Concert-behavior

In the light of the Great Troll thread I'm curious what you think people should behave like during concerts. Should be able to clap during the music, between the movements, after the last note? Should we be able to talk and do as we please untill the music touches us and we want to listen to it.

I'm left with dubious thoughts. On the one hand be able to do what you want to do during concerts would make it more aproachable and I do think the whole snobbinesh people associate with concert-going is a holdback for some people.

On the other hand clapping and talking would ruing the experience for others when the can't concentrate on the music.

What do you think? Maybe we can find a middle way. Like holding longer pauses between movements, so people can 'do there thing' in that time?

I think it would be dreadful because it would ruin the recording. :pinch:

I think it should depend on the setting. At a concert by a friendly neighbourhood youth orchestra at the local mall, or an outdoor concert, or some other non-concert hall setting, talking/discussing should be perfectly acceptable. In a concert hall during a performance though I find talking downright offensive. I think in that setting it's just disrespectful.

Clapping between movements? I am against this with the notable exception of longer works. In old times larger works would be split up throughout a program and smaller pieces would be played in between. I wouldn't mind having larger works split across an intermission, in which case I suppose applauding would be acceptable. Otherwise... just no.

I agree with Nicola. I used to think they should just do away with all the clapping conventions and let it be as relaxed and approachable as jazz/rock gigs, but when you think about it, the vast majority of concert music has been written for a silent audience context/environment, and it just doesn't work as well in other contexts.

This is a really great article on exactly this:

Why So Serious? : The New Yorker

Generally, I want it to be quiet during a concert. Even between movements. Of course it's something different for music where audience "noise" during the concert is an expected and normal thing, i.e. in a rock concert, and I imagine this could extend to -some- musical performances out of a more classical direction as well. But here you also have to consider that Rock concerts are generally amplified a lot and are easily audible even if the audience is very loud - it would be something different in an unamplified concert for solo acoustic guitar. But especially when it comes to really loud electronic music (even out of a more "avant-guarde" direction) I have experienced concerts with a very relaxed atmosphere where the audience was free to talk and it worked well - but that depends a lot on the music and as a general rule I'm against it. Not only because it annoys me if the audience makes too much noise, but also because I don't want to be talked to during a concert and be distracted from the music. This usually annoys me even much more than just general noise.

However, this is all only in regard to sound. Other than making noise (clapping, talking, etc.) I'm all for trying to move away from the often very stiff concert atmosphere, sitting on narrow uncomfortable chairs like chickens on the roost, maybe even wearing "nice clothing" in an opera and all this silly stuff…

I'm all for a relaxed concert atmosphere, where you sit or stand or walk as you please, maybe sit at a table and drink a beer during the concert, and so on - as long as you do it quietly. And I have been to concerts that implemented this kind of model and it worked well. It was relaxed, people were drinking their beer while listening to the music and enjoying their time, but at the same time the atmosphere was still extremely concentrated, quiet and focused on the music. That's the kind of concerts I really enjoy.

Of course there are many people who might come to such a setting and misinterpret it as "if we can drink beer we can talk as well". But that's mostly a matter of having clear "policies" and making them apparent, such as actually stating before the concert that the audience is free to make themselves comfortable, but stay quiet and unobtrusive so not to distract others from the music. But of course this does require some basic level of sensibility on the side of the audience, to know that maybe in a very quiet passage it's still better not to move at all etc. and it may work better with small audiences than in huge concerts.

Great article, by the way, 920. And really, this sentence just summarizes it all so well:

(The overarching problem of classical music is the tuxedo.)

Words of wisdom!

And I really agree with the last paragraph as well:

The problem isn’t that the modern way of giving concerts has grown hopelessly decrepit, as some say; it’s that music has for too long been restricted to a single, almost universally duplicated format. If the idea is to treat composers as serious artists, then concerts must become significantly more flexible, in order to accommodate the myriad shapes of music of the past thousand years. Superbly polished as today’s performances are, I sometimes get the feeling that the classics are a force more contained than unleashed, and that new works might still produce the tremendous effect that Beethoven had on Berlioz’s old music master at a concert in Paris: “When I came out of the box and tried to put on my hat, I could not find my own head.”

My only real issue is people clapping DURING performances when that's not intended. Everything else, well, it depends but generally I don't care. In the case of recordings, yeah it can be annoying.

I'm all for trying to move away from the often very stiff concert atmosphere, sitting on narrow uncomfortable chairs like chickens on the roost

Beanbags, imo.

Great article, by the way, 920. And really, this sentence just summarizes it all so well:

Yeah Alex Ross is one of my favorite music writers. Have you heard of his book, "The Rest is Noise"? Really good read.

... But here you also have to consider that Rock concerts are generally amplified a lot and are easily audible even if the audience is very loud

Gee, I wonder why? Now it's not uncommon to mic soloists in a concert hall. :hmmm:

In think this video kind of explains it all. He is an music, jazz, and rock appreciation professor at my university. A lot of his students never been to a classical concert so this is something he has to address to his class.

How to Attend a Concert

I dunno.

On one hand, there's the "end of the nose" argument, that some people's enjoyment of the music is disrupted by clapping. (I know I hate it sometimes because I can't hear the bass movement.)

On the other hand, jazz has been clapping during the music for a long time, and some "world" musics encourage audience participation in many ways...

...jazz has been clapping during the music for a long time...

We (generally) like the clapping... During tunes, after a killing solo or great line, for impressive compositional aspects, or fantastic ensemble work... I thrive on the audiences real-time feedback, we feed off the energy they give back. Nothing sucks the life out of a show than a cold, unresponsive audience... likewise, nothing enhances the vibe than a spectacular line followed by whoops and applause from the audience...

That said, sometimes it is nice to concentrate on the intricasies and nuances of what's going on - one wouldn't hoot n' holler during a beautiful ballad for bass and flugelhorn duo...

I think I'm totally with robinjessome and empathizers on this one. But it really depends on the music and we sort of don't have a standard for "clap after a killer solo but be quiet during the soft, dulcet duets"... because killer soloes and dulcet duets are hard to define in writing. That's why we have genre standards. You can scream during a rock concert, clap and hoot after a great solo at a jazz concert but mostly be quiet, and don't you utter a peep in a classical show. Now, I generally dislike the genre system for this reason. What if we have a jazz orchestra playing in a concert hall? Or a classical guitar piece at a rock concert? Should someone be at fault for acting inappropriately at a performance that isn't pigeonholed in classical or popular music or whatever?

There isn't really an answer. No one has the vocal chords to tell the entire stadium at a rock concert to shut up for a softer piece, and no one has the gall to hoot n' holler at a classical show after a kickass violin solo. I think it'll be a stalemate for a while. As for me, I can't stand the stuffiness. If it were more casual, I would probably go to twice as many classical shows as I do. But I would also probably hate how loud and disruptive people are at a rock concert. Again, there isn't really an answer.

They should listen if they like it. If not, they don't have to and can leave. Clapping between movements, I think is fine...

I'm totally for clapping between movements...what if an orchestra played the 2nd movement really well, but not the 4th? How do you express appreciation for the 2nd movement, without appreciating the 4th as well?

One reason that classical music is a bit more "silent" is maybe because it's not blown into your ears via electronics. 100,000 people screaming at a rock concert doesn't increase the noise level much. Whereas 1 person coughing near you at the symphony makes you miss a few seconds of the music. Hence, the etiquette.

Honestly, I would not be opposed if just blasted the volume of the stage mics at the symphony.

That's not a bad point, but also consider this: in lots of popular music, there aren't as many lines and textures going against one another as in the orchestra which has all kinds of doublings and things you need to really listen for or you'll miss. In rock there's usually just a riff, a vocal, a bass going with the riff and some drums... so the person screaming next to you probably isn't going to cause you any damage.

Of course... there is also more variation and audience interaction in live performances of rock music than there is classical. A lot of the time the band will take requests, change the soloes in the song, do whatever, but what you'll get at a classical concert depends on the conductor's wish to crescendo, ritardando more, etc... different stuff.

I'm totally for clapping between movements...what if an orchestra played the 2nd movement really well, but not the 4th? How do you express appreciation for the 2nd movement, without appreciating the 4th as well?

Well, if that's your argument though, you might as well say that if the orchestra plays the first four bars of a piece very well, but not the rest of the piece, you should clap after the first four bars. The question is just how you perceive a multi-movement piece. Is it a cycle of pieces, or one piece split in several sections?

This of course also depends on the style of the piece etc. In a baroque piece (or the majority of classical pieces) the movements usually have not much to do with each other except the instrumentation, so it's really almost like a sequence of different pieces. In a 19th century (or later) piece it may much more be conceived as one large piece in several parts, where everything is related and forms a continuum.

I dunno. I always saw the multi-movement piece as sort of an analogue to an album. As with songs on albums, some movements are better than others.

You make an interesting point about how the continuity changed over time, but I mean, I still skip songs on concept albums (that one slow song on Operation: Mindcrime sticks in my mind...)

I don't think clapping between movements is unforgivable. And after the first four bars is not the best counterexample. They have separate names, even if it's I, II, III and IV, so they should be considered different pieces that are part of a whole, or at least sections of a piece. If some people clap, fine, and if not everyone claps either, that's okay too... that's how I think of it.

Edit: I suppose you could view it like this too. If the orchestra skipped a movement of a new piece or even a previously unperformed classical era piece, but didn't tell anyone and the thing was listed in the program as having three mvmts instead of four, would the audience notice something wrong? If so, the mvmts depend on each other and you could argue a silence between mvmts. If not, they're more like totally different pieces as part of one big concept.

Well, the problem is that different people may have a different view on whether a particular piece is a "set of pieces" or "one divided whole" - but the ones who clap will always "overpower" the ones who don't clap, so they have the force to determine for all in the room how to consider such a piece. If half of the room is clapping I can't just say "but for me it's a continuum that I want to listen to uninterrupted" and simply ignore it.

And because there really are so many different conceptions of what a multi-movement piece can be I find it the most "fair" solution not to clap at all between movements in principle (if it's a concert in a relatively "classical" setup, of course). Because there really are so many reasons why it might be found "unappropriate" to clap for some, and it's hard to find a general agreement other than that. The reason may be, as mentioned, coherency between movements, but it may as well apply in very disjoint multi-movement pieces where the individual movements are simply so short (say, a multi-movement Webern piece) or so many (say, a song cycle) that the clapping would then take a excessive amount of the total concert time and just disrupt the general flow of the concert too much.

But of course, it also depends on the preference on the ones who make the concert (performers, composers, managers, etc.). Robin, for instance, stated that he likes clapping during pieces in general. Personally, I wouldn't want people to clap during one of my pieces or between movements at all. If I write (or perform, for that matter) a multi-movement piece, I definitely conceive it as a whole, where it matters to me quite a lot how the performer (or myself) deals with the breaks between the pieces, respectively how they are connected. And this just doesn't work when the audience starts clapping.

But what I dislike even more is when the audience starts clapping too early after a piece. This really can almost ruin a concert experience for me when the performer(s) are making a beautiful, fine ending, maybe even hold the tension quite a while longer and I want to listen into the silence following the piece, but some people are so wild on being the first to be heard clapping that they don't care about letting the music "settle down" at all and just clap away, maybe even while the last note is still ringing…

Well, the problem is that different people may have a different view on whether a particular piece is a "set of pieces" or "one divided whole" - but the ones who clap will always "overpower" the ones who don't clap, so they have the force to determine for all in the room how to consider such a piece. If half of the room is clapping I can't just say "but for me it's a continuum that I want to listen to uninterrupted" and simply ignore it.

That's true. But what if there are more people who want to clap than who want to not? Or if there's only one person who wants to not clap and the rest of them do - does that mean, morally, there should be no clapping because one non-clapper will be disturbed by all the others? How does this concept apply to a rock concert or any other kind of concert? I'm sure there are people at a rock concert who want to hear the music with no yelling. Should classical concertgoers who want no claps get their way just because it's a different kind of music?

The reason may be, as mentioned, coherency between movements, but it may as well apply in very disjoint multi-movement pieces where the individual movements are simply so short (say, a multi-movement Webern piece) or so many (say, a song cycle) that the clapping would then take a excessive amount of the total concert time and just disrupt the general flow of the concert too much.

The clapping is usually appropriately proportional to the length of the piece, really. And see my comment later about program notes.

But of course, it also depends on the preference on the ones who make the concert (performers, composers, managers, etc.). Robin, for instance, stated that he likes clapping during pieces in general. Personally, I wouldn't want people to clap during one of my pieces or between movements at all. If I write (or perform, for that matter) a multi-movement piece, I definitely conceive it as a whole, where it matters to me quite a lot how the performer (or myself) deals with the breaks between the pieces, respectively how they are connected. And this just doesn't work when the audience starts clapping.

I think Robin meant during a jazz performance. He's right: jazzers thrive on the feedback from the audience after solos. You're probably referring to something different.

But what I dislike even more is when the audience starts clapping too early after a piece. This really can almost ruin a concert experience for me when the performer(s) are making a beautiful, fine ending, maybe even hold the tension quite a while longer and I want to listen into the silence following the piece, but some people are so wild on being the first to be heard clapping that they don't care about letting the music "settle down" at all and just clap away, maybe even while the last note is still ringing

Program notes are almost essential. Remember that if you neglect to write appropriate program notes, most likely someone else will do it for you - in a way you probably won't like.

Program notes are almost essential.

Why do you say program notes are essential? I'm curious.

As to this whole discussion, I would be completely open to clapping during movements, and even during pieces if you feel so moved. I do think that performances in concert halls should be amplified, because I have perfect hearing, and as it is, there are still times I don't hear random flute #2, or high pitched bassoon solo gets drowned out by viola reverb or who knows what else. Part of that is the composer, and the performer's fault, but I certainly don't think anything would be hurt by adding microphones to classical concerts.

As far as dress code issues, when I visited Europe a couple years ago, I saw a few operas, and many many classical performances. It seems that dress was determined by the cost of your seat. The folks in the orchestra seating had tuxedos and jewelry, and showed up in fancy cars. And from there, dress became more and more casual the cheaper your seats were. The standing tickets (that is, you don't get a seat, you stand all the way in the back(not nearly as common in America as it is in Europe)) were only about 5 euros ($7 at the time) and all that was required was that you wore pants. You could have any sort of shirt, and any sort of shoes (I went in jeans, a polo, and sandals) and no one gave a second look.

On the same hand, every opera I went to, people didn't hesitate to shout out "Brava" and "Encore", etc. And people frequently clapped during the performance, when they were moved to do so. There was no talking so much (which I don't mind), but a sudden applause for an impressive scenery, or a great solo, or a daring stunt is completely warranted in my opinion. Applying that to classical concerts, I think applause should just be on a case by case basis. At the end of a great movement to a piano concerto for example, after there has been high tension building in the music and lots of virtuosic passages, and a sudden end when there's another movement right after, for me, it's almost painful to withhold my desire to applaud the great movement. Especially since such a movement is often directly followed by a slower movement. I think of Rachmaninoff's piano concerto #2. The first movement is very big and expressive, followed by a slow, movement and to me, the audience should be able to ride the emotion of the first movement and applaud if they want.

I think we could abandon our classic ways and adjust to newer audiences. Such practices are making the classical music audiences older and older. Perhaps conforming to make things more approachable would increase the number of people willing to invest in the arts, as opposed to our ancient practices..

That's true. But what if there are more people who want to clap than who want to not? Or if there's only one person who wants to not clap and the rest of them do - does that mean, morally, there should be no clapping because one non-clapper will be disturbed by all the others? How does this concept apply to a rock concert or any other kind of concert? I'm sure there are people at a rock concert who want to hear the music with no yelling. Should classical concertgoers who want no claps get their way just because it's a different kind of music?

All true points. Regarding the question of "how many of the audience should determine whether to clap or not": On one hand, I don't think this should be a "democratic decision" in the sense that "the majority decides", because in my opinion, in a concert the listening experience should always take precedence over "secondary" desires like the desire to applaud. If someone primarily goes to a concert in order to clap than he has some weird priorities. That's why I think the people who want an uninterrupted listening experience should, when in doubt, carry more weight than the people who want to clap often.

But of course you are totally right that it would be silly if you just gave the "most touchy" person in the audience the right to determine the habits of everyone else. And of course you're also right with your comparison to a rock concert. I'd also find it quite ridiculous if I could go to a rock concert and determine for everyone to be quiet :P (not that I'd want that in the first place…)

I think my whole point is just that "do whatever you like" may not be the best policy here. As you said, writing something in the program notes, or any other sort of "official" stance by the concert management/composers/performers would maybe the best thing. The people who plan the concert are after all the ones who determine when what is played and in which way, so it makes sense if they also take a stance on what they expect from their audience. And of course this doesn't have to be an "order". In a normal Rock concert it would suffice to do nothing at all, and people would just behave normally without issues. But if you for example don't want people to clap -at all- during a whole concert, or not between specific pieces, better make some sort of reminder.

Since the practice of not clapping between movements is pretty much established in classical concerts today, I'd also assume it as the standard (at least still today) and would expect people -not- to clap unless there is some indication that it's tolerated/expected/whatever. If this practice changes or becomes less pronounced, then of course it also might require notices if you specifically not want people to clap between movements.

And really, in -most- cases it actually doesn't annoy me if people clap between movements - because in many classical concerts (especially orchestral pieces), the performers relax their tension between movements anyways, make noises, rearrange themselves, etc., so the "flow" is broken up already. But there definitely are cases (especially in very impressive concerts that really manage to keep you focused from start to end) where clapping might really disrupt my enjoyment of the concert.

But I really don't want to sound dogmatic there. Concerts are after all a live event at which many people participate, and in such a circumstance you -always- have to live with unplanned things, things that annoy you, etc. If you want everything to be "perfect", undisturbed and "just the way you prefer it", better listen to a CD at home - but you'd miss out on a lot like that of course. If someone feels they really have to clap after movement one, so be it. The only thing I don't like, is if people don't just do it, but herald it as the "proper thing to do" to which they have an "inherent right" or something…