Different types of online concerts may call for different methods of realisation, which may call for different methods of audience participation
The choice of the methods used for the audience participation will then depend on whether the participatory proposal focuses on the process or on the outcome.
These are concepts distinguished by Astrid Breel,[1] where the author traces a distinction between performances with a participatory process and performances with participatory outcomes:
- Participatory process proposals 'involve the participants in the creation of the work’.
- In proposals with participation in the outcome, the work is previously designed by the artist and the audience is involved in the realisation of the work.
The methods will also depend on the type of online concert, and on the target audience.
Some types of online concerts include:
- live-streamed concerts with in-situ audience,
- live-streamed concerts without in-situ audience,
- pre-recorded concerts with a scheduled premiere,
- pre-recorded concerts to be watched ‘on demand’,
- online concerts with live interactions,
- online concerts without live interactions, and so on.
Case study 1: music as an invitation (year 1: 2023-2024)
In the music as an invitation project, the first phase of the project had a participatory process proposal. While the general aim of the project was to create a collaborative online concert, the vision was to allow a space for the participants to feel free and to bring their own lived experiences and desires to the creative process. The chosen methodology, then, was Participatory Action Research, a methodology 'based on the principles of inclusion, valuing all voices and action-oriented interventions’.[2]
In this first phase of the project, the participants, by themselves, took on all the decisions regarding the creative process and elements. They decided not to have a set theme for the concert, but instead to explore freely within the creative strategies that they decided on at each workshop. The online concert was then a consequence of this exploratory process.
Case study 2: Hecate writes
The second phase of the music as an invitation project asked for a different approach. After the first few workshops of this phase, it became apparent that the free proposal did not suit this group of participants, and that a methodology with more top-down direction was needed instead.
At this point the proposal assumed a participatory outcome characteristic: there was the goal to create material that would integrate into the piece of music designed by the commissioned composer. In order to create that material to integrate the piece of music, the participants had to realise specific tasks, following a set of instructions designed by the composer.
When it came to the concert where Hecate writes was premiered - rsvp: piano, toy piano, electronics, and actions - the methods for audience participation followed the instructions of the participatory pieces featured in the programme. Evidently, those participatory actions were to interfere or shape the performance of these pieces when performed by the in-situ audience. However, as an attitude of inclusion, the remote audience was also invited to perform the actions from wherever they were, which may have made an impact on their experiences as well.
Bonus case-study: A festa da Clara
In both phases of music as an invitation, the online audience was engaged prior to the performance, either by creating the online concert or by creating material for a new piece of music to be performed in the concert.
Another possibility is for the remote audience to participate in the live concert in real time. A very common strategy of participation is the interaction via live chat and reactions in channels such as YouTube and Instagram. Although these kinds of interactions are more commonly used to allow the remote audience to express their reactions, it can also be interesting to explore strategies where they can indeed interfere and help shape the work.
For example, in the concert A festa da Clara, the audience participated by individually curating their programmes by exploring the resource of breakout rooms in the platform Zoom.
The audience entered the main session of the meeting, and from there they could choose to enter any of the four breakout rooms that were available simultaneously. In each breakout room there was a pre-recorded video of a theatre and piano performance, which was being played on a loop. Each audience member could then stay as long as they wanted in each room. They could return to the main session, and follow up to any other room (or go back to the room they were in before), according to their own wishes. There was one artist in charge of each breakout room in order to start playing the video, manage any unforeseen troubles with the loop reproduction, and close the breakout room at the designated time. At a designated time, all the breakout rooms were closed, and there was a Q&A session in the main room with all the artists (four pianists and two actors) and audience members.
Although the audience interaction in A festa da Clara did not change the content in itself, it did change how it was realised in the experience of each spectator. No two people experienced the pieces in the same order, nor at the same length. Therefore, instead of having one programme for this concert, there were several ‘programmes’, which were individually curated by each audience member and simultaneously experienced.