Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has given a boost to the audiovisual streaming of classical concerts – a cultural practice long entrenched in the analog. While opportunities and problems for the convergence of classical concert culture and the digital sphere are already discussed in research and practice, the debate about the future of this trend lacks a unified starting point. Addressing this, the present article examines classical music performance practice in digital forms by presenting a systematization of the field of practice and a comprehensive literature overview. For the systematization, different types of streaming platforms for classical concerts are categorized along dimensions of streaming. Additionally, ideal-typical digital concert formats are described based on examples (user-generated concert, conventional digital concert, concert film, concert show). The literature section summarizes previous publications, from the perspective of both production and reception of audiovisual concert streaming. Subsequently, research foci are identified. With suggestions for future research and outlooks into future scenarios for digital concerts, the scientific and practical analyses are synthesized. Mapping the emerging field of audiovisual digital concerts, this article serves as a starting point and a framework for further debates on digital classical concerts and other forms of digital performance practice.

Keywords

classical concert COVID-19 audiovisual streaming perception aesthetics performance practice digital concerts

Introduction

Not only since the COVID-19 pandemic but also due to the digital transformation, on-demand and live streaming of classical concerts has become an integral and growing part of their distribution. During the pandemic, a new practice of streaming music performances arose within weeks to reach any audience at all, when cultural institutions were shut down for months. The pandemic sped up a development that had been slowly going on for years but was understood as a side aspect of a digitally evolving art and music world, already under discussion for decades (Auslander, 2008; Charron, 2017; Frederickson, 1989; Holt, 2010; Jones and Bennett, 2015). As early as 2004, the Metropolitan Opera in New York launched cinema broadcasting of opera performances and, 2 years later, the Berlin Philharmonic’s Digital Concert Hall brought live classical concerts to living rooms. For quite a long time, these initiatives were the streaming flagships of the classical music world. Nowadays, streaming of classical concerts on various platforms and devices seems self-evident, although the number of regular users and their experience on a broad scale remains unknown. It is unclear where this development is leading.

Streaming, virtual reality and upcoming digital innovations might have the potential to constitute the future of performing arts, including classical concert practice, but these could also be only an ephemeral trend that will never come close to the much-discussed unique character of live performances in spatial and temporal co-presence (Auslander, 2008, 2022; Sanden, 2012; Tröndle, 2021b; Wald-Fuhrmann et al., 2021). Most likely, the truth lies somewhere between, and the digital concert will establish its own type of mediated performance with its advantages and disadvantages. Regarding popular music concerts, Rendell claims: ‘True, “virtual spaces may lack the smell of sweat and drinks that a person might experience at an analog concert”’ (Kent and Ellis, 2015: 86), but the convergence of digital media with live music events opens up a range of performative opportunities for artists and novel engagement for audiences’ (Rendell 2021: 1,096). These opportunities, such as accessibility, convenience and new digital aesthetic and interactive features, are particularly relevant for the classical concert business, suffering from aging audiences and thus a long-term declining attendance (see Cooper, 2008; Gembris and Menze, 2021; Hamann, 2011; MIZ, 2021; Reuband, 2011). Against this background, audience development strategies and the question of how to address young and new audiences for classical concerts are foregrounded in today’s research and practice (Dobson, 2010; Gembris and Menze, 2021; Kawashima, 2000; Mandel, 2011; Tröndle, 2019).

At least in Europe and especially Germany, the classical concert as a cultural practice has a meaningful history for the field of classical music and the formation of a middle class, which is why it remains a high priority for public cultural funding today (Heister, 1983; Thorau and Ziemer, 2019; Tröndle, 2021b). But the conventional classical concert, in its form of presentation, has hardly changed for around 150 years, which is argued as one reason for today’s classical concert ‘crisis’. As a solution for this problem, the format – as an element of the frame of music listening – holds potential to increase the attractiveness of concerts and overturn its dwindling audience (Tröndle, 2021a; Wald-Fuhrmann et al., 2021). Subsequently, this article focuses on digital audiovisual media of classical music performances (henceforth: digital concerts) to better understand their potential and limitations for the performance of classical music in the future.

To define this evolving field of digital concerts more precisely, we refer to Tröndle’s (2021a) mapping of the field of concert studies. Within this research field, all aspects of the classical concert as a social and cultural practice and its institutions are included from the perspective of cultural studies, history, (empirical) aesthetics, cultural sociology, psychology of perception and cultural economics. Our approach follows this idea of a multidisciplinary approach to studying the evolving phenomenon of the audiovisual mediation of classical music performances. This means not only conventional classical concerts in the still dominant form of the 19th and early 20th century but also all audiovisual presentation formats of classical music in performative contexts.

The potentials and limitations that the digital accessibility of audiovisual formats has for this art form – one often received as ‘old-fashioned’ – underline the importance of focusing on live classical music detached from other types of music and art forms. Popular music is, already, intertwined with the digital world. Though opera is a genre within classical music, we separate opera from our analysis, as the aesthetics of the theatrical form of opera and its possibilities in terms of audiovisual mediatization must be distinguished from classical concerts, where the music itself is the focus.

The questions that arise in the context of digital concerts for audience research as well as cultural, sociological, media and organizational studies are manifold. This article provides a starting point for further research in these disciplines by mapping out the research field of digital concert studies. Therefore, the article is organized in three parts: First, we define the research field and classify the phenomenon of mediatized classical concerts historically. Second, we describe the field of practice of classical concert streaming along with various categories of streaming platforms and examples of practice. The third part offers an overview on the field of literature. We conclude with a research program and future scenarios in research and practice.

Historical background

The mediatized presentation of classical concerts is nothing new. From records to radio to cinema and television to the internet, concert recordings and broadcasts are an invention of the 20th century. New is the rapid expansion of the phenomenon reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to significantly more aesthetic and interactive possibilities, but also a more competitive market. In the latest edition of Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, Auslander (2022: 62) comments on the situation of liveness during the pandemic with regard to mediatized performances: ‘During the pandemic, […] the ground against which liveness became visible once again, was its own absence from cultural experience. […] Implicitly, we compared what we could have under the pandemic, which was various kinds of recorded or mediatized performance, to what we could no longer have and missed’. This describes the sudden relevance of and the debates on mediatized performances for the field of performing arts and the classical concert. To better understand today’s situation, it is worth outlining a brief historical perspective.

Audiovisual concert broadcasting to private homes became possible with the television, which appeared in more and more private households beginning in the 1950s. Already, the role of classical music performances on television was ambivalent. From the start of classical music TV programming, at least in the US, the format of the presented performances was critically discussed and required producers to constantly reflect on their medium, due to the concert’s limited visual aspects compared to opera and ballet. To enhance the focus on sound with additional visual aspects became the goal (VanCour, 2016).

One way to make the visual layer more interesting was to use the score as a guide for editing. Prigge (1999) points out that, on the one hand, concerts filmed in this way allow new visual perspectives on the performers (e.g., soloists and conductor), but, on the other, the imposed perspective takes away the freedom of the gaze. Experimental formats of concert sequences and interviews or backstage tours with the musicians were also produced, noted for the US (VanCour, 2016) and Germany (Prigge, 1999).

The problem of the audience being addressed was likewise a major concern at that time. Economically advantaged upper-class households, who were rather interested in classical concerts, were the first who could afford home televisions. On the other hand, television developed as a technology of mass communication, in which context classical music concerts were not a major interest (VanCour, 2016). With regard to Germany, Prigge (1999) reports that the number of classical music performances in television decreased by 50% from the 1960s to the 1990s, which supports VanCour’s argument.

The format of presentation and the addressed audience are the center of the classical concert discourse still today. Meanwhile, technologies have evolved massively in the last 70 years. From classical concert radio broadcasting (see Doctor, 2016) to television broadcasting (see VanCour, 2016) to internet live and on-demand streams, the audiovisual qualities and possibilities, the audiences and their engagement, and the relation of liveness and presence has changed (Baade and Deaville, 2016). Today we find ourselves in a ‘post-broadcast era’ described by ‘interactive networks, user-generated content, narrowcasting to niche audiences […] and participatory fandom’ (Baade and Deaville, 2016: 9). But that does not mean, as Baade and Deaville state with reference to Acland’s (2007) ‘residual media’, that the contrary characteristics of the broadcast era (‘cotemporal liveness, mass audience, centralized productions’ (Baade and Deaville, 2016: 2)) fully disappeared from the media world; rather, they continue to run in parallel. An example is the smart TV, which connects both eras and all ways of media consumption in one device: linear and programmed TV broadcast, on-demand and live streaming from media libraries and interactive formats on internet platforms – all can be controlled and curated on a smart TV.

The aging audience of classical music is confronted with fast-developing technologies, to which they are often not accustomed compared to younger generations. In this sense, the problems of digital concert handling increases while the demand for digital formats of concerts continues to grow both economically (audience reach, audience development and new ways of distribution) and in terms of the aesthetic and interactive possibilities.

Field of practice

The overview of the field of classical concert streaming in practice begins with a categorization of streaming platforms (Table 1). To follow a systematic approach along non-technical characteristics of streaming, we refer to the streaming dimensions by Spilker and Colbjørnsen (2020).¹ We next describe characteristics of classical concert streams along a selection of examples to highlight the many differences that constitute various streaming experiences and their aesthetics. Since a narrowing down is necessary for the sake of feasibility, we focus on the German-speaking countries, with their distinct concert culture, and their exemplary role for Western classical music in Europe and the world. However, the following analysis generally can be adjusted to other countries with a Western classical music tradition and digital representation of it.

Table 1.

Types of streaming platforms for digital classical concerts in the context of Spilkers and Colbjørnsens (2020) streaming dimensions.

Streaming dimensions of digital classical concerts

Solo musicians, chamber ensembles, and orchestras have many options for live streaming or offering on-demand performances. Anyone can create a live stream or upload a recorded performance to an online platform with an internet-connected device, camera, microphone, and an account. Spilker and Colbjørnsen (2020) differentiate between this low-threshold kind of user-generated content (UGC), on platforms such as YouTube and Twitch or social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.), and professional streaming (e.g., for Netflix, Sky, TV media libraries, etc.). The contrasting principles of these supposed opposites is comprehensible, but they increasingly overlap. Especially on YouTube, UGC is available alongside highly professional content. Also, supposed laypeople can, with enough technical knowledge, create professional content. However, for the field of classical concert streaming in particular, the differentiation between UGC and professional streaming is adoptable. Citing just one of many examples, the ‘house concerts’ that professional pianist Igor Levit streamed with a smartphone live on his private Twitter account were UGC on a social media platform that attracted a lot of attention during the pandemic.² On the other hand, professionally produced videos of Levit’s performances are uploaded by various providers on YouTube.³^,⁴ These examples feature the same musician but differ in quality, aesthetics and exploitation, depending on the platform, producer and rights owner. YouTube and Twitter contain both UGC and professional streaming. Media libraries of television channels (e.g., ARD, Arte, 3Sat, and NDR), concert halls and orchestras (e.g., Digital Concert Hall, and Elbphilharmonie), as well as fee-based third-party platforms that specialize in classical concert streaming (e.g., Takt1, Idagio, and meidici.tv), provide only professional concert streams. Professional streaming exists on all kinds of platforms but sometimes blurs with UGC, depending on the quality of production and the creator’s intention.

Another dimension is live streaming vs. on-demand streaming (Spilker and Colbjørnsen, 2020). The authors discuss this dimension against the background of linear television, which with the rise of streaming platforms seemed to lose its relevance against on-demand content. However, they observe that live content enjoys great popularity. Igor Levit’s Twitter concerts appealed through their live setting, letting viewers share a unique, social moment as he performed in his apartment during lockdown. Additionally, live streams sometimes allow chatting with others during the performance in a live chat, offering potential for a more social experience.⁴

On-demand content is available on all kind of platforms. Often initially live-streamed concerts are available on-demand after the live stream. Specialized third-party platforms offer thousands of on-demand concerts, while broadcasters’ and concert halls’ libraries typically have much smaller collections. The third-party platforms, besides streaming live concerts, offer curated libraries of on-demand content, which is one of their unique selling points. A better curated collection makes buying a subscription to a fee-based platform more attractive. However, much on-demand content is available for free on YouTube, provided by various stakeholders such as concert halls, orchestras and television channels. And much content can be found on multiple platforms – third-party, media libraries, social media and YouTube. Not least of all because YouTube is often used to embed videos on individual websites. Where the videos are uploaded depends on the logic of utilization of the producers and rights owners. An example is Tempus fugit by Markus Lindberg, performed by Alan Gilbert and the NDR Elbphilharmonie Orchestra during the pandemic in 2021.⁵ On 6 March 2021, it was streamed worldwide on YouTube as a premiere, meaning it was technically a live-streaming event but with an already produced video. One could stream it for free and chat during the live stream with other spectators from around the world. Afterward, it remained available on YouTube and became available in the Elbphilharmonie’s media library.

The aspect of platform functions such as audience interaction is discussed in the dimension focused vs. multipurpose platforms (Spilker and Colbjørnsen, 2020). Social media platforms, whose purpose is social networking, have established live streaming as an important add-on. On the other hand, the initially on-demand video platform YouTube expanded its socializing functions and live streaming. Spilker and Colbjørnsen (2020) argue that users switch between various platforms depending on what functions they are looking for, rather than focusing on one platform that combines many functions.. Some classical fans prefer social interaction and free access on platforms like YouTube, while others opt for curated, subscription-based libraries on focused platforms such as Idagio, Takt1, and medici.tv. Broadcasting libraries, though smaller, are also focused on streaming without socializing functions. In contrast, multipurpose platforms like YouTube emphasize socializing alongside streaming. A platform that combines all features for classical music has yet to emerge.

Following Spilker and Colbjørnsen (2020), streaming content can be divided into the dimension niche audience vs. general audience. Western classical music, a macrosocial niche interest, is the focus of specialized niche platforms like Idagio and medici.tv, while YouTube and Facebook cater to general audiences, with classical concerts forming a tiny fraction of their content. But even among niche platforms, differences exist: Idagio and medici.tv have a global reach, while Takt1 is more Germany-focused, though it also offers international content. German broadcast libraries (e.g., Arte and NDR) serve general audiences, while concert hall and orchestra libraries cater specifically to niche groups.

Digital concert formats and frames

Wald-Fuhrmann et al. (2021) introduced the concept of the ‘frame’ as a factor influencing the aesthetic experience of in-person classical concerts, encompassing aspects such as acoustics, atmosphere, venue, lighting, format and audience expectations. This concept also applies to digital concerts: a traditional concert hall streamed on-demand may offer a different experience than a live-produced event with interviews and interactive features, even with the same music and artists. The frame extends beyond the stream itself, as the reception context also affects the experience. The following sections explore the diversity of digital concert frames before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to the above-categorized streaming dimensions of the platform, we therefore divide between the content, context and production contributing to the digital concert frame.

Content, context, and production

Firstly, content and context differ between formats of digital classical concerts. The question for the content is: What is performed? From conventional orchestra performances in a concert hall, to living room recitals, to artistically staged performances employing the aesthetic possibilities of camerawork and digital features, many different types of classical music performances are mediated. Third-party platforms typically host full-length symphonic concerts, while social media favors shorter, user-generated solo performances. YouTube offers the whole spectrum of content, but compared to third-party platforms, it more often features recordings of single pieces or movements. In that sense, ostensibly many YouTube users listen to specific pieces, rather than use the platform to experience concerts at home. The context of the stream varies from the mediatization of the regular program of an institution or streaming provider to special events made explicitly for digital consumption (typically during the pandemic). Besides the performances, additional material is presented such as talks with musicians or conductors and short films on composers or pieces, as well as trailers and snippets for marketing purposes.

According to content and context, the (technical) production differs between formats and constitutes the experience. The production scenario begins with the difference between live and on-demand streaming. The live situation is characterized by eventfulness and the awareness that what is seen is happening in real time, and thus, mistakes and surprises are possible (Roselt, 2021). Also, live communication between the online audience, as well as between audience and musicians, becomes possible, depending on the platform. By contrast, for on-demand streams, the film can be post-produced and variously edited. Thus, the aesthetic possibilities are broader. In both live and on-demand productions, the camerawork and cutting are central to what the audience sees onscreen. The number of cameras, types of shots, directorial decisions and camera movements shape the visual experience in multiple ways. Likewise, sound quality can immensely differ between productions, although usually a high audio quality is desired. Also, the quality of the user’s streaming device in the end decides the acoustic experience. Taking into account these aspects of content, context and production, we now define some ideal-typical types of concert streams, alongside real-world examples: user-generated concert, conventional digital concert, concert film and concert show (Table 2).

Table 2.

Examples of ideal-typical digital concert formats.

	User-generated concert	Conventional digital concert		Concert film	Concert show
Examples	Levit,2020	Mallwitz, 2020	Gilbert, 2019	Richter, 2021	Hope, 2020
Presenter	Artist	Institution			Broadcast/Label
Platform	Social media	YouTube, website, media library	YouTube, media library, social media	Media library	Media library, YouTube, social media
Temporality	Live	Live and on-demand
Content and context	Stream from apartment during pandemic	Conventional concert setting in concert hall without audience, during pandemic	Conventional concert setting in philharmonic with audience, before pandemic	Staged performance in a decorated room without audience, during pandemic	Staged TV show, in a living room with guests, plus talks and spanning classical and popular music
Production	Fixed smartphone camera	Multiple cameras, cutting based on score		Multiple cameras, additional video footage	Multiple cameras in one small room, low movement

Igor Levit’s ‘house concerts’ on Twitter exemplify user-generated concerts: a way of performing for a worldwide audience, self-produced on social media, with very low effort. During the pandemic lockdowns, this was one of few options to perform as a professional solo musician and was, for many artists, a way to connect with their fans. Levit live streamed his piano recitals with a camera directed toward the piano in his apartment. No camera movements and no cuts were made. The do-it-yourself aesthetics and atmosphere of a shared moment with Levit in his home created an intimate experience. This is what Kjus et al. (2022) mean when they report ‘intimization’ as strategy of musicians and concert organizers in regard to streaming concerts during the pandemic.

Also during the pandemic, the Konzerthausorchester Berlin performed Schubert’s C-Major symphony, D944, conducted by Joana Mallwitz in the Konzerthaus Berlin without any audience present (Figures 1 and 2).⁶ This digital-only production was not part of the Konzerthaus’s regular program, but at the same time it was typical content for the venue and a typical conventional digital concert. It was live streamed on the institution’s website and made available in television libraries (rbb) and remains accessible on-demand. Additional content accompanied the performance stream: a concert introduction by Mallwitz in a separate on-demand stream, which includes footage of some parts of the symphony.⁷ Orchestra concerts are often filmed in a more conventional way, as was the case for this example and for Opening Night 2019 at the Elbphilharmonie with the NDR Elbphilharmonie Orchestra under Alan Gilbert. The latter is a pre-pandemic example of a conventional digital concert, where an audience was present (Figure 3).⁸ Both examples feature multiple cameras that shift the focus between the conductors, soloists, instrument groups and entire orchestra. The cameras have fixed positions and only seldom slowly zoom or rotate. Here, the editing is based on the score: the instruments that play in that moment are shown onscreen, and shots follow the piece’s structural features.

Figure 1.

Screenshot by the author of a video sequence produced by 3B Produktion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcWIdZz4C44&t=1842s (accessed 22 March 2023).

Figure 2.

Screenshot by the author of a video sequence produced by 3B Produktion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcWIdZz4C44&t=1842s (accessed 22 March 2023).

Figure 3.

Screenshot by the author of a video sequence produced by NDR, 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdCjZWzd8ko (accessed 22 March 2023).

Another example produced at the Elbphilharmonie – but this time during the pandemic and solely for digital use – was Max Richter’s Sleep, an eight-hour concert that musically represents the sleeping cycle.⁹ It was performed by seven musicians, including the composer himself, in a small room and live streamed over the course of a night, then made available on-demand in the Elbphilharmonie’s pay-access library. This performance falls under the ideal type of concert film, as it was produced especially for digital use and artistically goes beyond the documentary character of a conventional filmed concert. It’s more elaborate filming scenario involved multiple cameras and sequences slowly fade into each other, including non-concert footage such as shots of the city of Hamburg at night, the Elbphilharmonie from outside and the harbor next to the venue. The stage was also decorated, with clouds and a huge circular light representing the moon (Figure 4). Another concert film from the Elbphilharmonie, Tempus fugit, adds another aspect to the production of digital concerts: here the orchestra members are positioned throughout the building and filmed playing the piece on different positions in the venue in small groups. It also includes video footage focused on the architecture of the Elbphilharmonie. Referring to Kjus et al. (2022), these examples follow the strategy of expansion: expanding the visual experience of the concert through the possibilities of the medium (camera, editing, effects, etc.) (Figure 5).

Figure 4.

Screenshot by the author of a video sequence produced by Elbphilharmonie Hamburg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuokTiBueNM (accessed 22 March 2023).

Figure 5.

Screenshot by the author of a video sequence produced by Elbphilharmonie Hamburg and NDR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCqjwHoa9Eo (accessed 23 March 2023).

Another digital-specific production made during the pandemic was Hope@Home. It can be best described as a concert show, as it includes a moderator, various guests and a varied program of performances (Figure 6). Violinist Daniel Hope invited musicians to perform in his private home and in other locations (‘on tour’) as soloists or in small ensembles including Hope and a pianist. These performances, which also feature discussion between Hope and his guests, were live streamed by Arte Concert and Deutsche Grammophon via their websites and social media accounts. Today, it’s available on-demand on various platforms. This format was successful, with more than 150 episodes produced and about four million streams.¹⁰ In particular, the atmosphere of the illuminated and decorated rooms, Hope’s personal address and the mixed-genre program distinguish these streamed performances from conventional concert hall productions and, like Levit’s house concerts, enhanced intimization (Kjus et al., 2022).

Figure 6.

Screenshot by the author of a video sequence produced by ZDF/Arte: https://www.youtu.be/wDWXNUTMhj8 (accessed 23 March 2023).

The presented systematization of platforms, frame effects and ideal-typical digital concert formats helps to better understand and differentiate between the variety of digital concert streams. The examples represent only part of the spectrum – intermediate forms are numerous. Nevertheless, the collected examples include many relevant dimensions and offer a promising framework for a systematic differentiation of mediated classical concerts (Table 2).

Literature overview

In the following sections, we present theory-driven but firstly empirical literature on streamed concerts. Since few publications currently exist in this evolving field, the literature overview tackles also related fields of art relevant in the broader context of audiovisual streaming of classical music concerts (e.g., pop music, theater, and Opera). Due to the limited amount of literature in this highly specific field, the initial systematic approach to the literature search was abandoned, when only a marginal amount of literature was found by systematic keyword search in relevant databases. Instead, the literature selection was obtained through an iterative process, where footnotes and references played a key role. The overview is based on the idea of a scoping review to gain an overview of the literature on production and reception of digital classical concerts and to identify research gaps (Munn et al., 2018). In this sense, the literature overview does not claim to be comprehensive. Other authors may arrive at a different selection. However, from the authors’ perspective, the overview synthesizes key studies within the field and points out main research strands and gaps.

The paragraphs analyzing the literature are divided into two sections. First, we present pre-COVID-19 literature on concert streaming and digital engagement in the performing arts. Here, general perspectives on streaming of (classical) concerts are provided. The second part covers literature related to the pandemic. This section includes the majority of the literature, as the lockdowns and closing of concert venues led to a sudden research focus on how the cultural sector deals with such a crisis using media technology. The second section is divided once more, into literature on the production and on the reception of concert streams.

Pre-pandemic literature

Audiovisual streaming of classical concerts became part of a broader discourse with the launch of the Berlin Philharmonic’s Digital Concert Hall in 2008. The online platform used to make the philharmonic’s concerts accessible at home was seen as a success story of pioneering digital engagement in the classical music world. Discussing this example among a few others, a handful of publications conceptualized and critically commented on the digital developments of orchestras and concert halls, while primarily arguing for more digital engagement and strategies in the cultural sector (Bakhshi and Throsby, 2012; Dickel et al., 2018; Kavanagh, 2018; Soto-Setzke et al., 2018).

A more vibrant topic in the literature of cultural economics and performance studies was live casting of opera and theater to cinemas. Research on this hybrid digital engagement format in the performing arts critically discussed the new phenomenon (Atkinson, 2018; Attard, 2018; Barker, 2012; Mueser and Vlachos, 2018; Read, 2014; Steichen, 2011; Wardle, 2014) or examined the audiences. One result of this new format was that it tended to increase the audience at the ‘real’ operas and theaters (Bakhshi and Throsby, 2014; Bakhshi and Whitby, 2014; King, 2016). The literature also analyzed specific performances (Friedman, 2016; Steichen, 2011; Wyver, 2015) and the changing reception of liveness through mediation in cinemas (Cochrane and Bonner, 2014). A recently published thesis, developed during the COVID-19 pandemic but worth mentioning here, analyzes audience experience in film-with-live-orchestra concerts. It introduces different types of liveness within the context of ‘cinematized’ concerts, distinguishing the various dimensions of liveness in the boundary zone between in-person and digital performance practices (Sekar, 2024). Furthermore, opera performances in linear television were studied (Barnes, 2003; Citron, 2017; Ward-Griffin, 2019). Only one study investigated the audience experience of streaming a theater play at home (Sullivan, 2020).

One interesting aspect of concert streaming is the new possibilities for socializing through chats, social media and other tools of digital interaction, both between the fans and with the musicians. While this was studied in the field of popular music (Bennett, 2012; Ham and Lee, 2020a, 2020b), a dissertation has been published on online fan engagement during streamed classical music performances on social media (Nguyen, 2018). It finds that especially the aspect of community and fan engagement is central for digital classical concert audiences but also that low-threshold accessibility is a motivation for the users. As a sort of counterpart to this study – but from the beginning of the internet, 20 years earlier – Prigge (1999) investigated the classical concert on German television, attempting to identify and develop strategies of music education in concert broadcasts with a film-analytical approach, focusing on the communication toward the recipients.

The scarce literature in the field shows that the phenomenon of watching internet streams of arts performances in private settings was a niche topic for scholars before the COVID-19 pandemic. Classical concerts were almost ignored in that regard.

Pandemic literature

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic led to economic and social shocks and caused an ongoing health crisis. Lockdowns, restrictions on gatherings and other health protection measures brought the cultural sector to a temporary standstill. Subsequently, the pandemic caused massive worldwide economic problems for the entertainment industry, cultural organizations and individual artists, including classical musicians (Abfalter and Stini, 2022; Rosset et al., 2021; Ryu and Cho, 2022; Salvador et al., 2022). Immediately, performance practices were translated to the digital sphere, and with that the future of live performance in a digitized world became a vibrant topic. It is thus no surprise that the major body of literature on streaming concerts and performing arts was created against the backdrop of the pandemic.

On the one hand, the pandemic can be seen as a ‘cultural catalyst’, especially in terms of digital developments in the cultural sector (Lee et al., 2020). On the other hand, the limitations of digital possibilities for the performing arts became obvious and have shown the importance of liveness and co-presence during a phase of ‘temporary disruption’ (Hylland, 2022). At the same time, it is certain that the use of live and on-demand streaming in the field of classical music increased not only for performances but also for music education, rehearsals, production and promotion (Fram et al., 2021; Frenneaux and Bennett, 2021; Krueger Bridge, 2022; Parsons, 2020; Serdaroglu, 2020). General perspectives on the future of orchestras after the pandemic agree that live and on-demand streaming necessarily will be an important part of both future audience development and for economic reasons, whether because audiences become used to digital consumption or because the consequences of the pandemic end up leading to long-term decreasing audiences (Borowiecki and O’Hagan, 2022; Garcia-Maunez, 2020; Pompe and Tamburri, 2022).

Production

Analyzing three ‘portal shows’ of rock bands, Rendell (2021) concluded that streaming concerts during the pandemic established new spaces for live concerts, enabled new fan engagement methods and increased interaction between artists and audiences, as well as revealed potential for new income channels, at least during the pandemic. Besides these general dimensions, some studies specifically investigated the perspective of musicians and organizations on the new digital activities that arose during the pandemic.

Through an online survey and interviews, Fram et al. (2021) showed that the use of technology supported the resilience of musicians in terms of collaboration under pandemic conditions. Similarly – and explicitly, in the case of classical musicians – they found that using online platforms helped tackle problems such as ‘loss of work, identity and community’ (Vincent, 2022: 1); however, it did not tackle audience loss. Nevertheless, in a long-term perspective, Hylland (2022) reported from interviews with musicians in Norway that the digital alternatives for performing during lockdowns seem to not balance what gets lost without presence, and their effectiveness turned out to be rather overestimated. Similarly, Mouillot (2022) concluded that as soon as the lockdown measures stopped, concert streaming rapidly decreased in Hong Kong’s independent music scene, despite the fact that live-streaming engagement shaped the scene throughout the pandemic, as Woods (2021) underlined regarding the DIY experimental music scene. Green et al. (2022) also presented an ambivalent picture based on interviews with young musicians (18–35 years). While a benefit of digital concerts during the pandemic was cited, technical, economic and limitations in interaction and collectiveness were often critically assessed.

Onderdijk et al. (2021a), too, surveyed musicians regarding their experience of collaborative music making. Here, results showed that a lack of experience with platforms that allow joint real-time music making online as well as dissatisfaction with existing programs affected shared musical activity during the pandemic.

Based on interviews with musicians and concert promoters Kjus et al. (2022) synthesized three strategies performers pursued for streaming concerts during the pandemic in Norway: intimization – increasing personalization and authenticity; intensification – increasing the expressivity of the performance; and expansion – using new aesthetic possibilities enabled by the streaming format, especially visual aspects.

To study the process of developing orchestral online performances, an experiment with a group of orchestra musicians was conducted at the beginning of the pandemic. Van de Werff et al. (2021) observed how the lack of experience in that field creates challenges around valuable digital strategies for organizations such as an orchestra. Uncertainty around technological skills, novel aesthetic decisions and performing in front of an invisible audiences makes it challenging to produce and distribute online concert performances in a meaningful way. Also, the unclear consumption behavior of the unknown audience must be considered in the process of making.

A lack of digital knowledge and infrastructure among musicians is also reported by Haferkorn et al. (2021), who surveyed online 1,484 musicians (52% of respondents, of which 29% were classical musicians) and audience members (48%) in the UK regarding their experience with live-streamed concerts. Besides the lacking experience, the authors stated the unbalanced relation between investment and revenue as well as unsatisfying audience interaction were barriers for musicians in engaging with live-stream performances. Although there seems to be a consensus among attendees that streamed concerts should not be available for free, the majority of surveyed musicians remained unsatisfied regarding earnings from live-stream concerts. Of the musicians, 84% agreed that live-streamed concerts should focus on new possibilities of the medium in the future, instead of aiming to substitute in-person concerts.

Reception

The descriptive analysis of the audience surveys by Haferkorn et al. (2021) also provided an ambivalent picture of the experience of live-streamed concerts from the spectators’ perspective. On the one hand, advantages such as barrier-free accessibility, the comfort of being at home and the new sense of community via chat and online interaction were reported. On the other, the non-binding nature, loss of venue and eventness and loss of physical interaction and presence of the musicians were reported as disadvantages and reasons that some did not watch online concerts. In another online survey with 1,619 respondents, Egermann et al. (2024) defined three groups of potential target groups for streaming concerts with the help of latent class analysis, based on the likeability of various features of digital concerts: Digital Concert Purists (34.3%), who prefer conventional presentations for online concerts; Undecided and Less Engaged Concert Users (15.2 %), who generally care less about various features and are rather unengaged; and Digital Concert Enthusiasts (50.2 %), who are open to new experiences with digital concerts and interested in features like interaction or virtual-reality (VR) media.

Throughout the literature, it is the aspects of interaction, community and liveness that dominate the discourse on digital concert experience. Addressing these aspects, Swarbrick et al. (2021), using an online survey with 307 respondents who watched live-streamed concerts during the pandemic, reported that live-streamed concerts increased the feeling of social connectedness compared to on-demand streams. They also reported that the salience of the COVID-19 pandemic and its restrictions during the concerts increased feelings of social connectedness and of Kama muta (these effects mediated each other, both ways). Similar results on the role of the pandemic were found in an online experiment where three live concerts were streamed to 83 participants. A higher individually felt negative impact of the pandemic lead to stronger feelings of connectedness with the artists. Also, temporal co-presence was found to play a role in the feeling of social connectedness. Watching the stream on YouTube without a chat led to lower levels of social connectedness than watching the concert on Zoom, where the audience saw each other and could chat during the concert. Additionally, the hardware influenced the experience; for example, watching the concert with a VR headset increased the feeling of being physically present (Onderdijk et al., 2021b).

Testing that too, O’Neill (2022) conducted a study with a VR 360° concert, surveying 52 participants, who watched a chamber concert using VR glasses, with both standardized and open questions. Dimensions of how the audience describe their VR experience were presented (e.g., Ambiance, Comfort, Image/view, Immersion). Aspects of the user experience connected to the VR medium were experienced negatively, while aspects of the concert itself were more often experienced positively. While their study reveals that an immersive medium itself does not automatically lead to a pleasurable experience, Joseph (2023) found a significant relation between the willingness to pay for online concerts and the integration of immersive features (AR/VR) based on a survey of various online concert participants in Trinidad and Tobago.

These results show that the frame characteristics of concert streams influence the experience of the audience, as Wald-Fuhrmann et al. (2021) suggested for in-person classical concerts, and the monetary value associated with it. In an online experiment by the same author, 525 participants were randomly allocated to four variously framed on-demand concerts (the video remained the same). The results of pre- and post-questionnaires underlined the previously presented results: that the frame of the streamed concert influences the experience. One of the four concerts had a spoken introduction, which significantly increased comprehension of the program as well as the feeling of melancholy, for one in the introduction particularly addressed piece in memory of the composer’s friends who had passed away. The social experience increased for the participants of a stream where they could interact in virtual rooms, before, during and after the concert. On the other hand, in that stream the experience dimension of concentration decreased (Wald-Fuhrmann et al., 2023).

Regarding the feelings of connectedness and social experience of live-streaming concerts, Vandenberg et al. (2021) analyzed the comments (n = 1501) of live-streamed performances of techno music during the pandemic. They concluded that although interaction between the users via the chat function occurred in ritualized forms, the missed feeling of physical collectivity was often specifically verbalized rather than substituted through the chat and collective live activity. Finally, the authors questioned if an online live stream suits as an environment for collective musical experiences, as compared to other fields like gaming that it seems to suit very well. It must be acknowledged that in-person techno concerts fundamentally differ from classical concerts, particularly in terms of physical interaction. Another study by Vandenberg (2022) analyzed the audience interaction of Twitch concert streams through spectator interviews, concluding that digital concerts allow only a small scale of interaction compared to in-person concerts but can lead to social-emotional experiences among the digital audience.

D’Hoop and Pols (2022) ethnographically analyzed an improvised jazz (piano and violin) live-stream concert during the lockdown. Also stating that the lack of physical presence cannot be fully compensated for with digital features, they argued that the eventness of the live stream, with its risk for failures, led to a valuable collective experience; that is, the musicians knew there was audience, and the audience knew the musicians were improvising live. Also, the interaction between the audience via chat as well as camera angles allowing perspectives on the musicians not possible in an in-person concert made the experience.

While the role of knowledge about and usability of digital technology is mainly discussed from the perspective of artists and art organizations, in a study of online concert spectators in Bogota (n = 294), the authors showed that the quality of the streaming platform’s service (e.g., functions, usability, and customer service) plays a significant role in the likelihood that the spectators will use the platform again (Areiza-Padilla and Galindo-Becerra, 2022).

The presented literature gives the impression of a scarce and fragmented research field on streaming of performances. Studies on streamed classical music concerts are rare, although growing in number. As the increasing quantity of studies since 2020 shows, the pandemic put a spotlight on the phenomenon. From the perspective of production, it was the question of concert streaming’s meaning for performers in terms of aesthetics, audience interaction and economic value that was mainly discussed. Additionally, the lack of knowledge of and experience with streaming technology was addressed. Reception, on the one hand, was studied in terms of audience motivation and the advantages, disadvantages and potentials of streaming concerts. Aspects of liveness, social experience and interaction were particularly addressed here. Methodologically, experiments as well as surveys and few qualitative analyses were conducted. Data from actual streaming providers is not used yet. Overall, the literature is consistent in its critical approach, its trend toward comparing streams with in-person concerts and its conclusions regarding lacking resources, expertise, technology and features to create valuable concert experiences. It appears likely the body of literature will increase further over the ensuing years, and various research questions, methods and collaborations between practice and academia hopefully will arise to tackle these problems.

Challenges and perspectives for research and practice

In the previous sections, the field of practice was systematized, and the literature section aimed at an overview for researchers and practitioners in the field of classical concert streaming. In the following, we synthesize these analyses into future challenges and opportunities for practice and research perspectives.

The above-presented perspective of practice points to different approaches that concert halls, orchestras, solo musicians and streaming providers pursue to present classical concerts online. From user-generated content on social media to professionalized and paid streaming platforms, the purposes pursued reach from marketing and audience development to economic as well as aesthetic goals. Above all, it becomes clear that the COVID-19 pandemic prompted massive momentum in the field, whose outcome is uncertain. Empirical findings support the widespread feeling that an online performance cannot replace the in-person experience for the audience, and post-pandemic use of digital performances is seen as unlikely by the majority (Hylland, 2022; Renz and Allmanritter, 2022; Tewes-Schünzel and Allmanritter, 2022). But the opportunities associated with digital concerts are just as obvious: accessibility, new forms of performative aesthetics, monetization and audience development, to name a few.

While free platforms such as YouTube hosted a large number of streams prior to the pandemic, and likely will continue to do so – especially as a ‘concert archive’ for concert halls and orchestras – it is particularly questionable to what extent paid platforms can grow in user number and engagement. This will also depend on their service beyond providing access to the streams, such as offering unique collections and curation of content as well as other innovative features like social network interfaces for fan communities. Here especially, evolving technologies such as extended reality (XR)¹¹ are identified as playing a potentially important role for performing arts in the future (Baía Reis and Ashmore, 2022; Dixon, 2006). This, on the one hand, could evolve as an alternative to an in-person event – using VR glasses at home to enjoy a concert from the sofa – or for hybrid events, such as using augmented reality while with others in a physical location. Even though small in numbers, experiments around these concepts in the field of classical concerts already happen, and some are even monitored by researchers (Antoshchuk et al., 2018; Droste et al., 2018; Pfeiffer et al., 2016; Shin et al., 2019). Besides its potential as a medium for performances, VR is also discussed as a potential tool for playing music together in distance (Loveridge, 2020). Such XR technologies could enable the audience members and the artists to all be apart from each other but experience a live concert together in one virtual room. It is the feeling of spatial co-presence that XR could imitate and thus become a ‘game changer’ for classical concerts in the future. Other technologies are being developed to intensify the streaming experiences, such as a smart-watch-based tool that increases interaction between artist and audience by tracking heart rate activity, which is presented visually as a virtual blazing flame (Wang and Okada, 2021). XR and other such innovations could take the current reputation of streaming concerts as an insufficient alternative to a new desirable concert format.

What the pandemic situation also made clear about concert streaming, besides the lacking in-person qualities that current technology cannot yet compensate for, is the opportunity for success of specialized formats developed out of necessity, such as Twitter concerts and series like Hope@Home. Neither principle – user-generated concerts and concert shows at unconventional venues – is novel, but rather became popular substitutes in times of isolation due to their intimate character. In this sense, formats that take place in the absence of spatial co-presence can also create a valuable experience if, for example, intimization or expansion is successful (Kjus et al., 2022). From the perspective of concert studies, which examines in-person concerts, new digital formats, whether on-demand, live or hybrid, will be successful if they manage to intensify the immersive potential, increase attention and enhance the social experience of the event (Tröndle, 2021a). Therefore, the interweaving of different platform functions and targeted aestheticization of the content itself will be purposeful.

Either way, at the beginning of any successful and exciting future format must be its technological foundation. The literature points out that concert halls, orchestras and solo musicians during the pandemic were not yet prepared for digital engagement and had to be very adaptable due to the circumstances (e.g., Van de Werff et al., 2021). Accordingly, digital development is necessary in the organizations and among the musicians themselves in order to create attractive digital formats in the future.

Research initiatives should monitor the development in the field to give recommendations for action and to understand the aesthetic dimensions of this form of performance practice. Promising starting points for further research is the creation of databases that collect digital engagement with music performances before, during and after the pandemic as well as archive concert films to make the material accessible for various researchers and research approaches (see Hansen et al., 2021; Weigl et al., 2022). In this regard, more cooperation between practice and research is inevitable, such as platforms providing researchers access to their content as well as user and click numbers. In any case, the potential and impact of streaming services can really only be investigated through targeted surveys of users. For now, many studies surveyed potential interested digital audiences during the pandemic but rarely any actual concert streaming users. More practice-oriented and ecologically valid research is needed to generate meaningful insights. Additionally, most research on the audience experience of online concerts is based on quantitative study designs, working with subsumed hypotheses from other fields or based on individual impressions. Missing are in-depth qualitative approaches to understand what the differing aspects of the digital concert experience really are. While questions regarding the platform, chat functions and the difference of live versus on-demand streaming are suitable for quantitative research, questions on visual aspects – such as camera and editing work, the quality of social connectedness and experience of specific concert formats – should also be addressed qualitatively for deeper understanding. Based on that, quantitative testable hypotheses and validated questionnaires could be developed in a next step.

In a first step, a film-analytical approach to analyze the visual aesthetics and effect of audiovisual stimuli is recommended (see Pibert, 2022; Prigge, 1999). This is exemplified in an academic video essay by Sekar (2022) who points out detailed, how the camera work in orchestral concerts differs and why it might attract more visual interest than in-person concerts. Besides that, more experimental-empirical studies need to investigate the subjective experience of the audience and different formats and technologies; likewise, artistic research not yet had a place in the field but could be promising to both develop and monitor new forms of digital classical music formats. The research project digital.DTHG on virtual reality and theater is an example of how artistic research in this field can emerge through cooperation between researchers, artists and cultural managers.¹²

Artistic qualitative research and systematic quantitative approaches in ecologically valid settings need to be mixed to best understand and monitor future developments that might have aesthetic, economic or organizational implications for a flourishing digital classical concert practice. Based on the literature overview and the analysis of the practice field, we propose a set of research questions, which focus on the future.

• How do audiences of various streaming formats differ and what role do musical genres, platforms and formats of digital concerts play in this?

• How do organizations need to adapt in order to produce valuable streaming content?

• Which types or aspects of typical streams are associated with which dimensions of audience experience?

• What key factors for the experience differ from in-person concerts?

• How do the aesthetics of the video and various devices contribute to the experience?

How do different formats of concert streams affect the experience?

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Christian Weining

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Volkswagen Foundation.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abfalter

Stini

(2022) Freelance classical musicians in Austria and the COVID-19 pandemic. In: Salvador

Navarrete

Srakar

(eds) Cultural Industries and the COVID-19 Pandemic. London: Routledge, 128–140.

Acland

(2007) Residual Media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Antoshchuk

Kovalenko

Sieck

(2018) Creating an interactive musical experience for a concert hall. International Journal of Computing 17(3): 143–152.

Areiza-Padilla

Galindo-Becerra

(2022) The importance of e-service quality in the livestreaming music concert business. Cogent Social Sciences 8(1): 2051791.

Atkinson

(2018) The labor of liveness: behind the curtain of opera cinema. Opera Quarterly 34(4): 306–323.

Attard

(2018) Opera virgins project: operatic event cinema as a new cultural experience. In: Atkinson

Kennedy

(eds) Live Cinema: Cultures, Economies, Aesthetics. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 139–152.

Auslander

(2008) Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Auslander

(2022) Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.

Baade

Deaville

(2016) Music and the Broadcast Experience: Performance, Production, and Audiences. New York: Oxford University Press.

10.

Baía Reis

Ashmore

(2022) From video streaming to virtual reality worlds: an academic, reflective, and creative study on live theatre and performance in the metaverse. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media 18(1): 7–28.

11.

Bakhshi

Throsby

(2012) New technologies in cultural institutions: theory, evidence and policy implications. International Journal of Cultural Policy 18(2): 205–222.

12.

Bakhshi

Throsby

(2014) Digital complements or substitutes? A quasi-field experiment from the royal national theatre. Journal of Cultural Economics 38(1): 1–8.

13.

Bakhshi

Whitby

(2014) Estimating the Impact of Live Simulcast on Theatre Attendance: An Application to London’s National Theatre. London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.

14.

Barker

(2012) Live to your Local Cinema: The Remarkable Rise of Livecasting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

15.

Barnes

(2003) Television Opera: The Fall of Opera Commissioned for Television. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

16.

Bennett

(2012) Patterns of listening through social media: online fan engagement with the live music experience. Social Semiotics 22(5): 545–557.

17.

Borowiecki

O’Hagan

(2022) Orchestrating change: the future of orchestras post COVID-19. In: Salvador

Navarrete

Srakar

(eds) Creative Industries and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A European Focus. London: Routledge.

18.

Charron

J-P

(2017) Music audiences 3.0: concert-Goers’ psychological motivations at the dawn of virtual reality. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 800.

19.

Citron

(2017) Opera-film as television: remediation in tony Britten’s falstaff. Journal of the American Musicological Society 70(2): 475–522.

20.

Cochrane

Bonner

(2014) Screening from the met, the NT, or the house: what changes with the live relay. Adaptation 7: 121–133.

21.

Cooper

(2008) Das Konzertpublikum: Eine Typologisierung. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Müller.

22.

Dickel

Mohr

Simon

(2018) Digitale Geschäftsmodelle im Kultursektor. In: Khare

Kessler

Wirsam

(eds) Marktorientiertes Produkt-Und Produktionsmanagement in Digitalen Umwelten. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, 1–15.

23.

Dixon

(2006) A history of virtual reality in performance. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media 2(1): 23–54.

24.

Dobson

(2010) New audiences for classical music: the experiences of non-attenders at live orchestral concerts. Journal of New Music Research 39(2): 111–124.

25.

Doctor

(2016) Broadcasting concerts: confronting the obvious. In: Baade

Deaville

(eds) Music and the Broadcast Experience: Performance, Production and Audiences. New York: Oxford University Press, 39–67.

26.

Droste

Letellier

Sieck

(2018) An interactive classical VR concert featuring multiple views In: Proceedings of the Second African Conference for Human Computer Interaction: Thriving Communities, Windhoek 3–7 December 2018. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 1–4.

27.

D’Hoop

Pols

(2022) The game is on!’ eventness at a distance at a livestream concert during lockdown. Ethnography. doi: 10.1177/14661381221124502

28.

Egermann

Siebrasse

Weining

, et al. (2024) Developing Digital Classical Concert Stream Offerings – A Typology of Audience Preference. The Journal of Arts Management Law and Society 54(3): 1–17.

29.

Fram

Goudarzi

Terasawa

, et al. (2021) Collaborating in isolation: assessing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patterns of collaborative behavior among working musicians. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 674246.

30.

Frederickson

(1989) Technology and music performance in the age of mechanical reproduction. International Review of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Music 20(2): 193–220.

31.

Frenneaux

Bennett

(2021) A new paradigm of engagement for the socially distanced artist. Rock Music Studies 8(1): 65–75.

32.

Friedman

(2016) The shakespeare cinemacast: coriolanus. Shakespeare Quarterly 67(4): 457–480.

33.

Garcia-Maunez

(2020) Orchestras’ post-pandemic digital future. Available at: https://amt-lab.org/blog/2020/12/orchestras-post-covid-digital-future (accessed 27 March 2023).

34.

Gembris

Menze

(2021) Between audience decline and audience development: perspectives on the professional musician, music education, and cultural policy. In: Tröndle

(ed) Classical Concert Studies: A Companion to Contemporary Research and Performance. New York: Routledge, 211–226.

35.

Green

Bennett

Guerra

, et al. (2022) How live is live? In: Woodward

Haynes

Berkers

, (eds) Remaking Culture and Music Spaces: Affects, Infrastructures, Futures. New York: Taylor & Francis, 34–46.

36.

Haferkorn

Kavanagh

Leak

(2021) Livestreaming Music in the UK: Report for Musicians. Project Report. London: Middlesex University.

37.

Ham

Lee

(2020a) Factors affecting the popularity of video content on live-streaming services: focusing on V live, the South Korean live-streaming service. Sustainability 12(5): 1784.

38.

Ham

Lee

(2020b) Factors influencing viewing behavior in live streaming: an interview-based survey of music fans. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 4(3): 50.

39.

Hamann

(2011) Besuch von Konzerten klassischer Musik–eine Frage des Alters oder der Generation? Musikpsychologie: Jahrbuch der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Musikpsychologie 21: 119–139.

40.

Hansen

Treider

JMG

Swarbrick

, et al. (2021) A crowd-sourced database of coronamusic: documenting online making and sharing of music during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology 2377: 684083.

41.

Heister

H-W

(1983) Das Konzert: Theorie Einer Kulturform. Wilhelmshaven: Heinrichshofen’s Verlag.

42.

Holt

(2010) The economy of live music in the digital age. European Journal of Cultural Studies 13(2): 243–261.

43.

Hylland

(2022) Tales of temporary disruption: digital adaptations in the first 100 days of the cultural COVID lockdown. Poetics 90: 101602.

44.

Jones

Bennett

(2015) The Digital Evolution of Live Music. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

45.

Joseph

(2023) Sustaining innovation: digital live music models in a Post-COVID-19 Trinidad and Tobago. International Journal of Music Business Research 12(1): 25–41.

46.

Kavanagh

(2018) Reimagining classical music performing organisations for the digital age. In: Dromey

Haferkorn

(eds) The Classical Music Industry. New York: Routledge, 126–138.

47.

Kawashima

(2000) Beyond the Division of Attenders Vs Non-attenders: A Study into Audience Development in Policy and Practice. Coventry: University of Warwick, Centre for Cultural Policy Studies.

48.

Kent

Ellis

(2015) People with disability and new disaster communications: access and the social media mash-up. Disability & Society 30(3): 419–431.

49.

King

(2016) Streaming from stage to screen: its place in the cultural marketplace and the implication for UK arts policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy 24(2): 220–235.

50.

Kjus

Spilker

Kiberg

(2022) Liveness online in deadly times: how artists explored the expressive potential of live-streamed concerts at the face of COVID-19 in Norway. First Monday 27(6).

51.

Krueger Bridge

(2022) The Digital Turn: Exploring the Social Value of Liverpool Cathedral’s Online Music Outreach Programme During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Project Report. Liverpool: Liverpool Cathedral.

52.

Lee

Baker

Haywood

(2020) Coronavirus, the cultural catalyst. Hypotheses. Working in Music, Available at: https://wim.hypotheses.org/1302 (accessed 27 March 2023).

53.

Loveridge

(2020) Networked music performance in virtual reality: current perspectives. Journal of Network Music and Arts 2(1): 2.

54.

Maddocks

(2020) Igor Levit: ‘these concerts were life-saving for me. The Guardian 24, Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/may/24/igor-levit-pianist-online-twitter-concerts-life-saving-lockdown-berlin (accessed 22 March 2023).

55.

Mandel

(2011) Audience development. In: Lewinski-Reuter

Lüddemann

(eds) Glossar Kulturmanagement. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 9–14.

56.

MIZ (Deutsches Musikinformationszentrum) (2021) Interesse am Besuch von klassischen Musikfestivals. Available at: https://miz.org/de/statistiken/interesse-am-besuch-von-klassischen-musikfestivals (accessed 27 March 2023).

57.

Mouillot

(2022) The social and cultural dimension of ‘platforming’live music: the case of the Hong Kong independent music scene during the COVID-19 pandemic. Popular Communication 20(4): 274–291.

58.

Mueser

Vlachos

(2018) Almost like being there? A conceptualisation of live-streaming theatre. International Journal of Event and Festival Management 9(2): 183–203.

59.

Munn

Peters

Stern

, et al. (2018) Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology 18: 1–7.

60.

Nguyen

HTT

(2018) Audiences’ Engagement with Twitter and Facebook Live During Classical Music Performances: Community and Connectivity Through Live Listening Experiences. PhD Thesis. US: University of Iowa.

61.

Onderdijk

Acar

Van Dyck

(2021a) Impact of lockdown measures on joint music making: playing online and physically together. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 1364.

62.

Onderdijk

Swarbrick

Van Kerrebroeck

, et al. (2021b) Livestream experiments: the role of COVID-19, agency, presence, and social context in facilitating social connectedness. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 1741.

63.

O’Neill

(2022) Intra-Audience Effect: A Quantitative Exploration of the Predictors and Outcomes of the Social Experience of Live and Digital Concerts. PhD Thesis. UK: University of York.

64.

Parsons

(2020) Music and the internet in the age of COVID-19. Early Music 48(3): 403–405.

65.

Pfeiffer

Reinhardt

Remes

et al. (2016) Combining virtual and augmented reality approaches for a project with the Konzerthaus Berlin. In: Kultur Und Informatik: Augmented Reality (eds Busch

Sieck

), Glückstadt, 2016, pp. 29–41. vwh Verlag Werner Hülsbusch.

66.

Pibert

(2022) Infinite disco vs. studio 2054. Toward a film psychology of virtual concerts in the COVID-19 pandemic. Ffk Journal 6(7): 92–107.

67.

Pompe

Tamburri

(2022) The symphony orchestra in the time of COVID-19: will American orchestras rise from the ashes? Cultural Trends 32(1): 35–51.

68.

Prigge

(1999) Vermittlung Von Instrumentalmusik Im Spannungsfeld künstlerischer Und Technischer Gestaltungsmittel Des Mediums Fernsehen: Filmanalyse Als Grundlage Von Untersuchungen Ihrer Konfigurationen. PhD Thesis. Germany: Stiftung Universität Hildesheim.

69.

Read

(2014) Live, or almost live …’: the politics of performance and documentation. International Journal of Performance Arts and Digital Media 10(1): 67–76.

70.

Rendell

(2021) Staying in, rocking out: online live music portal shows during the coronavirus pandemic. Convergence: The International Journal of Research Into New Media Technologies 27(4): 1092–1111.

71.

Renz

Almannritter

(2022) Die Pandemie als Brandbeschleuniger. In: Strukturelle Veränderungen Im Kulturpublikum zwischen 2019 Und 2022. Berlin: IKTf. Available at: https://www.iktf.berlin/publications/kurz-und-knapp-publikumsschwund/ (accessed 27 March 2023).

72.

Reuband

K-H

(2011) Konzertbesuch im Aufschwung oder Niedergang. Der Einfluss von Alter, Generationszugehörigkeit und Bildung auf den Besuch klassischer Konzerte. Sociologia Internationalis 49(2): 199–225.

73.

Roselt

(2021) 4′ 33″: the concert as a performative moment. In: Tröndle

(ed) Classical Concert Studies: A Companion to Contemporary Research and Performance. New York: Routledge, 34–39.

74.

Rosset

Baumann

Altenmüller

(2021) Studying music during the coronavirus pandemic: conditions of studying and health-related challenges. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 651393.

75.

Ryu

Cho

(2022) The show must go on? The entertainment industry during (and after) COVID-19. Media, Culture & Society 44(3): 591–600.

76.

Salvador

Navarrete

Srakar

(2022) Cultural Industries and the COVID-19 Pandemic. London: Routledge.

77.

Sanden

(2012) Liveness in Modern Music: Musicians, Technology, and the Perception of Performance. New York: Routledge.

78.

Sekar

(2022) Film-with-Live-Orchestra concerts: a new hope. [in]Transition 9(1). Doctoral Thesis.

79.

Sekar

(2024) Liveness, Liveliness, Aliveness: An Empirical Study on Audience Experience in film-with-live-orchestra Concerts. Doctoral thesis, Royal College of Music.

80.

Serdaroglu

(2020) Exploring the use of YouTube by symphonic orchestras as an educational platform during the pandemic of COVID-19. European Journal of Social Science Education and Research 7(3): 59–66.

81.

Shin

Song

Kim

, et al. (2019) The effects of 3D sound in a 360-degree live concert video on social presence, parasocial interaction, enjoyment, and intent of financial supportive action. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 126: 81–93.

82.

Soto-Setzke

Hoberg

Murgoci

, et al. (2018) Digitale Transformation bei den Berliner Philharmonikern. In: Oswald

Saueressig

Krcmar

(eds) Digitale Transformation. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler, 121–145.

83.

Spilker

Colbjørnsen

(2020) The dimensions of streaming: toward a typology of an evolving concept. Media, Culture & Society 42(7–8): 1210–1225.

84.

Steichen

(2011) HD opera: a love/hate story. Opera Quarterly 27(4): 443–459.

85.

Sullivan

(2020) Live to your living room: streamed theatre audience experience, and the Globe’s A midsummer Night’s dream. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies 17(1): 92–119.

86.

Swarbrick

Seibt

Grinspun

, et al. (2021) Corona concerts: the effect of virtual concert characteristics on social connection and kama Muta. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 648448.

87.

Tewes-Schünzel

Allmanritter

(2022) Kulturelle Teilhabe in Berlin 2021. Digitale Kulturangebote: Nutzung, Bewertung und Teilhabe. Berlin: kurz&knapp-Bericht Nr, Vol. 2. Available at: https://www.iktf.berlin/publications/kurz-und-knapp-digitale-angebote/ (accessed 23 March 2023).

88.

Thorau

Ziemer

(eds) (2019) The Oxford Handbook of Music Listening in the 19th and 20th Centuries. New York: Oxford University Press.

89.

Tröndle

(ed) (2019) Nicht-Besucherforschung. Audience Development Für Kultureinrichtungen. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

90.

Tröndle

(2021a) A concert theory. In: Tröndle

(ed) Classical Concert Studies: A Companion to Contemporary Research and Performance. New York: Routledge, 11–28.

91.

Tröndle

(ed) (2021b) Classical Concert Studies: A Companion to Contemporary Research and Performance. New York: Routledge.

92.

Van de Werff

Smith

Rosu

, et al. (2021) Missing the audience. Online musicking in times of COVID-19/missing the audience. Online musicking in times of COVID-19. Journal of Cultural Management and Cultural Policy / Zeitschrift für Kulturmanagement und Kulturpolitik 7(1): 137–150.

93.

VanCour

(2016) Spectacular sound: classical music programming and the problem of ‘visual interest’in early US television. In: Baade

Deaville

(eds) Music and the Broadcast Experience: Performance, Production, and Audiences. New York: Oxford University Press, 91–108.

94.

Vandenberg

(2022) Put your “hand emotes in the air”: twitch concerts as unsuccessful large-scale interaction rituals. Symbolic Interaction 45(3): 425–448.

95.

Vandenberg

Berghman

Schaap

(2021) The ‘lonely raver’: music livestreams during COVID-19 as a hotline to collective consciousness? European Societies 23(sup1): 141–152.

96.

Vincent

(2022) The impacts of digital initiatives on musicians during COVID-19: examining the Melbourne digital concert hall. Cultural Trends 32: 1–17.

97.

Wald-Fuhrmann

Egermann

Czepiel

, et al. (2021) Music listening in classical concerts: theory, literature review, and research program. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 638783.

98.

Wald-Fuhrmann

O’Neill

Weining

, et al. (2023) The influence of formats and preferences on the aesthetic experience of classical music concert streams. In: Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication.

99.

Wang

Okada

(2021) Heart fire: a smart watch-based musician-listener interaction system for online live-streamed concerts: a pilot study. Pre-Print. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4106314.

100.

Ward-Griffin

(2019) Up close and personal: opera and television broadcasting in the 1950s. Journal of the Society for American Music 13(2): 216–231.

101.

Wardle

(2014) Outside broadcast’: looking backwards and forwards, live theatre in the cinema—Nt live and RSC live. Adaptation 7(2): 134–153.

102.

Weigl

VanderHart

Pescoller

, et al. (2022) The Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra’s new Year’s concerts: building a FAIR data corpus for musicology. In: Pugin

(ed). DLfM ’22: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Digital Libraries for Musicology. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, Vol. 2022, 36–40.

103.

Woods

(2021) Moving the show online: an analysis of DIY virtual venues. Popular Culture Studies Journal 9(2): 159–177.

104.

Wyver

(2015) Screening the RSC stage: the 2014 live from stratford-upon-avon cinema broadcasts. Shakespeare 11(3): 286–302.

Streaming classical concerts: Overview on research and practice

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Historical background

Field of practice

Streaming dimensions of digital classical concerts

Digital concert formats and frames

Content, context, and production

Literature overview

Pre-pandemic literature

Pandemic literature

Production

Reception

Challenges and perspectives for research and practice

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Notes

References