Some people say that going to a Western art music concert is a passive experience. Would you say this is true? (Your focus should be on concerts of art music, though you may draw conclusions to concerts of popular and/or world musics.) In a 250-300 word post, state your position and explain why you do or do not believe the statement to be true. Your 50-75 word responses to two of your groupmates should offer insight into the original post to expand upon one or more points, whether you are supporting or questioning them.
Answer:
True but...
Explanation:
To start with I object to the term Art music; This supposes a clear distinction between some sort of ´intellectualy aproved¨ music and popular music for simple folk. This division is arbitrary, because what yesterday was still considered a form of popular music, today might be seen as pure art music.
But let´s say that art music is music to listen to, not for dancing. Here again we enter in conflict because I know a lot of good dance music that you can consciously listen to, while you´re dancing or having a cup of tea. By the way, Jazz music, which has been overwhelmingly embraced by the intelectual academic world, started with the dance-band orchestras of the twenties.
Anyway, the keywords here are listening and dancing. Because listening is passive and dancing is active. So if we take classical European music I would say it is a passive experience; the same for Indian classical music, although the experience is much more ¨emotional, due to the Oriental filosophy that speaks to you through the music.
While we are at the topic of World Music, concerts of African and Latin American music (with its African roots) tend to be more active.
One more thing: I personally prefer small groups in small places because the passive listening experience easily evolves in something more... participative, due to the more personal atmosphere where you actually can interact with the musicians.
For more (inside) information on jazz music: get a copy of Gene Lees Cats of any color