The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1879-10-17
Enc0res.

When an artist deserves round OF ap-
plause for an especially good perform
ance, we are glad to see him get it, es-
pecially when this sign of public APP
proval is spontaneous and general, and
not the studied freak of an insidious
cIaque. But encores should be abolished.
They are both unreasonable and inartis-
tic. A programme is drawn up and
printed to tell the audience what, and
how much musical entertainment 1T may
expect to receive. Yet, at the concert,
some unreasonable people set to work
and demand twice or thrice their moneys
worth. How well the concert manager
could turn the tables on them by calling
upon the members of the audience, after
they had assembled in the hall, to repeat
the payment of their admission price.
Then the encore might be made to work
both ways. AS it is now, it is all one
sided.
The performer in search of a reputation
| has a relish for encores. But he may
| satisfy himself with the truth that they
are not so potent a testimony of public
approval as downright, hearty applause.
Some people encore because they want
to have the concert prolonged, and hear
maximum amount of music for mini
mum price. Many encore merely be-
cause others do so. Numerous people
have not yet decided why they encore
at all. Quite number of respectable
concert-goers are not in favor OF encores.
Very rarely is an audience unanimous IN
demanding an immediate repetition OF
any part of musical performance.
| The artistic effect of good perform
ance is usually spoiled by its immediate
repetition. Too much of a good thing is
| II 10 rt1 81
| is not ALWAYS at his best, and it is dan
gerous thing for himself when he repents
a good, soulful performance. Thus,
while he may temporarily ingratiate him
self with the audience by conceding to
| its caprice, he is to a certain extent
belittling and endangering his artistic
reputation.
If by an encore, an audience demands
| that the artist should sing or play COM
position other than that which he has
| Just interpreted, the artist cannot fatter
| himself that he thus is the recipient OF
compliment. It is virtually demanding
something else from the artist in order
TO test his strength. He responds to
such an encore at his own risk, insomuch
as the next piece he may perform is not
| likely to dispel the favor which has al
ready been accorded him by the audience
| 1Or MS previous performance.
Speaking upon this subject, the Mus'cal
refuse to respond to encores. Fortu-
nately, the public itself is beginning to
be convinced of the absurdity of the en-
core nuisance. The most enlightened
concert-goers are not those who are given
to encores. The hearing of a good musical
performance gives a good taste in the
mouth, and excites an appetite for more,
which they are contented to remain un-
appeased until some future time. Be-
sides, it is unfair for one-half of an audi
ence to demand the repetition of per-
formance which the other half does not
care to hear. It is the duty of artists
and the intelligent portion of our concert
audiences to exercise their influence
towards the abatement and the conse-
quent utter annihilation of the encore
nuisance The thing can be done.