Top | Newest First | Oldest First
chilloutab2 · 46-50, M
I'll take both. But if I have to choose, I love music more than visual art... so it'll have to be a Symphony Orchestra.
shakemeup · 36-40
I enjoy both. So for me, it would depend greatly on the exhibits in the Art museum vs what they Symphony Orchestra is going to play. Some things I would pass up for the other.
exexec · 61-69, C
Orchestra. Music taps directly into my soul. Music moves me in ways that no other art form can. I am not a musician, but I listen to symphonic presentations often.
Sapio · 51-55, M
Symphony Orchestra, they might play Beethoven for me. He's my favorite when it comes to classical music.
SW-User
An Art museum. You can revisit it. Look at at work from different angles, depending on your mood or age.
A symphony orchestra plays one off known pieces. Often they don’t even follow the conductor. Gone in a minute. And not cheap too.
A symphony orchestra plays one off known pieces. Often they don’t even follow the conductor. Gone in a minute. And not cheap too.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SW-User Oh dear! That sounds as if you're not well served by music in your area!
A minute? Even a film theme lasts longer than that! Symphonies and concerti are typically anything from about twenty to forty minutes long. The actual time of a performance is not set though, so one might take 25, the next 28, minutes for the same piece.
Not following the conductor? Playing "one-off known pieces? That doesn't sound like a good orchestra with a good conductor, skilled lead players, wide repertoire and willingness to showcase the new or unfamiliar along with the familiar. Even of the well-tried and tested works there are many tens if not some hundreds to choose from. A good programme might have one of the Classical, Romantic or Modern "blockbusters" but support it with something less-known by the same composer or in similar genre.
Expensive?
What isn't these days?
Most of the larger live events are expensive - I think the much-over-promoted Taylor Swift's tour tickets in the UK were up to £100... I wonder what morsel of that £100 she is paid; but as I don't know her music beyond one or two random quotes, I can't say if she represents good value for money! Especially if I heard one reviewer correctly, that she sings (or mimes?) to a recorded backing, not a live band.
One of the causes for high prices is the practice of using booking-agencies, because even if they manage to prevent the ticket-touts they still add their own fees to the {artiste + venue} hire.
Glastonbury Festival: over £300 for its 4 or 5 days - at least it had good weather this year.
I enjoyed a performance last year of Puccini's Madame Butterfly, by the Ukrainian National Opera on a UK tour. It cost only £35 as I recall - not much different ticket price from The Searchers in the same venue a month or so previously.
.
I must admit though I rarely go to live performances, not so much due to the ticket price (it's an occasional treat and better than an equivalent cost of several weekends in the pub at >£4 a pint) as the travelling to and from the venues. I obtain most of my music from the radio, and with a repertoire that spans the last 500 years to music being written now...
A minute? Even a film theme lasts longer than that! Symphonies and concerti are typically anything from about twenty to forty minutes long. The actual time of a performance is not set though, so one might take 25, the next 28, minutes for the same piece.
Not following the conductor? Playing "one-off known pieces? That doesn't sound like a good orchestra with a good conductor, skilled lead players, wide repertoire and willingness to showcase the new or unfamiliar along with the familiar. Even of the well-tried and tested works there are many tens if not some hundreds to choose from. A good programme might have one of the Classical, Romantic or Modern "blockbusters" but support it with something less-known by the same composer or in similar genre.
Expensive?
What isn't these days?
Most of the larger live events are expensive - I think the much-over-promoted Taylor Swift's tour tickets in the UK were up to £100... I wonder what morsel of that £100 she is paid; but as I don't know her music beyond one or two random quotes, I can't say if she represents good value for money! Especially if I heard one reviewer correctly, that she sings (or mimes?) to a recorded backing, not a live band.
One of the causes for high prices is the practice of using booking-agencies, because even if they manage to prevent the ticket-touts they still add their own fees to the {artiste + venue} hire.
Glastonbury Festival: over £300 for its 4 or 5 days - at least it had good weather this year.
I enjoyed a performance last year of Puccini's Madame Butterfly, by the Ukrainian National Opera on a UK tour. It cost only £35 as I recall - not much different ticket price from The Searchers in the same venue a month or so previously.
.
I must admit though I rarely go to live performances, not so much due to the ticket price (it's an occasional treat and better than an equivalent cost of several weekends in the pub at >£4 a pint) as the travelling to and from the venues. I obtain most of my music from the radio, and with a repertoire that spans the last 500 years to music being written now...
SW-User
@ArishMell My experience of the London Philharmonic and the BBC.
But if the question was rephrased to the more intimate, solo recitals, duets, or string quintets etc my answer would be very different. I’ve heard some brilliant performances, which I have recorded on my posts:
But if the question was rephrased to the more intimate, solo recitals, duets, or string quintets etc my answer would be very different. I’ve heard some brilliant performances, which I have recorded on my posts:
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SW-User I see. Thankyou.
I recall once attending a lecture in a side room in a museum. A chamber recital was about to start in the adjoining main hall, and we were asked not applaud as it would probably be part-way through the music.
"Huh!", we muttered, "No mention of the music disturbing the talk!"
One wag in our audience suggested we wave instead of clap. So we did!
I recall once attending a lecture in a side room in a museum. A chamber recital was about to start in the adjoining main hall, and we were asked not applaud as it would probably be part-way through the music.
"Huh!", we muttered, "No mention of the music disturbing the talk!"
One wag in our audience suggested we wave instead of clap. So we did!
Richard65 · M
Art museum. Art holds endless fascination for me and I'm able to read it. I love classical music, but I don't know enough about it to fully appreciate its intricacies beyond the actual aural stimulation it offers me. The aural stimulation is important, but I like to fully understand something I'm seeing or hearing.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
The orchestra, because I appreciate "living" music more than static art. I appreciate and admire the skill in the latter but it does not hold my interest as much as music.
Rambler · 61-69, M
Probably the art museum, just because I enjoy wandering around and seeing what can be found. But the orchestra would be very enjoyable too.
Either is pretty good, but I think a museum would win out. Not stuck in a seat trying to be quiet and still with many others.
Ontheroad · M
Art museum for sure. I like good music, but usually, it's a repeat of something I've heard before.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
OverTheHill · 56-60, M
The Symphony Orchestra. I am moved more by stirring musical performances than a works of art.
GBPackersFan · 41-45, M
If forced to go to one… the art museum the symphony would bore me to tears 😭
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
That is a very difficult choice! What is the orchestra playing, which museum?
anoderod55 · 61-69, M
Like both , but orchestra is better ❤️🎶🌹
Lilymoon · F
Art museum any day
rachelsj · 22-25, F
Classic art
GuyWithOpinions · 31-35, M
Museum
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment