Projecting The Voice: Observations of Audience Behaviours in ICT-mediated Contemporary Opera

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/265389988
Projecting the voice: Observations of audience behaviours in ICT-mediated

contemporary opera
Article in New Review in Hypermedia and Multimedia · July 2014

DOI: 10.1080/13614568.2014.889224
CITATIONS READS
6 200
2 authors, including:
Yuwei Lin
University of Roehampton
66 PUBLICATIONS 741 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
After Surveillance View project
BBC Backstage View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Yuwei Lin on 28 April 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Yuwei Lin]
On: 15 August 2014, At: 04:45
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
New Review of Hypermedia and

Multimedia
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tham20
Projecting the voice: observations of

audience behaviours in ICT-mediated
contemporary opera
a b
Yu-Wei Lin & Alan E. Williams
a
School of Film and Media, University for the Creative Arts,
Farnham, UK
b
School of Arts and Media, University of Salford, Salford, UK
Published online: 12 Aug 2014.
To cite this article: Yu-Wei Lin & Alan E. Williams (2014): Projecting the voice: observations
of audience behaviours in ICT-mediated contemporary opera, New Review of Hypermedia and
Multimedia, DOI: 10.1080/13614568.2014.889224
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2014.889224
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Yuwei Lin] at 04:45 15 August 2014
New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2014.889224
Projecting the voice: observations of

audience behaviours in ICT-mediated
contemporary opera
YU-WEI LIN†* and ALAN E. WILLIAMS‡
†
School of Film and Media, University for the Creative Arts, Farnham, UK
‡
School of Arts and Media, University of Salford, Salford, UK
(Received 21 May 2013; final version received 27 January 2014)
This paper examines how audiences experience live opera performance and the behaviours
they exhibit during live-streaming of the performance. It aims to contribute to our
understanding of how audiences, who increasingly inhabit an environment saturated with
digital media, respond to contemporary opera performance. Based on a comparative study of
audience experiences and behaviours during a live opera performance and the streamed opera
screening, we investigate whether digital mediation affects audience appreciation, and
whether streaming live opera means the same thing to an audience as the unmediated
performance. We firstly outline the conception, design and performance of a contemporary
opera and its simultaneous streaming to nearby digital screens. Then, we report the evaluation
of the project as measured by a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods during the
rehearsals, the live performance and the screening. As one of the few social studies of
contemporary classical music in Britain, our study of opera audience behaviours sheds light
on the challenges and opportunities afforded by digital technologies for opera companies.
Understanding how audiences appreciate digital operas offers practical advice on how theatres
and opera companies could respond to new forms of digital activities.
Keywords: Digital performance; Technological mediation; Immersive theatre; Streaming;

Opera; Audience research; Audience development; live screens; MediaCityUK
Introduction
In opera, existing research on audiences focuses on capturing the reception of
conventional operas staged in an enclosed theatre. However, increasingly we see
opera and theatre being staged in mixed reality or virtual reality environments, or
distributed outside single-site venues. For example, National Theatre Live, the
National Theatre’s groundbreaking project, broadcasts theatre live from the
London stage to cinemas across the UK and around the world. Since 2012,
live-streaming, or, in some cases, “streaming as live” has gained traction in theatre
and opera, with its obvious benefits of increasing access beyond metropolitan
centres. The Metropolitan Opera of New York began commercial live streaming
*Corresponding author. Email: ylin21@ucreative.ac.uk

© 2014 Taylor & Francis
2 Y.-W. Lin and A. E. Williams
to cinemas in 2006, and was reported in 2012 to have an operating profit of “up to
$11 million” from this exercise (Trueman 2012). In the UK, Glyndebourne, Royal
Opera House and English National Opera (ENO) have all live-screened to
cinemas, even when this seems to run counter to some more technologically
conservative views of the managerial teams—for example, in May 2012, the
artistic director of ENO claimed live streaming to cinemas did nothing to increase
opera audiences. Yet, less than two years later, ENO, under the same Director, are
screening Britten’s Peter Grimes to cinemas across the UK (23 February 2014). It
seems the argument has been won by technology before any empirical research in
the field has been published. Immersive theatres and creative use of digital
technologies for performance are gaining momentum, partly because of the
industry’s aspirations to develop innovative ways of interacting with audiences,
and to both increase and diversify those audiences. In simple terms, publicly
funded arts organisations may use the greater reach of live-streaming to expand
their audience beyond the physical capacity of the theatre. However, these
technology-driven solutions beg questions about how the development of digital

technologies that allow operas to be screened in distributed environments or to be
staged in virtual environments change or transform audience experiences.
The context of this increasing number of digitally augmented performances and
screenings of opera and theatre seems to be driven by a perceived decline in
attendance in traditional performance modes (cf. Department of Culture, Media
and Sport 2006, 2012, Sloboda and Ford 2012). Evidence for this perception is
inconclusive, but has motivated the commissioning of a small number of studies
to understand the perceived decline, and to provide recommendations for ways of
addressing it. For example, in Edinburgh, Scottish Opera (SO) commissioned The
Audience Business to conduct research into the reasons behind this decline, and to
delineate marketing recommendations for the coming seasons.1 The Sunderland
Empire Theatre/Scottish Opera Audience Development Programme, part of a five-
year project, focused on how to increase opera audiences, especially among
young people aged 15–30 (Cashman and Page 2001). These reports pre-date the
technological innovations which are enabling digital streaming of opera. Could
digitally mediated opera performances attract more contemporary audiences given
this pervasiveness of digital culture?
This paper contextualises the perceived decline in attendance within a wider
opera context and a wider digital arts context, in order to establish the broader
preferences and opinions of current opera audiences. Audience development, as
Sigurjonsson (2010) notes, is a theory discourse that offers suggestions about
changes to arts organisations, such as the orchestra concert. To actively engage the
audience, one has to address some underlying aesthetical ideals in relation to
accessibility and comfort (Sigurjonsson 2010, see also Baker 2000). This paper,
based on a pilot study of the audience operatic experiences at the premiere of a
new chamber opera, Stefan and Lotte in Paradise, will set out recommendations
that will help colleagues in music plan their short-, mid- and long-term promotion
in the UK. While we are also interested in understanding what encourages past
and current opera audiences to attend, the main focus of our research is to ask
what kind of experience audiences are getting when they attend a mediated
Projecting the voice 3
streaming of a live theatrical event, and how they behave under these
circumstances. Do audiences find such virtual, or live-streamed, operas equally
immersive? Do audiences respond to viewing digital operas broadcast across
distributed sites in the same way as going to the cinema? How might
contemporary audiences adjust their opera or music consumption behaviours as
a consequence of rapid technological evolution? These questions are crucial for
understanding audiences in a complex media landscape, and for providing the
empirical evidence needed to support the investment in live-streaming technology.
Methodology
The research broadly contributes to understanding the relationship between a
contemporary opera performance enabled by digital technologies and audience.
While one can observe a continuously growing volume of research on audiences
and interactive arts (e.g., Candy and Edmonds 2002, Bilda et al. 2007,
Bialoskorski et al. 2009) and mixed reality arts (Benford and Giannachi 2011),
few has been about digital operatic performance, let alone from a composer’s
perspective. This article employs some sociological concepts and research
methods (including a paper-based quantitative survey questionnaire, unstructured
informal interviews and participatory observation conducted by a composer and a
sociologist) to evaluate audience reception and analyse audience behaviours
during the opera streaming and the live performance. Through the eyes of a
composer and a sociologist, it would be interesting to discover how an audience’s
experiences and behaviours differ when attending operas in different environ-
ments (in all respects: from dress codes, formality of behaviour, through to use of
second screen technology and so on).
The production of a contemporary opera is a complex piece of work of art
itself. The production team usually consists of composers, performers, director,
conductor, instrumental musicians, project manager, stage designer and sound
technicians, as well as stage managers and stage hands, rehearsal pianist
(répétiteur), make-up artist and costumier. All these contributing artists and staff
need to be coordinated, making opera one of the most complex forms of
production in the realm of the arts. Whether or not the audience can appreciate the
art presented by the production team is difficult to measure. As Perricone (1990)
suggests, “[the] aesthetic situation is complex”:
It is not just the artist, his vision and technique; it is not just the work of art, a static museum
piece: form, content and expression; in addition the work of art indicates an attraction, a
charge as it were between creators and appreciators that exist to keep both alive. Perhaps the
work of art metaphorically produces a sort of bonding agent with properties such that the
things it glues together are more dynamic than had they existed alone. What the nature of this
dynamism might be is central to any philosophy of art. (p. 199)
Does live-streaming successfully re-create the ambiance of a live operatic

performance through transmission and mediation, or is something lost in transmis-
sion? In order to address the questions raised above, we take the performance of a
new chamber opera, Stefan and Lotte in Paradise, as a case study. As a newly
commissioned opera receiving its premiere, the event enabled us to study how
audiences receive and engage with a new piece of work. Moreover, as its premiere
took place in a new venue for opera—the University of Salford’s building at
MediaCityUK—it provided the opportunity to study an audience with no history of
attendance at that particular venue. The venue also enabled two simultaneous
performance experiences to take place: one in the relatively traditional setting of the
Digital Performance Laboratory, a black-box theatre space with large projection
facilities; and one streamed and viewed live in an open foyer space via an assembly
of digital screens. The storyline, focusing on the last years in exile of Austrian
Jewish writer Stefan Zweig, explored themes of isolation and migration. By utilising
the facilities at MediaCityUK, we experimented with the efficacy of distributed
performance in communicating a narrative with a potentially strong emotional
impact.
Development process for the opera

The information below about the conception, design and production of the opera
is aimed at providing a better understanding of how this opera serves as a good
case study for understanding the extent to which contemporary audiences
appreciate ICT-mediated opera. It also illuminates how the questionnaire was
designed, what data the researchers were able to collect, and how the methods
were applied to collect data, before, during and after the opera performance.
Commissioned by the University of Salford with co-funding from Arts Council
England, Stefan and Lotte in Paradise was a free one-hour performance,
co-composed by one of the authors of this article, composer Prof. Alan Williams
with Brazilian composer Dr Marcos Lucas, to a libretto (text) by Philip Goulding.
The opera chronicles the last few months of the life of Austrian Jewish writer
Stefan Zweig and his wife Lotte, who both committed suicide in 1942, in despair
at the future of humanity and the apparent success of Axis powers in the war.
At one time, the most translated author in the world, Zweig was forced to leave
Austria in 1934 soon after the rise of Hitler to power in Germany, living in
England and New York before moving to Brazil in 1940. The libretto for Stefan
and Lotte in Paradise deals with the themes of persecution, migration and exile,
while the music includes fragments of Zweig’s collection of scores by Mozart,
Schubert, Brahms and many other composers which are now housed at the British
Library. In its instrumentation (violin, clarinet, cello and cimbálom) it makes a
clear reference to Klezmer, an Eastern European Jewish folk music genre; and it
also explores the sounds of Brazilian music. Instrumental parts were performed by
Psappha, one of the UK’s leading contemporary music ensembles. Seamlessly
integrating memory with live action, digital projection (referred to the background
of the stage, not the streaming session) made the need for substantial set changes
unnecessary; instead, the scene could instantaneously be transformed from a café
in Vienna to a semi-tropical terrace in Brazil, or suggest both simultaneously.
Taking the main roles were baritone Jeremy Huw Williams as Stefan Zweig,
soprano Zoe Milton-Brown (Lotte Zweig), and baritone Richard Strivens, playing
the Zweigs’ friend and fellow émigré Ernst Feder. Mark Babych directed, Gavin
Figure 1. The live opera performance on stage at the Digital Performance Lab (DPL) with
projection in the background.
Wayte conducted the ensemble and Joe Stathers-Tracey created the projected
imagery.
The inclusion of illustrations below should help the reader understand how the
performance incorporated digital artwork into the set design, making the
description of the project much more vivid and compelling.
The University of Salford’s MediaCityUK building served as an ideal venue for
realising the conception of this opera in that it could facilitate digital projection
and streaming. The live action opera took place in front of an audience in the
campus “Digital Performance Laboratory” (DPL), an innovative performance
space with one of Europe’s largest high-resolution projection screens, and
featuring stunning video imagery developed by video artist Joe Stathers-Tracey
(see Figure 1).
At the same time, a second group of guests experienced a live transmission of
the performance relayed to a huge, high resolution video wall in the building’s
“Egg” area—a ground-floor performance space opening onto the foyer area
equipped with a bank of 120 Christie tiles, and a high-quality speaker system.
Surrounding this, the foyer itself is equipped with touch-screen tables connected
to the Internet and to the DPL. Figure 2 shows how the Egg audience was
arranged with respect to the scenes.
The audience was invited to use six stand-alone touch screens “interactive
coffee tables” to explore online content about the libretto and score,2 allowing
them to be part of an immersive theatre experience using digital technology rather
than the immersion of the enclosed theatre space.
Figure 2. The audience sitting in front of ﬁve digital walls of monitors and watching high-resolution
streaming opera performance in an open plan Egg space.
Methods for audience analysis

The production of this opera used multiple forms of delivery to prompt discussion
about the effectiveness of live performance in the same physical space, as
compared with live performance via digital transmission to the big screen. The
audience could be categorised into two groups:
Audience 1: around 100 experienced the opera in the DPL in at the
MediaCityUK. Singers and instrumentalists were live, in the same theatre space,
with imagery projected onto the largest HD screen in Europe. This was the
intense, but largely passive experience of traditional theatre, with mobile phones
switched off, and audience interaction at a minimum.
Audience 2: another group of around 120 experienced the opera via the 120
Christie tile wall in the open Egg space, part of the foyer at the University of
Salford’s MediaCityUK building (see Figure 2). The performance taking place in
the DPL was filmed3, and an editor mixed these camera images live4. Singers and
instrumentalists were live, but relayed from the DPL to the screens and the
speakers in the Egg. In addition to the material on the touch-screen tables in the
foyer, they were invited to engage interactively with the performance via social
media platforms such as Twitter.
The online edited footage has already generated some comments and requests
for the whole opera to be made available; prompting the thought that a third
audience—an online audience, who view the opera through video hosting sites
such as Vimeo could be examined to understand whether announcing the digital
opera to an online audience results in a global reach and targets a more diverse
audience. As yet this plan has not been realised.
To study these two audience groups, a mix of qualitative and quantitative
methods have been employed including participatory observation, on-site event
analysis, unstructured interview and survey questionnaire.
The process began by having a researcher carry out participatory observation at
both technical and musical rehearsals to understand what the producers, director,
composers, conductor, musicians and singers wanted to deliver, and used that
information to devise of measurement tools (survey questionnaires, interview
schedules, evaluation plan) to facilitate the evaluation.
A short paper-based quantitative survey was undertaken with the opera
attendees on 20 September 2012. The very same version of the survey
questionnaire was distributed to two distinct audience groups (one in the closed
DPL theatre space watching live opera performance on stage, and the other in the
open Egg space watching streaming opera performance on screen). To understand
if the viewing experiences at the DPL and at the Egg differed, we made sure that
the questionnaires completed by audiences at two different sites were separated,
grouped and compared. As part of our survey ethics and strategies, respondents
were also advised that they had the freedom to reject, exit or withdraw from the
survey, or refuse to answer some questions.
The questionnaire was designed in the light of existing national surveys that
aim to capture cultural tastes, cultural preferences and classes, including the Great
British Class Survey and DCMS’ The Taking Part Survey. As Hill (2011) suggests
in his work on the development of a research methodology appropriate for the
study of audience reception of electroacoustic audio-visual music, there are three
key topics of data that need to be solicited in the questionnaire: (1) The material
properties of the work (2) The perceived meaning of the work and the audiences’
150 emotional response (3) The audiences’ desire is to see more/keep listening to
similar compositions. Our questionnaire, albeit short, largely follows the same
route. Although Zweig’s work was hugely popular in the USA and South America,
and remains so in continental Europe today, the author is little known in Britain.
The composers, therefore, wished to make Zweig’s life and writing better exposed
to a UK audience. To indicate how well this goal was achieved, one of the
questionnaire questions asked the audience if they had a good understanding of
the storyline after the show, as seen in the survey questionnaire included in
Appendix 1.
The paper-based circulation of the survey also allowed the respondents to freely
inscribe their answers. When responding, some drew, some ticked, some circled
and some critiqued the questions. It is also interesting to see what personal
information was put down, and how it was phrased. For example, the respondents
described their household earnings and age in various different ways: “comfort-
able income”, “middle age”, “old enough to go to many operas, concerts” and so
on. This implicitly demonstrates the creativity (and perhaps also literacy) of the
audience, and suggests that, perhaps computer-mediated survey questions
constrain respondents from being creative and provide less authentic, spontaneous
and impromptu answers. Perhaps, while this approach may be less acute and
precise (for example, a tick on the paper may not fall directly in the desired grid)
and more laborious (human labour is required for manual input into computers for
data analysis and processing), it clearly provides different values, which may offer
additional information via the interpretation of the researchers transcribing the
responses. Although implicit, the free text answers provided by the respondents
also suggested the type of audiences who came to view the première, and helped
identify audience types. This method has unexpectedly increased the analytical
possibilities of the survey data.
In addition to the survey questionnaire, which allowed us to gather some quick
statistics on various questions, a small amount of informal unstructured interviews
with the spectators were also conducted to provide an in-depth insight into the
audiences’ thoughts and opinions of their experience of the Opera. Furthermore,
the participatory observation at the event also allowed the researchers to monitor
the movement and level of engagement of the audience, to see how they
interacted with various components (the streaming, the interactive coffee table and
their mobile devices).
Analysis of the quantitative survey data

Altogether 84 responses were received. There are some missing data: not all
questions were answered, and some questions answers are not particularly clear.
The unclear answers (such as free-text annotation on the survey questions, ticks in
ambiguous areas) have been transcribed and/ or interpreted by the principle
analyst who is the first author.
The quantitative survey data suggested an insignificant difference between the
audience in the open space Egg area (40 responses) and the enclosed DPL room
(44 responses)—88.4% in the DPL were satisfied with the performance,
compared to 84.6% at the Egg.
It is possible that the DPL and Egg audience understood the survey question
“projection” differently. The Egg audience might treat “projection” as the
streamed performance on screen, which was different from the projection on the
screen in the DPL in the background of the live performance. Due to the way
the streaming was done (selecting and zoom-in frames and cut screens), it was
difficult to see all the action on the stage.
Some survey questions (such as question 4) aimed to capture the audience’s
emotions and level of engagement. However, a minority of respondents
considered these questions personal or intrusive and refused to answer.
The demography data suggested that the audience were experienced concert-
goers. In the interviews, some of them identified themselves as frequent opera-
goers. The data received from such a savvy group of audience was informative
(especially when positive feedback was received: “good music”, “good perform-
ance” and “good stage design”). A majority of the audience (75.3%) said they
would attend more opera performances in the future—but there is a difference
between the audience in the DPL (83.7%) and in the Egg (63.9%). It is worth
investigating (through a correlation regression analysis perhaps) whether it is
because the audience in the DPL are frequent opera-goers that the performance
had little impact on their willingness to see operas in the future.
It is worth noting that the keyword “atmospheric” was mentioned three times
by audience members in the DPL. This may indicate that, by comparison, this
ambience is perhaps lacking in the open space the Egg area.
Analysis of the qualitative data

The qualitative data include data collected through ethnographic participatory
observation and informal interview with the audience (which were unrecorded,
unstructured).
Prior to the start of the show

It was necessary to pre-book seats in the DPL, but not for the Egg (foyer) space.
In order to make the whole experience for both audiences an immersive one, and
also to address the practical necessity to filter one audience from another, we
enlisted the help of a colleague, Richard Talbot, from within the School of Media,
Music and Performance, who specialises in immersive performance practices.
Talbot used his long standing alternative personality “Mr. Whistler”, a quasi-
military figure dressed in 1940s attire, to lead a group of performance students to
check tickets determining which version of the performance they would be
experiencing. This had the advantage of dramatising the process of sifting one
audience from the other, which was felt by the production team to be appropriate
given the nature of the subject matter—dealing as it did with citizenship and
entitlement. One disadvantage was that, one or two of the audience members felt
uncomfortable being treated in a (dramatically) peremptory way. It also may have
contributed to the impression that the DPL was the more desired location for the
performance, and that the Egg was a second-class option.
Some audience members sat in the foyer, reading while waiting; some chatted,
and others browsed information on the stand-alone interactive coffee tables. They
appeared intrigued by the historic photographs and manuscripts on show. The
information about the performers on these computer terminals was also felt to be
useful. All the people to whom the researchers spoke prior to the show starting,
claimed that they were open-minded, had no expectations about the performance
and looked forward to being inspired or surprised.
Shortly before the show started, one of the composers, and co-author of this
article, then addressed the audience in the Egg explaining the nature of the
performance, and the way that it was being viewed in the Egg via the screens. It
was explained that they were free to use their smartphones to look at the site, take
pictures, and especially to use Twitter to comment on the performance, using a
suggested hashtag #stefanandlotte, that the bar would remain open and that they
could walk around freely if they wished.
One of the composers decided to remain in the Egg audience in order to
suggest that their experience should not be viewed as second-class compared to
the live performance for the audience in the DPL. While two people said they
were more interested in the ICT-mediated version of the performance, others (2–3)
did immediately express disappointment that they had been given seats in the
Egg, rather than the DPL. No-one seemed intimidated by meeting members of the
creative team before or after the performance.
During the performance

There were some late arrivals in the Egg, but since it is an open space they were
able to walk in unimpeded, and to walk around the space. The security guards did
their usual patrols. A couple of people left after 15 minutes. Late arrivals stood at
the back. Some in the audience were sitting in the Egg space chatting, exchanging
words but quietly. Some held coffee in their hands, and some consumed the
snacks provided on the interactive coffee tables. Some drank beer. But, by and
large, the audience in the Egg was really focused and appeared to wish to adopt
formal behavioural codes. This may have been partly prompted by the front of
house staff at the venue: for example, when one of the researchers exchanged a
few words with Sam the event helper, he asked her (the researcher) to be quiet.
In one scene, where the protagonist Stefan Zweig continually grimaces when
being photographed, which some found humorous during the rehearsal in the
DPL, did not have the same effect on the audience at the Egg open space—the
audience at the Egg hardly laughed or even smiled, perhaps suggesting a less
atmospheric environment in the Egg.
Post-performance
A couple of audience members said that their expectations were not met as they
expected someone to do something on the screen, to have a deeper interaction.
They commented:
Basically, it was merely transmitting signals rather than engaging with the audience… Are
Stefan and Lotte poor? They have only one bed, small room, big house, garden. The stage
didn’t quite add up to the storyline… I don’t know who they are. I should have done some
research, but we’ve only known about the event a night before… It’s hard to know the words
they were singing. Not about subtitles. I love the pictures. Not a twist in story—flat storyline,
flat narrative, people know they’ll be dead.
Further audience comments on liveliness, interaction and interactivity, and staging

Several people commented on the cold environment in the Egg (foyer) space.
Although the sound diffusion was excellent, at the Egg, the ambience was cold
and mechanical, with the relatively light, open space not giving the audience an
immersive experience. The view of the stage conveyed via the Christie tiles (the
wall of screens in the Egg space) was mediated by live video editing; for technical
reasons we were only able to have two cameras in the DPL, which therefore,
meant that the view on the Christie tiles was limited to what the live editor in the
TV edit suite decided was of most interest. Generally, the composers, producer
and director concurred with this judgement, but it meant that the Egg audience
was not able to view an unprocessed version of the opera. Thus comments relating
Figure 3. A screenshot of Twitter feeds for the hashtag #stefanandlotte.
to the viewing screens in the Egg emerged, such as “like Powerpoint”, “not
provocative enough”, “flat”.
Contrary to the production team’s expectation, there was not much tweeting
going on, even in the less formal space of the Egg. Figure 3 shows a screenshot of
the Twitter feeds for #stefanandlotte; it can clearly be seen that this hashtag was
used only before and after the performance, not during it, as had been envisaged.
Discussion: audience types and their operatic experiences

Unlike most of the existing practice-based or practice-led research on digital
performance that bears little objective evaluation, or in-lab development of
digitally augmented performance that relies on human-computer interaction
studies based on the experiences of small groups of testers, our audience-focused
research has collected valuable empirical data signifying audience perceptions and
behaviours during a live, digitally augmented operatic performance, and a
parallel, streamed screening. The data clearly suggests that the two audience
groups had different experiences with the opera, which was performed simulta-
neously but distributed in different ways: one being streamed live in the open space
Egg area and the other performed in the enclosed DPL room. The main factors that
led to this difference in audience perception and reception were those of the
environments and ambience. A few of the effects that the production team wished
to deliver (e.g. the sense of separation and segregation through staging the opera in
two different spaces, encouraging the audience in the open space to mingle, to
wander, to play, to interact, to use second-screen) were not achieved.
Unlike what was expected, the audience in the open space predominantly
complied with the same codes of behaviour: remaining seated, concentrating on
the screen display quietly. They sipped glasses of wine, occasionally checked their
mobile phones or texted (hence the low number of tweets), but the movements
and behaviours were very different to what had been imagined by the production
team. This could be because the audience was led to behave this way when the
seats were provided and laid out as theatre audience seating. But it could also be
because the audience, consisting largely of literate, savvy opera-goers, was locked
in the conventional code of behaviours as if in a proper theatre. Anecdotally, one
of the authors of this paper has witnessed evidence of the social reinforcement of
such traditional codes of behaviour: at a performance of Mark Antony Turnage’s
Greek in Huddersfield, one man was taken to task by another group for taking a
photograph of the performance on his smartphone. They addressed him during the
interval and told him in no uncertain terms that his action was distracting to them.
What this entails is that opera (like other forms of art) is a social product and that
opera houses and stages are social fields. Bourdieu, whose work is crucial for
theorising the structure of society as a result of class conflicts and status
competition, sees the art field as a social field that, like other social systems is
highly stratified and has its own hierarchy (Bourdieu 1996). As Kawashima
(2000) notes:
Culture is in fact a powerful tool for marking divisions between groups of people, and often
functions even if unconsciously to institutionalise social inequality. Inequality in cultural
participation and differences in taste come from the possession of “cultural competence”
acquired through family socialisation and formal schooling. (p. iv)
The production and consumption of operas reflects social structures, established

norms and acceptable behaviours. And this demonstrates Bourdieu’s explanation
of the interrelation between “habitus” and “social field”, and of the interconnec-
tion between art and the structures of social relations within which it is produced
and received (op. cit.). The potential links between art education, consumption,
tradition, customs, etiquettes, and beliefs complicate the dynamics of audience
creation and progression and call for a sociological treatment of the production of
digital operas in future studies (Kawashima 2000). The observed codes of
behaviour of the audience being rather formal, even in the less formal space of the
Egg, suggest that arts organisations hoping to encourage “second screen”
interactivity have to work hard to ensure that the audience behaviour does not
“default” to the traditional passive model. The qualitative and quantitative data
show that even the seating arrangements and the layout of the performance space
have a huge impact upon audience’s perceived behavioural freedom. Something
like this might have been very interesting had the Egg space been configured like
a standup cocktail lounge, and leaves one wonder what kinds of results would
have occurred had the Egg seating been less conventionally audience-like (in
small groups, banquettes, etc…).
The pre- and post-performance interviews suggested that some audience
members knew about this event because of the singers, conductor and the
producer. Some were friends of the performing ensemble Psappha (long-term
supporters or frequent classic music concerts goers). This suggests that social
networks and social capitals are important factors in audience dynamics.
The provision of operas through streaming may result in a difference in
audience types, but this study does not have compelling evidence to suggest that
streaming video did help broaden audience base. This leads to the question of
how to devise and engineer a robust solution of diversifying audiences. We argue
that space, ambiance, and the distance between and the proximity of the sites
where “real” operas are staged, and the screens where the streaming version are
displayed, are important indicators of whether audience groups can be differ-
entiated. For example, the data collected from the audience of Stefan and Lotte in
Paradise seemed to suggest that the backgrounds of the Egg audience groups are
not that different from frequent opera-goers. However, their viewing experiences
can vary because of the open space screening. One could reasonably expect more
diverse audience groups had the streaming taken place in further afield, such as
between London and Manchester (rather than as at the MediaCityUK—where
they could still be considered as co-located), or at different locations (e.g.
outdoors at a public square in an urban environment), or at a space without seats.
This proximity effect on audience groups could be compared to those observed
in the convergent TV industry where on-demand digital TV content and services
are being advanced rapidly to reach new audiences and meet different needs. For
example, in their study on digital television services and new business models,
Evens et al. (2010) suggest that “digital television services not only provide
promise for interactive services, but also for long tail-based business models in
terms of tailor-made content… deliver[ing] culture to a wider audience”. But they
also question “whether the long tail principle is applicable to the delivery of
avant-garde material to develop a viable digital television service”. (p. 1005). In a
similar light, Stefan and Lotte in Paradise seemed successfully to attract diverse
groups of audiences in terms of ages and backgrounds, but it is unclear from this
pilot study whether streaming helps deliver innovative material to various niche
audience groups (for cultural events considered as conforming to the long-tailed
business model).
Conclusions and future studies

Attending operas is usually considered as a “high-brow” activity and this
stereotype appears to limit their appeal. The research project, as its ultimate
aim, shares best practice for the increasing numbers of live relays and “as live”
recordings of opera and music theatre by professional companies in the UK and

worldwide. The lessons learnt can also contribute to improving audience
engagement in experience design such as a mixed reality display (Lucas et al.
2012) or affective interactive art (Bialoskorski et al. 2009). In this project, the
production team tried to develop the audience beyond the perceived norm for this
art form by making its location of the performance more flexible and also by
incorporating new technologies. Compared to classical opera, which has an
established audience base, it remains a challenge to draw audiences to contem-
porary opera. However, some of the lessons learnt from this project can be
situated within a larger umbrella of inquiry surrounding the cultural impact of
digital and social media when integrated into live performance.
A mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed to
understand audience behaviours and their interactions in different uniquely
mediated performance environments. For example, whether the audience who
watched the video streaming enjoyed the show as much as those who watched the
live performance, and how digital technologies such as touch screen coffee tables
and smart phones that provided extra information on the opera affected or
enhanced spectators’ experiences. Placing operas in unusual locations and
incorporating new technologies seem to have moderate success in developing a
new audience in this case. While there are clearly some continuities between
traditional modes of behaviour (as described above), interesting new behaviours,
such as the use of the interactive touch-screen tables before and around the
performance also emerged. The arrival of latecomers also was permitted and
accepted by the audience in the more flexible location of the Egg space.
Our study also found out that a more free-form survey format would encourage
audience response and capture richer data as people break from convention when
filling in the survey. This “accidental” value of free-form data could be a good
practice when evaluating arts projects—collecting data through handwritten
responses or other more embodied channels and have a higher chance of
acquiring an unexpected richness of participant responses.
The inclusion of situated performance before and after the performance (i.e. the
incarnation of ‘Mr Whistler’ and his recruits in this production) enriched the
audience experiences. The availability of the touch screen tables that provided
additional information and background materials online helped stimulate conver-
sation and thoughts about the subject matter. Second-screen-based activity, if
devised properly, might enhance interactivity as well, but more work needs to be
done to ensure that audience behaviour changes to permit this.
The methodological strategy of using a combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods works well, although larger datasets with a longitudinal
perspective (repeated audience surveys or interviews with audiences attending
performance at different times) would help drawing firmer conclusions. It would
be useful to repeat the audience surveys using similar methods for audiences
elsewhere. For example, performers in both France and Brazil have expressed
interest in performing the work. But more performances will not be produced in
an immediate future due to resource constraints. In order to fine-tune responses,
we would clarify in the questioning what was meant by “projection”—in our
survey; some audience members assumed that this meant the Christie tiles
themselves. We will consider designing different versions of survey question-
naires for audiences in different mediated environments so as to capture better, the
different behaviours and experiences. Methodologically speaking, recorded video
data would also help analyse multi-modalities during live performances
(Kress 2010).
With a purpose of diversifying opera audience, in addition to pre-bookings, we
will consider a different audience selection strategy and devising some flashmob-
like activities to include some random guests who are not experienced concert-
goers in the audience. We would also prompt “second screen” activity via twitter,
by beginning a “composer/producer’s commentary” on the #zweigopera and
#stefanandlotte hashtags, to see if that encouraged “second screen” activity. It
would also be useful to experiment with subtitles, so that audiences new to opera
and to operatic voices, and audiences whose first language is not English, might
not have to concentrate so hard on understanding the text.
To link our study more closely with audience development, we need to better
understand the relations between audience types, their backgrounds, interests,
tastes, experiences and preferred forms of arts (Kawashima 2000). In future
iterations of the audience response research project, we aim to:
(1) compare the results with an unstaged performance, to assess what impact the
digital imagery in the DPL has on the audience’s reception;
(2) compare the results with a live performance from a distance—for example, by
showing a single camera version of the opera on the Christie tiles streamed
live from an overseas performance;
(3) compare the results with a full recorded (non-live) performance of the
opera; and
(4) compare the results with a performance available via a video hosting site such
as YouTube or Vimeo.
Since the premiere of Stefan and Lotte in Paradise, live streaming to cinemas
has become well established in state-funded opera houses. An alternative model
of streaming has also emerged—the Wiener Staatsoper announced in October
2013 that it was beginning to stream live, and “as-live” to smart TVs and via the
internet.5 The charge for this “pay-per-view” option is 14 Euros for a live
streamed opera (or “live” with the delay postponed to suit the local time-zone),
while archived recordings will be cheaper. In addition, they offer a second screen
app—and a pay-to-download digital opera programme. Future research should
focus on the audience’s experience of opera as an “at home” and mainly solitary
activity: how does this model of distribution compare with the cinematic
experience, which more closely mirrors the traditional theatre environment? To
what extent does the social element of viewing and immersive surrounding, which
the cinema offers, contribute to the audience’s experience compared to the TV or
internet mediated experience? Will audiences tend more towards second-screen
activity and interactive behaviour when viewing in their own homes? Future
studies should include both models and attempt to survey audience viewing in
both modes.
Funding
This work was supported by the University of Salford, and Arts Council England (Grants for the
Arts) [grant number 20875833].
Notes
[1] http://www.theaudiencebusiness.org.uk/audience-business-reports-library.php?r = 4cee9513c8cb3&h
= Scottish + Opera + Understanding + Lapsed + Audiences.
[2] Available here: http://stefanandlotteinparadise.wordpress.com/.
[3] A video clip is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v = oBeJzydid0I More performance
imagery can be found at http://stefanandlotteinparadise.wordpress.com/the-performance/.
[4] Edited footage of the opera can be seen here: http://alanwilliams123.wordpress.com/projects/
stefan-and-lotte-in-paradise/.
[5] Vienna State Opera, Press Release, accessed via: http://www.wiener-staatsoper.at/Content.Node/
home/aktuelles/neuigkeiten/Live-Streaming.en.php.
References
Baker, T. (2000). Stop reinventing the wheel: A guide to what we already know about developing audiences for
classical music. London: Association of British Orchestras.
Benford, S., & Giannachi, G. (2011). Performing Mixed Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bialoskorski, L. S. S., Westerink, J. H. D. M., & van Broek, E. L. (2009). Mood swings: Design and evaluation
of affectiveinteractive art. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 15, 173–191. doi:10.1080/
13614560903131898
Bilda, Z., Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (2007). An embodied cognition framework for interactive experience.
CoDesign, 3(2), 123–137. doi:10.1080/15710880701251443
Bourdieu, P. (1996). The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. (S. Emanuel, Trans.).
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (2002). Explorations in art and technology. London: Springer-Verlag.
Cashman, S., & Page, J. (2001). Scottish opera new audiences project at the Sunderland Empire November
1999/January 2000 – An evaluation report. Gateshead: Developing Audiences in the North. Retrieved from
http://www.takingpartinthearts.com/content.php?content=1263
Department of Culture, Media and Sport. (2006). Taking part 2005/6. London: Author. Retrieved from http://
webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_library/Publications/archive_2007/
tps_annualreport0506.htm
Department of Culture, Media and Sport. (2012). Taking part 2011/12. London: Author. Retrieved from https://
www.gov.uk/government/publications/taking-part-2012-13-quarter-1-statisticalrelease
Evens, T., de Marez, L., Hauttekeete, L., Biltereyst, D., Mannens, E., & van de Walle, R. (2010). Attracting the
un-served audience: The sustainability of long tail-based business models for cultural television content. New
Media & Society, 12, 1005–1023. doi:10.1177/1461444809354211
Hill, A. (2010). Investigating audience reception of electroacoustic audio-visual compositions: Developing an
effective methodology. eContact!, 12.4 - Perspectives on the Electroacoustic Work. Retrieved from http://cec.
sonus.ca/econtact/12_4/hill_reception.html
Kawashima, N. (2000). Beyond the division of attenders vs. non-attenders: A study into audience development in
policy and practice. Research Papers No. 6. Warwick: University of Warwick Centre for Cultural Policy Studies.
Retrieved from wrap.warwick.ac.uk/35926/
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London:
Routledge.
Lucas, J.-F., Cornish, T., & Margolis, T. (2012). To a cultural perspective of mixed reality events: A case study of
event overflow in operas and concerts in mixed reality. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 18, 277–
293. doi:10.1080/13614568.2012.746741
Perricone, C. (1990). Artist and audience. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 24, 199–212. doi:10.1007/BF00149433
Sigurjonsson, N. (2010). Orchestra audience development and the aesthetics of ‘customer comfort’. The Journal
of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 40, 266–278. doi:10.1080/10632921.2010.502011
Sloboda, J., & Ford, B. (2012). What classical musicians can learn from other arts about building audiences.
Working Paper. London: Guildhall School of Music. Retrieved from http://www.gsmd.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_up-
load/files/Research/Sloboda-Ford_working__paper_2_01.pdf
Trueman, M. (2012). English national opera chief attacks live cinema broadcasts. The Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/may/10/eno-director-hits-live-broadcasts
Appendix 1. Feedback Form for “Stefan and Lotte in Paradise” Opera Performance
1. Overall, were you satisfied with the event?
yes/no/not sure
2. Which part of the opera did you like?
Excellent Great Ok Little
Storyline
Music
Staging
Projection
Performance
Other (please specify)

3. Did the music help you understand the historic context where the story was staged?
Yes/No/Not sure
4. How much do you agree with the following questions?
a) I was completely absorbed by what was happening.

b) The performance didn’t really hold my attention.
c) My eyes were open to some new ideas.
d) It got me thinking about things differently.
e) I was gripped by the sights and sounds of the performance.
f) I found aspects of the music moving.
g) Some aspects of the performance seemed relevant to my own life.
5. How many times did you attend _live musical performances_ in the past year?
none/1–5 times/6–10 times/More than 10 times
6. How many times did you attend live classic music concerts in the past year?
none/1–5 times/6–10 times/More than 10 times
7. Would tonight’s event encourage you to go to see more operas in the future?
Yes/No/Not sure
8. Could you please let us know your sex, age, education, income, ethnicity, and other personal information you
would like to share with us? (Please note that the information you share with us will be treated with the strictest
confidentiality, and will be used for research purposes solely. All the data will be anonymised should they be
published. Thank you.)
View publication stats

Projecting The Voice: Observations of Audience Behaviours in ICT-mediated Contemporary Opera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Projecting The Voice: Observations of Audience Behaviours in ICT-mediated Contemporary Opera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Projecting the voice: Observations of audience behaviours in ICT-mediated

Article in New Review in Hypermedia and Multimedia · July 2014

After Surveillance View project

BBC Backstage View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

New Review of Hypermedia and

Projecting the voice: observations of

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2014.889224

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Projecting the voice: observations of

(Received 21 May 2013; final version received 27 January 2014)

Keywords: Digital performance; Technological mediation; Immersive theatre; Streaming;

*Corresponding author. Email: ylin21@ucreative.ac.uk

technology-driven solutions beg questions about how the development of digital

Does live-streaming successfully re-create the ambiance of a live operatic

Development process for the opera

Methods for audience analysis

Analysis of the quantitative survey data

Analysis of the qualitative data

Prior to the start of the show

During the performance

Further audience comments on liveliness, interaction and interactivity, and staging

Figure 3. A screenshot of Twitter feeds for the hashtag #stefanandlotte.

Discussion: audience types and their operatic experiences

The production and consumption of operas reflects social structures, established

Conclusions and future studies

recordings of opera and music theatre by professional companies in the UK and

Other (please specify)

a) I was completely absorbed by what was happening.

View publication stats

You might also like