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

[ahinton]

Getting back to the thread topic and away from irrelevancies (in this case) like the Catholic Church

How dare you describe the Catholic Church as an "irrelevance"?!

I can see the point at the finish of, say, Bruckner 9 or Mahler 9. A period of silence and reflection before applause seems wholly right in each case.

However to witness a self-advertising conductor like Thielemann or Rattle taking an age to lower his baton at end of Bruckner 7 is quite a different matter altogether, and can even completely destroy the joy and glory of the moment for some.

I deduce from this that you and I, as well as Sir Simon himself, have different views on what is the end of Bruckner 9. I agree with you in the case of Mahler 9 but, as I mentioned, if Abbado could engender a long silence from the audience without any need to hold his two arms in the air for that long or make any other similar gesture, that result surely speaks for itself; one might make the same argument in favour of Tchaikovsky 6, Pettersson 9, Shostakovich 4 or any number of other like cases of which Mahler 9 is perhaps one of the most notable in that regard.

The natural thing is surely for the audience to continue to share in that joy and not be forced to repress it?

The problem with that argument in practice is that not every audience member will want to do that in the same way - not even if coerced into doing so by some latter-day tawse-wielding Mr MacDonald....

[P. G. Tipps]

The problem with that argument in practice is that not every audience member will want to do that in the same way - not even if coerced into doing so by some latter-day tawse-wielding Mr MacDonald....

Precisely, ahinton ... precisely!

So why should any one side of the argument triumph over the other? Those who wish to applaud when the music has stopped should be free to do so and those who prefer to keep their hands perfectly still, likewise!

I don't understand those who have this almost Calvinistic objection to heart-warming displays of enthusiasm on the part of some in the audience. As has been pointed out earlier sweetie-paper-rustling and expertly-timed coughing and spluttering during the quieter music passages display a far greater lack of respect for both the performers and other members of the audience than any spontaneous applause when there is absolutely no music to be heard?

At such times, set the people free, ahinton, set the people free!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

So why should any one side of the argument triumph over the other? Those who wish to applaud when the music has stopped should be free to do so and those who prefer to keep their hands perfectly still, likewise!

That's exactly the same argument that people use for smoking, or playing their ghetto blasters on trains. "Let me do what I want. I don't care about anyone else."

I don't understand those who have this almost Calvinistic objection to heart-warming displays of enthusiasm on the part of some in the audience.

That's fine. But keep the heart-warming enthusiasm until the end of the work. Your hands will will be less raw if you haven't beaten the hell out of them beforehand.

As has been pointed out earlier sweetie-paper-rustling and expertly-timed coughing and spluttering during the quieter music passages display a far greater lack of respect for both the performers and other members of the audience than any spontaneous applause when there is absolutely no music to be heard?

Useless head teacher takes over a school, having previously been a deputy head in another school. The school's discipline deteriorates rapidly, because he has a naïve laissez faire attitude. When the staff expressed their concerns, he said: "It was much worse in my last school."

[MrGongGong]

That's exactly the same argument that people use for smoking, or playing their ghetto blasters on trains. "Let me do what I want. I don't care about anyone else."

You keep making these kinds of false comparisons

It's NOT the same at all.

Lose the angst man

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You keep making these kinds of false comparisons

And doesn't a certain person like to nullify other people's arguments by witty one-liners? Mine was not a false comparison; it was an illustration of how people defend their corners.

[MrGongGong]

And doesn't a certain person like to nullify other people's arguments by witty one-liners? Mine was not a false comparison; it was an illustration of how people defend their corners.

You really do think there are barbarians trying to invade

[VodkaDilc]

Applause at a concert is invariably less irritating when one is among the audience. !

Indeed. In fact, when it comes from people who appear to be first-timers and who look completely thrilled by the experience, I find it quite touching.

[french frank]

And doesn't a certain person like to nullify other people's arguments by witty one-liners? Mine was not a false comparison; it was an illustration of how people defend their corners.

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.

[Flosshilde]

You may suspect it, but nothing anyone's said on this thread is grounds for your suspicion.

My suspicion is based on a great many posts in this thread.

[jean]

Which ones, exactly?

[P. G. Tipps]

That's exactly the same argument that people use for smoking, or playing their ghetto blasters on trains. "Let me do what I want. I don't care about anyone else."[/I]

Well, er, not quite. There's a clear public health argument in each of these cases for curbing such practices. That surely does not apply to a little bit of clapping between movements at concerts?

Exactly the same argument you use can be applied in reverse.. Personally, I don't clap between movements if only out of the knowledge that to do so would attract disapproving glares from others. In other words, I'm a coward.

However, though that is MY position, 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'.

In short, understanding and respect for others works both ways, and, therefore, I fail to see why either view should triumph at the expense of the other?

[Serial_Apologist]

However, though that is MY position, 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'.

Oh come on! You know that's not the only reason. I'm not even sure it has been posited anywhere on here as A reason, and in any case, if it were, it would rightly be challenged.

[P. G. Tipps]

I didn't say it was the only reason, simply that the other reasons remain obscure.

Maybe you could list some of those others, S_A ... ?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Well, er, not quite. There's a clear public health argument in each of these cases for curbing such practices. That surely does not apply to a little bit of clapping between movements at concerts?

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.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

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.