# Why do we applaud?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

At a concert the other night, two of the pieces, quite famous, were extroverted with race-to-the-finish endings. They got very enthusiastic applause. The middle work, though, was more inward-looking and undramatic -- just as "great" a work, just as well known, and just as well played. The applause was little more than polite.

So what are we really clapping for? The performance? The music? Just that rush of adrenalin?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> t a concert the other night, two of the pieces, quite famous, were extroverted with race-to-the-finish endings. They got very enthusiastic applause. The middle work, though, was more inward-looking and undramatic -- just as "great" a work, just as well known, and just as well played. The applause was little more than polite.
> 
> So what are we really clapping for? The performance? The music? Just that rush of adrenalin?


All of the above, perhaps? I would applaud a piece of music I don't like if I appreciate the effort put into performing it. If I love both music and performance, I will join in a standing ovation. Great music massacred by bad performance really doesn't deserve much applause.


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

These days, the "wow" factor certainly gets the unfamiliar masses going at a concert. Unfortunately, many performers also fail to make the emotional connection with music and their audience which is necessary to pull off an "inward looking" piece.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Ken, continuing our conversation from another place!. . . 

Let's face it, most people at a concert are not really very knowledgeable about CM. In my experience few of them even know the rule about refraining from applause between movements, or know the rule but have lost track whether or not the final movement has played. As often as not, I find myself having to lead off the applause after a half a minute's baffled silence, while the performers conceal a smirk. Maybe it is just that my fellow concertgoers have nodded off or died, as I am usually the youngest person in the room not actually on stage. Bless them for being there and supporting the arts, but many of them seem to be making their first acquaintance with a piece* and thus are even more ignorant than I am. So I don't read much one way or the other into the vigor of their applause.

* (I mainly attend chamber and piano recitals, where the repertoire is not as overfamiliar as at orchestral concerts.)


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Now you know why Glenn Gould quit the concert circuit at age 31.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

I don't usually clap at the end of concerts, unless the performers do a phenomenal job.

I figure most people clap simply because it's convention: but degrees of clapping probably have most to do with whether the piece is famous or not [famous works always elicit louder applause], and whether the performance was loud, boisterous, and exciting. A delicate and correct performance will not necessarily woo a crowd, most of whose ears are untrained in the subtleties of classical music.

Ugh, I realize it's trite to complain about it, but clapping between movements really is terribly annoying. I've seen a conductor turn around angrily and chastise the audience with his gestures [none of which were obscene]. I love how Schumann often led one movement directly into another to obviate the possibility of inter-movement clapping.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> Let's face it, most people at a concert are not really very knowledgeable about CM. In my experience few of them even know the rule about refraining from applause between movements...


I think the audience was more than usually knowledgeable -- this was a string quartet concert after all. But in fact there was applause after the very first movement, of Haydn's Lark quartet. Me too, couldn't help myself! It was SO GOOD!

I was sitting 2nd row center, looking right up at their nose hairs. The quartet seemed pleased at the applause, misplaced or not.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I think the audience was more than usually knowledgeable -- this was a string quartet concert after all.


In my experience, this does not follow of necessity!

I attended a Tokyo SQ concert last year (you and I discussed this concert a while back); anyway, several venerable souls seated near me were fast asleep halfway through the second work, and were jolted awake by the applause. Imagine how jolted they would have been if more people had been awake to applaud!

Of course, not everyone came to the chamber music concert to enjoy a nap. But after the performance, as people gathered their things, I heard the usual trivial and empty chitchat ("Oh, isn't Beethoven _just wonderful?_" etc.). It was clear most people had no idea how to respond to the music they had heard. They were there for an outing, or to acquire a little polish.

Nothing in the world wrong with that, I suppose. But the applause, or lack of applause, of such people signifies nothing to me.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Applause does seem to be more appropriate with an energetic piece, on a more visceral level(that seems to be my shtick these days). Slow, deep, or just plain subtle pieces that aren't necessarily exciting should have a show of appreciation somehow. Even though it feels weird sometimes, its the best we can do. 

Although I think I've sat through slow movements where its been so beautiful that a spell seems to be over the audience, and when it goes off, someone kind of lets out a breath and big applause starts up. So, I'm not sure, I'm really not. It varies.

It does feel weird when the audience has heard a piece that most clearly do not comprehend very well, and yet the polite applause, even enthusiastic applause for the performer that also has more of a "thank you" vibe about it, than a "WOW' vibe. Sometimes I hate classical concerts for this reason. Usually though, the difference in show of appreciation between say, Dvorak's 7th symphony and the latest commission piece is somewhat perceptible on the whole.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I have grown of the opinion that as true classical music lovers we ought to be able to appreciate the work regardless of such horrors as people applauding in the wrong place. In practice, I might contradict myself in certain situations though.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I don't think the awkward silence after each movement is really all that old or traditional. I understand back in the days of the classic period performers would often play a movement through again or even talk to the audience. We would consider that sacrilege today. But we've had all these conversations before. 

Sometimes I applaud a work on video or DVD while at home alone if it's rousing enough. Or I let out a "whew!" and slap my knee after a moment of respectful silence if the work is introspective. There is something spontaneous and natural about it. It is part of the ritual. Without the ritual there would be no shamanistic connection between performer and listener.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Ramako said:


> I have grown of the opinion that as true classical music lovers we ought to be able to appreciate the work regardless of such horrors as people applauding in the wrong place. In practice, I might contradict myself in certain situations though.


You know, I couldn't care less if people applaud between movements; I realize that not applauding between movements is a late-Victorian invention, part of the process of making the concert hall reverential & church-like. If audiences spontaneously applaud between movements due to their enthusiasm, as they did at Ken's concert after the primo of the Lark (or at a performance of the Dvorak quintet I recently attended), that's a very good sign that classical music can be a living and breathing art and not an urn in a museum. Go for it, people.

My point was simply that many people in the audience (in my experience) don't even _realize _these conventions exist--they aren't defying it because of some spontaneous overflow of emotion, they just don't know. And this is just one facet of their general cluelessness about classical music generally, its history, its repertoire, the development of particular genres, the composition of particular pieces, etc. It would take more faith in the knowledgeability of my fellow audience-members than I possess to perceive any meaningful relation between the force of their applause (wherever and whenever it occurs!) and the quality of the performance and/or of the music being performed.

So is the enthusiasm (or lack) of an audience for a performance of, say, Brahms's 1st SQ, many members of which audience are listening to the work for the first time, going to impact my opinion of a piece I have studied closely and listened to numerous times in multiple interpretations, or influence my judgment of the performance? Absolutely not. It is just irrelevant.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I thought it was just to get them to shut up.


----------



## Turangalîla (Jan 29, 2012)

Applause is a _terrible_ indicator of how the performance went! At my concerts, the most technically brilliant piece ALWAYS gets the most applause, even if it was a train wreck. I could play Chopin's Berceuse more beautifully than Murray Perahia, but it wouldn't matter-it'd still get little applause because of its lack of virtuosity. The uneducated masses are rarely impressed by true musical beauty.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Now you know why Glenn Gould quit the concert circuit at age 31.


No - maybe he was worried clapping of the audience would spread germs !!!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> The uneducated masses are rarely impressed by true musical beauty.


As opposed to our highly cultured selves, of course! :lol: I think the problem is simply that whacking our hands together and hooting doesn't seem very appropriate for non-showy pieces. Andras Schiff said that he didn't want to hear *any *applause after the Op. 111. It just wasn't right. I guess he would have been happy enough with a well-expressed low murmer of stupefaction.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Sometimes applauding would be as out of place as applauding in a church after a beautiful performance of Ave Maria. It just wouldn't be proper!

Kevin


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

CarterJohnsonPiano said:


> Applause is a _terrible_ indicator of how the performance went! At my concerts, the most technically brilliant piece ALWAYS gets the most applause, even if it was a train wreck. I could play Chopin's Berceuse more beautifully than Murray Perahia, but it wouldn't matter-it'd still get little applause because of its lack of virtuosity. The uneducated masses are rarely impressed by true musical beauty.


Saw a concert last year: Chopin etudes Book 2 and. Beethoven Op. 110. Both magnificent works. Guess the crowdpleaser. Applause for Op. 110 was polite but that great work just didn't land: it lacked the obvious attractions of say the Winter Wind etude. But neither was as warmly rec'd as the flashy encore which I have completely forgotten.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I definitely noticed that the end of a piece, if lively enough, will lead to more applause than an equally-good piece with a quieter more reserved ending. Some composers, like Tchaikovsky, really new how to end pieces with a bang. There is something to be said for that--how something ends (whether it's a piece of classical music, a movie, a book, etc.) _does_ matter. (Though interestingly enough it seems to not matter much in popular music).

For example, Tchaikovsky's 4th and 6th symphonies are both excellent, but guess which one gets people leaping out of their seats to applaud and which one not so much? The 4th ends with a bang--the 6th is soft and full of despair. It makes sense. I'm not going to judge the audience for applauding more enthusiastically to a more lively or technically-demanding piece of music and am kind of disappointed by some of these snobby responses, but I should think as much based on my experience with classical music fans.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

About a month ago Lorin Maazel conducted Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony in my town...unfortunately, there was extended, enthusiastic applause after the third movement...it was all very cringe-worthy...
I really dont get it...if you dont know the piece, what the hell are you doing there?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Where is it written that you shouldn't applaud between movements?


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Where is it written that you shouldn't applaud between movements?


Where is it written that you shouldn't burp or pass gas during a performance?

There are some unwritten rules we have as a society which show consideration for others.

Symphonies are written as a whole. When you start applauding, you are ruining my immersion in the piece and breaking the musical flow. My understanding is that musicians hate it too.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Where is it written that you shouldn't applaud between movements?


In the same place where it is written that a single movement is not the full piece. And we applaud the piece, right?, not its components. Also, some composers write very cohesive multi movement pieces, so, the set of movements really forms a whole.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

I applaud because i want to show that i like something. I either clap calm and politely, or il clap with eager or i stand up and clap til my hands bleed. Depends on how good the concert was


----------



## campy (Aug 16, 2012)

Novelette said:


> I realize it's trite to complain about it, but clapping between movements really is terribly annoying. I've seen a conductor turn around angrily and chastise the audience with his gestures


Funny. Our music director here in western MA (USA) has been known to explicitly tell the audience to go ahead and applaud between movements if the spirit moves us.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

aleazk said:


> In the same place where it is written that a single movement is not the full piece. And we applaud the piece, right?, not its components. Also, some composers write very cohesive multi movement pieces, so, the set of movements really forms a whole.


When one is attending a musical or operetta, you clap after individual numbers, not just at the end of the act. Same with individual tunes in a jazz or rock set. So it isn't an immemorial or obvious "given" that you don't clap after individual movements at a CM concert--that's just a piece of CM etiquette that arose in the late Victorian era. IIRC, individual movements in Haydn and Beethoven symphonies were sometimes encored in the middle of a performance of the work (i.e. immediately repeated), not at at the end of the piece.

Strangest applause protocols I know of have got to be at the Met, where (again IIRC) after each act all the principals come out to bow in front of the curtain, breaking character. I do not go to the opera often, so I don't know is this is typical of opera houses elsewhere.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I hate applause, it is more a weapon than anything else, and approving nod should be enough for any one.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

. . . and in jazz which now seems to be embraced by more and more of the classical crowd, one applauds at the end of each solo, not just at the end of a number. I think classical would go a long way toward improving its perception among the general public if it dropped some of this pretentiousness, but I also enjoy the ritual of it all.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Weston said:


> . . . and in jazz which now seems to be embraced by more and more of the classical crowd, one applauds at the end of each solo, not just at the end of a number. I think classical would go a long way toward improving its perception among the general public if it dropped some of this pretentiousness, but I also enjoy the ritual of it all.


But it is not all pretentiousness. As I said, some composers write very cohesive multi movement pieces, so, the set of movements really forms a whole. In those cases, then, it is important not to break the continuity between movements. Jazz is very different to classical music. In Jazz, great part of the music is in the solos and improvisations, the other parts serve just as introductions or ends. Also, the form in Jazz is inspired by the song. From there you have the Jazz standars, etc., in which the main melody is played and then the performers just improvise. Each Jazz "song" or standard is a piece by itself, so it cannot be compared with the multi movement case of classical music. Also, in classical music, the action is continuous and the pieces can be very dense and complex, so, because of that, full attention and silence is needed through all the piece. In Jazz, as I said, the action is in the solos and improvisations, mainly, so when these solos end, the performers leave a space for the clapping (i.e., they will not play some important part of the piece in that precise moment!). All this is because in classical music, the most important thing is the piece and its value as a complex work of art by itself, independent of the performer, while in Jazz, the performer and his (musical) personality (particularly in the improvisation) are the most important things. The conceptions of form, presentation and the way the music itself is conceived are very different when the comparison is between Jazz and Classical Music. So, extrapolations of how these pieces should be treated when they are listened in a live performance must be made with careful.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

vertigo said:


> Where is it written that you shouldn't burp or pass gas during a performance?


Oh dear. You mean you're not supposed to do that? Wish I'd known earlier! Maybe that explains...never mind.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Human nature. Neanderthals will whistle or bravo to draw attention to themselves (That's why dinos ate most of them). Audiences from Wally World are going to demonstrate more positively to something they perceive (Whatever happened to i before e?) as less threatening. Audiences, slightly more affluent, may clap to only be polite. There are no other concertgoing demographics.

As someone earlier said, it's not a very good indicator of what's right/wrong/better/best/worst.

Even amongst our high-learned folk here at TC, positive statements garner more likes than the negative.

View attachment 12171


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"Where is it written that you shouldn't burp or pass gas during a performance?"

Only at the opera, may you not.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

aleazk said:


> But it is not all pretentiousness. As I said, some composers write very cohesive multi movement pieces, so, the set of movements really forms a whole. In those cases, then, it is *important not to break the continuity between movements*. Jazz is very different to classical music. ...in classical music, the action is continuous and the pieces can be very dense and complex, so, because of that, full attention and *silence is needed *through all the piece.


And yet string quartets and orchestras routinely pause to "retune" between movements.

I'll say it again, the no-clapping-between-movements thing may be a good or bad convention, but it is a pretty recent thing, dating back to the late 1800s. That is discussed in this wonderfully enjoyable book:

http://www.amazon.com/After-Golden-Age-Romantic-Performance/dp/0195178262


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> And yet string quartets and orchestras routinely pause to "retune" between movements.
> 
> I'll say it again, the no-clapping-between-movements thing may be a good or bad convention, but it is a pretty recent thing,* dating back to the late 1800s*. That is discussed in this wonderfully enjoyable book:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/After-Golden-Age-Romantic-Performance/dp/0195178262


. Precisely the moment in which music started to be seen as an art and not as a mere entertainment. Which adds to my point.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

aleazk said:


> . Precisely the moment in which music started to be seen as an art and not as a mere entertainment. Which adds to my point.


Precisely, then, the beginning of the end.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

aleazk said:


> . Precisely the moment in which music started to be seen as an art and not as a mere entertainment. Which adds to my point.


The author of that book would not agree with you!  He would say it was part of the museumification of classical music; not that somehow it had been less than an art before, but that now it ceased to be a living art. Note that the same period sees the decline of amateur domestic music-making and the rise of the conservatory-trained professional, the increasing separation between performer and listener, the cultivation of a passive "appreciation" of music, etc. These are not all necessarily positive developments, at least to my mind.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> The author of that book would not agree with you!  He would say it was part of the museumification of classical music; not that somehow it had been less than an art before, but that now it ceased to be a living art. Note that the same period sees the decline of amateur domestic music-making and the rise of the conservatory-trained professional, the increasing separation between performer and listener, the cultivation of a passive "appreciation" of music, etc. These are not all necessarily positive developments, at least to my mind.


Well, it is a valid view. But the things you call not all necessarily positive developments, I say that they were inevitable developments. The XX century was a century of enormous expansion in knowledge, boundaries, philosophy, etc. Composers are cultured people and they want to apply these ideas to their art too, I see the "intellectualization" of art as something inevitable. My thoughts are similar to those of Babbitt, but more down to Earth and not as elitist as his.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I'm not really passionate about applauding between movements. Like most I enjoy the tradition and would prefer the silence and that slight gap allowing people to cough and rustle about, but here's a scenario: 

An orchestra premiers a new work, never before heard or recorded. It has four movements. Just as with many orchestral works one of the middle movements runs non-stop into the next movement. To the listener, maybe it's the slow movement abruptly becoming the scherzo for effect, or maybe it's just an interlude within the slow movement. The audience is now worried whether they should abandon counting the movements to know when the work is done and desperately trying to remember what they may have read in the program book when the lights were up. All this worrying and fussing and counting or not counting has led to a complete disregard for the actual flow of the music, or at the very least removed the joy of it.

As I say I'm not passionate either way about it. I just think it's a gray area.


----------



## farmerjohn (Jan 24, 2013)

Does applause matter anyway?

Far from being received with applause, there were riots at the premiere of Stravinsky's Rite Of Spring. 

The Rite Of Spring has subsequently gone to become the most celebrated piece of classical music of the 20th century.

When Bob Dylan swapped his acoustic guitar for an electric guitar in 1965/66, he got booed by fans who thought he had sold out.

Those performances are now among the most legendary in pop music history.

There is a live recording made in 1966 (Bootleg Series Vol 4) which is fascinating. 

You hear the crowd is really hostile and they start giving Dylan the slow handclap but Dylan seems to revel in this and he starts winding them up by deliberately taking ages to tune his guitar inbetween songs.

If he had been received with warm applause throughout this record would not be as good. The hostile atmosphere actually adds to the legend and seems to drive Dylan on to delivering better performances.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Clapping at the end of a performance is like a magical shift in realities... a bit like Beethoven's 9th, where the realm of pure instrumental music is left behind and a new world of voices and words and universal brotherhood opens. By clapping, we join in the doing, in the making of noises, and leave the world of "just listening" behind. There's something fascinating in it. It's like the final note of music in the performance, the music is no more alone, it is recieved by the people... there is a feeling of happiness and community and contributing, even if the performance was lacking something. Witnessing a mass is one thing, but joining in the Eucharist is another!

But... we should only clap at the very end... otherwise it feels, I don't know, dirty? Like, "You musical prostitutes succeeded in pleasing my refined senses... for now" as opposed to "I listened, I contributed, and I want to thank you all".


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Weston said:


> I'm not really passionate about applauding between movements. Like most I enjoy the tradition and would prefer the silence and that slight gap allowing people to cough and rustle about, but here's a scenario:
> 
> An orchestra premiers a new work, never before heard or recorded. It has four movements. Just as with many orchestral works one of the middle movements runs non-stop into the next movement. To the listener, maybe it's the slow movement abruptly becoming the scherzo for effect, or maybe it's just an interlude within the slow movement. The audience is now worried whether they should abandon counting the movements to know when the work is done and desperately trying to remember what they may have read in the program book when the lights were up. All this worrying and fussing and counting or not counting has led to a complete disregard for the actual flow of the music, or at the very least removed the joy of it.
> 
> As I say I'm not passionate either way about it. I just think it's a gray area.


Not hard, just wait for the conductor to turn around at the end. He's used to directing large groups of people, you know.

You shouldn't clap in between movements.
Take Tchaikovsky 6. The contrast between the thundering crash at the end of the march, and the mournful sigh opening the finale, merely interrupted by a moment of tense silence is just about the best thing in the piece. If a philistine audience hollers and claps they've just ruined a significant part of the music.

Just clap at the end, people. Oh, except for Mahler 6. Applause here is impossible. You ought to just sit, in crushed and desolate silence, with everyone else in the hall for about 5 minutes until you have re-composed your psyche enough to leave the hall. Nod to the orchestra if they're still sitting there. ;-)


----------



## mlyons (Jan 27, 2013)

I don't know; I would like to see clapping, swaying, tears, joy, dogs and cats sleeping together. That might make classical concerts more of an event that might appeal to my kids and wife.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

GraemeG said:


> Just clap at the end, people. Oh, except for Mahler 6. Applause here is impossible. You ought to just sit, in crushed and desolate silence, with everyone else in the hall for about 5 minutes until you have re-composed your psyche enough to leave the hall. Nod to the orchestra if they're still sitting there. ;-)


So which is it--follow one-size-fits-all protocol (your Tchaikovsky 6 example), or base one's applause on a genuine and spontaneous response to the music one has heard (your Mahler 6 example)?


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

As I said. Only clap at the end. Mahler 6 is the exception - no clapping at all.
Simple really.
GG


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

GraemeG said:


> As I said. Only clap at the end. Mahler 6 is the exception - no clapping at all.
> Simple really.
> GG


What about - and much more in this case IMO, Tchaivsky's 6th? What about Mahler's 9th? Or Schubert's Moment Musicaux (the last one at least if they're not played as a set)? Josquin's miserere? There are so many pieces deserving silence at the end... We are not in the hall to worship Mahler's dead remains... Let us appreciate the music for what it is.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

To make noise back at the musicians who made noise for the audience/

I prefer it to up to several thousands of people all muttering, "Good job!"


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Ramako said:


> What about - and much more in this case IMO, Tchaivsky's 6th? What about Mahler's 9th? Or Schubert's Moment Musicaux (the last one at least if they're not played as a set)? Josquin's miserere? There are so many pieces deserving silence at the end... We are not in the hall to worship Mahler's dead remains... Let us appreciate the music for what it is.


Yeah - OK. I was being a bit facetious about Mahler 6. If you can have a tradition for standing up in the Hallelujah chorus you can have a tradition about not clapping for Mahler 6.
At any rate, there's no justification for clapping between movements that I can find; or, at least, the musical losses outweigh any 'gains' of the audience applause.
Once the piece is over (and that means when the conductor lowers his baton, by the way, not just when there's silence in the hall) it doesn't much matter what happens.
GG


----------

