Applause....I know, I know..........

[P. G. Tipps]

Actually noise is a public health issue, and in a concert where listening is almost everything, awareness of intrusive noise is much greater, and potentially damaging.

Well, certainly I agree that audience noise whilst listening to the music at a concert is thoroughly irritating though I'm not sure about the 'potentially damaging' ... that's stretching things a bit, imv?

However, that's not the issue. We are talking here about noise during a break in the music and there's already plenty of that around in my concert-going experience.

So if noise and no music is already present what's the problem with a few people clapping their hands in appreciation alongside all the coughing, spluttering, and 'rhubarb, rhubarb' sound of multiple voices?

Sorry, I still don't get it! (no smart-ass retorts from the usual suspects, please, he says hopefully )

[MrGongGong]

Incidentally, the only times I have "prommed", it has been in the gallery, and even though smoking was not allowed, it didn't deter a few people.

There is a solution

(see if this time it's allowed by the management )

http://www.neatorama.com/2013/08/06/Straitjackets-and-Other-Control-Toys-for-Unruly-Kids/

[french frank]

I see no reason that others should be prevented from clapping between movements if they so wish. That is their choice. It is surely no more selfish than those who wish to halt such enthusiasms for their own obscure reasons which still remain a bit of mystery to me and many others, or, even worse, simply because they say 'it's not the done thing'.

My view is that all the people who dislike the interval clapping should not to bother to post any more. There is a level of denial of any validity to their objections which can't be overcome. I didn't think it would be PG Tipps that brought me finally to this conclusion, but there you are.

Just let it fizzle out without opposition.

[ahinton]

My view is that all the people who dislike the interval clapping should not to bother to post any more. There is a level of denial of any validity to their objections which can't be overcome. I didn't think it would be PG Tipps that brought me finally to this conclusion, but there you are.

Just let it fizzle out without opposition.

OK; I still maintain, though, that the best solution from a composer's standpoint is to write self-contained works in single movements and hope that they will at least attract some kind of applause after them. A pianist friend (no names, none of the other stuff) once said to me that he preferred the sound of one hand clapping to the sound of two of them doing likewise because at least the former has no impact on other audience members when it's done at the "wrong" point...

[MrGongGong]

and in a concert where listening is almost everything, .

I didn't have you down as an enthusiast for acousmatic music.

There are lots of interesting things written about modes of listening (https://ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/32n/Chion_Modes.pdf for example) but I don't expect the book club "classical music audience" to be interested in the writings of people who have spent a lot of time thinking about MUSIC when there's obscure linguistics to discuss.

[Flosshilde]

Which ones, exactly?

On the Alpensinfonie Principle, you must find those yourself.

[Flosshilde]

My view is that all the people who dislike the interval clapping should not to bother to post any more. There is a level of denial of any validity to their objections which can't be overcome. I didn't think it would be PG Tipps that brought me finally to this conclusion, but there you are.

& isn't there a 'level of denial' about the validity of peoples' desire to show appreciation by applauding between movements?

Perhaps the answer is to adopt the practice of some clubs - listen to the concert through headphones. Those who want to applaud between movements (or anywhere else) can do so without disturbing those who do not wnt to hear them do it. Those who don't even want to see people applauding can sit (or lay, or dance) in another room.

[jean]

...Those who don't even want to see people applauding can sit (or lay...)

I sincerely hope not (sorry Mr GG, another obscure linguistic point.)

But if we ARE going to go on with the discussion, why does everyone ignore this point:

And that when there are people whose preferences clash, as being opposing, one side must inevitably lose out, and is cross. And it will always be the 'passives' who lose out - who don't want noise, don't want smoke in their nostrils.

(Though smoking is perhaps not such a good example any more, not since the danger to health has been understood; but it certainly used to be.)

As for

...you must find those yourself.

No. You made a wholly unsupported statement, it's for you to produce evidence for it, or admit there isn't any.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

On the Alpensinfonie Principle. . .

Fame at last.

[teamsaint]

Fame at last.

alpensinfamy

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

alpensinfamy

386 posts - some of it bordering on the acrimonious - and this finally made it all worthwhile

[P. G. Tipps]

& isn't there a 'level of denial' about the validity of peoples' desire to show appreciation by applauding between movement.

I don't know if, like french frank, I'd conveniently brand the opposing view as 'denial' but that is indeed the crux of the 'problem', Flossie.

I'm all for letting the 'passive' folk (not much evidence of any timid passivity here? ) get their way and a legal ban being introduced against clapping between movements if it really upsets them that much. It wouldn't really be such a huge deal in the great scheme of things to those frightful non-passive folk, would it?

However, the only possible reason I can conjure up for the 'passive' objection is that applauding during movements is considered contrary to recognised concert-going etiquette. Why? I have absolutely no idea, but I am always willing to learn!

Yet, so far ...

[jean]

I'm all for letting the 'passive' folk...

Another linguistic point (sorry Mr GG).

The word passive comes from patior, to suffer, endure - the participle passus means 'having suffered' ('passus et sepultus est.')

In modern English (outside of grammar, where the subject of an active verb does something, while the subject of passive verb has something done to it) the word is used loosely as Tippsy does above, to mean someone a bit tepid and feeble who doesn't do anything of any sort with much enthusiasm. The sort of personality Flossie thought he detected posting on this thread.

But as ff used it (and note her inverted commas) it means someone who has a very active objection to something they dislike being inflicted on them - and who would always trade the freedom to do as they wish for the freedom not to be subjected to what they find disturbing.

[MrGongGong]

Another linguistic point (sorry Mr GG).

The word passive comes from patior, to suffer, endure - the participle passus means 'having suffered' (passus et sepultus est.)
.

Proves my point really
So, is there anyone who has actually read any of the considerable amount of writing that is out there concerning the nature of performance?
or is this just a book club?

[gurnemanz]

the participle passus means 'having suffered' ('passus et sepultus est.')

I have sung that phrase many times and, with ropey Latin going back to O level 50 years ago, have never quite satisfactorily got my head round the syntax of it. Is it "passus est et sepultus est" with the first "est" omitted? Both verbs are passive in form but the first is active in meaning (suffered), the second passive (was buried) so the "est" is being made to do two slightly different jobs. I notice that there is sometimes a comma between "passus" and "et" - Crucifixus etiam pro nobis, sub Pontio Pilato passus, et sepultus est. This would argue against that syntax. "Passus" would be part of the separate phrase is "sub Pontio Pilato passus". This would then translate as something like "He was crucified, having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried."