost so much.

Sustained Focus (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158341)

Of course sustained focus is *checks incoming e-mail message... nah, just spam* possible all you need to do *need to remind myself to update my to do list... ah, I'll just do it now... ok, done* is cut back on distractions and *wonder if there are synonyms for distraction.... looks them up on Thesuarus.com... ooh, "divertissement" is nice... nah, I'll stick with distraction. Speaking of sticking, I wonder when the next episode of Spider-Man is coming on and what it will be about. Maybe I should check Wikipedia.*

(5 hours later)

What was I posting about again?

Plant the seed early. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158461)

The only way to get the "younger generation" to go is to take them slightly against their will a la family outing, school field trip, dating guilt trip, etc. Most of them will not "get it" in the short term, and those looking at the short term will think they've failed. But try again and avoid making the experience itself horrible to get there.
In a few years you'll see if your investment paid off or not... or it might take 10 years , but once the teen need to be "cool" settles down they're a lot more reasonable and open to these sort of things. One of their peers will ask them if they've ever been to the Symphony, and they'll remember when you took them and they will have the familiarity enough to not be afraid to branch out socially themselves.

They might even dress up, and not wear their sneakers.

the symphony does not require 100% attention (1)

anjrober (150253) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158481)

I don't see how tweeting about the symphony while watching the symphony is a bad thing. you are reflecting on/discussing what is going on around you.
how many people here have regularly attending the symphony? My wife went to IU music, played in symphonies for years, and we have been BSO season ticket holders for years so i speak with some knowledge here.
The symphony does not require full attention.
why do they give you the huge program full of info on the works, the performers, the hall, etc? to give you something to do. check out how many people are flipping thru it during the performance.
we usually zoom out immediately at intermission to grab a few drinks (clearly not a help to sustained attention), after having a few before the show as well.
i can easily listen to a work and pound out a few emails/tweets if i wanted to.
that said, i'm not a fan of many of the contemporary works (legend of zelda, etc). sorry, just not my thing. imho. if it brings others though, no nuts.

Patronage is how symphonies survive, not audience (4, Interesting)

rocket rancher (447670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158583)

I think Jacobs doesn't understand the economics of the performing arts. The performing arts are largely a legacy of the feudal systems of the Middle Ages. Symphonies, like theater troupes and opera companies, depend on patronage to survive, not the box office. Ticket prices for a given performance are set high enough to keep the riff-raff out, with the gap between the production costs and the box office being closed by wealthy patrons. For a symphony to survive, they would be better served to figure out how to keep and increase their patronage, not their audience. Wealthy people aren't always motivated by the lure of profit (they are already wealthy, after all) but being recognized by their wealthy peers as a patron of the arts does have value. That is what symphonies should try to exploit, the enhanced social standing that those performances provide to their wealthy patrons. I guess a case could be made for attracting the children of their wealthy patrons, but that is decidedly not the same case as attracting the children of the riff-raff that are already structurally excluded on purpose.

Exposure to Clssical Music (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43158671)

I recall as a middle school student having a music class as part of the curriculum. In this class we explored many different instruments, singing and even had one day each week devoted to listening to different music genres. This was my first exposure to classical music, and specifically Mozart. It was from this early introduction that I had classical music in my mind as an enjoyable form of art and later in life have come to enjoy it even more. I wonder how many more young people could discover their own appreciation of classical composers and symphonies if they were simply exposed to the music?

As long as they do so SILENTLY sure (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year and a half ago | (#43158803)

I would be in favor of the ushers having stunguns to take care of anybody making noise (loud enough to be heard outside of a 1/2 meter circle).

But yes i would say that having some more "modern" stuff and stuff that Rocks would help things.

A Challenge to The Beiber (or whoever the current TweenStar is) have a performance where you are backed up by The New York Philharmonic (or any series of Named Orchestras). Bonus points if you sing Live and UnTuned.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>