How Do I Live： 臺灣流行音樂消費「現場」中的儀式參與與認同過程

Abstract

科技改變了人們消費音樂的方式：數位化使實體唱片銷售不再是產業的生存之道，串流的發明更進一步拆解了音樂的聆聽與擁有，將享受音樂的成本降到最低；但數位音樂零碎、背景化的缺點，卻同時成為現場演出重新崛起的契機。相對而言更耗費金錢、時間、精力的現場演出受到消費者們青睞，反映的是追求個體性的當代社會中仍然存在的集體性需求，也就是「認同」此一消費動機（why）；此外，要求觀眾參與的現場演出，也凸顯了消費作為個體逃離結構手段（how）的可能。 音樂消費者如何在現場透過集體行為，塑造個體不同於既有社會結構的全新認同？為了回答此一問題，本研究以參與觀察及深度訪談收集消費者的現場經驗，並以反身性的敘事整合消費的目的與手段。 採用Goffman的戲劇理論為分析框架，本研究將現場按setting和劇本分為「演唱會」和「LIVE」兩大理念型。在以台北小巨蛋為代表、聲光華麗的大型場館中，演唱會的觀眾用跟唱、競賽、應援、呼喊安可等方式，展演演出者與自身之間偶像與崇拜者的關係；而在Live House裡，觀眾則傾聽著演出者的音樂故事、與演出者閒話家常，就如朋友一般。演唱會裡崇拜者不理性的退化行為，以及LIVE中分享的私密故事，這些破壞性信息與內部秘密使現場成為後臺，投入其中的演出者也因此脫離了日常生活。在現場，觀眾雖然在看演出，卻不認為自己是表演的觀看者，而是作為表演的局外人、以「知己」的身分踏入演出者的後臺；共同將現場展演為後臺的演出者與觀眾，產生了屬於劇班成員間的親密認同。 參與展演的過程，也將現場轉化為Turner所謂的儀式。個體觀眾們各自基於不同的結構弱勢、同樣帶著不安與焦慮的情感來到現場，在現場的集體展演中脫離日常的社會角色，成為共同體的一員。現場的共同體同時包含了觀眾與演出者，演出者是作為共同體的代表，亦即每一位觀眾的代理人在進行表演，觀眾能把個體的情感投射在演出者身上，在詮釋演出者的表演時，連結自身與演出者的生命經驗，使自己的生命也獲得儀式的中介，從過去被過渡到未來。集體的經驗讓個體消費者即使在現場演出結束後重新回歸日常，依然能想像其他共同體成員對自身情感的理解，這種身為共同體一員的認同感便成為個體繼續扮演社會角色、甚至改變結構的能量。 本研究主張，現場同時展現了音樂的結構與行動兩面向：劇本的存在讓文化工業仍能透過格式進行複製、以各種刺激吸引消費者，「演唱會症候群」便是暫時滿足後的空虛；然而，無可否認的，現場展演需要演出者與觀眾的劇班共謀，現場的消費者作為音樂現場的參與主體，連結了個體與集體的情感經驗，使現場成為生命的過渡儀式，認同的產生過程本身就是個體能動性的證明。

The consumption of music has changed with the development of technology. First of all, the music industry has been through the process of digitalization. It became impossible for the music industry to survive on the sales of physical album, Streaming made the cost of music even lower by separating the right of music appreciation and ownership. Also, digital music is more fragmentary and more like background. This makes Live performance back, although it is money-time-and energy-consuming. The revival of Live performances shows the need of collectivity in individualized contemporary society. Consumers consider identification as another motivation of consumption. Live performances, which ask audiences to join the performances, also show that consumption may be a means for individuals to get out of structure. How do consumers of music construct their whole new identity, different from fixed social structure, by collective behavior in Live performance? To answer this question, I participated in and observed several live performances, interviewed several consumers, and finally combined the purpose and mean of consumption by reflexive narrative. Taking Goffman’ s dramaturgical approach, I separated Live performances into two ideal types, namely Show Concert and LIVE, according to their settings and scripts. Show Concerts are host in larger spaces (e.g. Taipei Arena). In Show Concert, the audiences do the “following”, game, oh-en, and “encore.” And by these actions, their relationship with performers on stage is performed as “idol and fans.” In LIVE, which usually host in live houses, the audiences listen to the music stories of the performers, chat with the performers like “friends.” The “regressive behaviors” in Show Concert and the private stories shared in LIVE (or destructive information and inner secret) transform Live performance into the “backstage” of everyday life. In Live performance, the audience does not consider themselves as the audience though they are watching the performance. They are the “outsiders” of the performance and the “confidents” in the “backstage” of performers. Through the performing of backstage, performers and audience generate an intimate relationship between the performing team members, and this in term becomes part of their identification. The participation of performance, also, transforms Live into what Turner called “rites” . Individuals come to Live due to different structural disadvantages, but with the same anxiety. In Live, they get out of the social roles of everyday life to become part of the “communitas”. The commuintas of Live consist of both audiences and performers. The performers do the performance as the agent of the communitas and the agent of every individual audience. In this manner, the audiences are able to project their individual emotions onto the performers. While interpreting the performances, the audiences connect the life experiences of performers and themselves’. Hence, Live performance becomes the rites, in which the lives of people are taken from the past to the future. After the performance, the individual audience gets back with shared experience and emotions others in communitas. Moreover, they can imagine that the members of communitas have some understanding of their everyday life. The identification of communitas is the power for individuals, making us able to play the social roles and even change the social structure. In this research, I argue that Live performance shows both the structure and agency of music. The culture industry can still attract consumers by copied script; however, the consumers are now subjects of Live performance. In the active participation of performing, the emotional experience of individuality and collectivity are connected. Thus, Live performance becomes the transition rites of lives. The process of identification itself is the evidence of individual agency.