Doublereed Archive - Posting 000024.txt from 2004/06

From: "Lacy, Edwin" <el2@-----.edu>
Subj: RE: [DR-L] Interpreting applause
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:55:29 -0400

<<<The applause after this encore was easily twice as loud as anything
previous. And that is what had me musing a bit. Does applause vary
simply because of the energy level differences in the works (but the
renaissance dance tunes were also lively), or was there something more
"serious" about early music and more "spontaneous" about the encore
selection that influenced the amount of applause? Or does this indicate
a potential preference for more "modern, but not too terribly serious"
music for doublereed ensembles?>>>

I think you answered your own question, at least in part, when you
wrote:

<<<Interpreting applause can be tricky, and I think if you simply judge
it by the "volume meter" it would be easy to be led astray.>>>

However, in my experience this depends to a large degree on the nature
of the audience. The less sophisticated the audience, the more likely
they are to applaud more enthusiastically and wildly for music that is
loud, fast and perhaps lighthearted. There are works in the symphonic
repertoire which predictably result in standing ovations every time, and
others which, while they may be great music, leave the audience feeling
much less likely to be inclined to be demonstrative in their enthusiasm.
A good example of the latter would be the 6th Symphony of Tchaikovsky.
It is almost unheard of for an audience to be able to refrain from
uproarious applause at the end of the 3rd movement, a vigorous march.
But, audiences usually think the end of the 4th movement is somehow
anticlimactic, because it ends slowly and quietly, expressing sadness or
tragedy.

So, in that case, the amount or intensity of applause will usually have
little to do with either the musical qualities of the symphony itself,
whatever they may be, or with the skill of the performers.

It would be a very sophisticated and knowledgeable audience indeed who
would gauge their applause by the intricacies of the performance, or by
the degree of success of the performers in achieving some kind of
historical accuracy.

Generally, orchestras tend to avoid those pieces that often do not
elicit much of an audience response, at least at the ends of concerts,
and especially at the ends of the closing concert of each season.
However, the orchestra in which I play, the Evansville Philharmonic
Orchestra, has closed each of the past two seasons with works that tend
to leave the audience sitting in relative inactivity. This season we
ended with Holst's "The Planets," and last year with "Ein Heldenleben"
by Richard Strauss. Both are great works, and have their exuberant
moments, but tend to taper off to very small bodies of sound and
relative inactivity at the end. It takes a few minutes for the audience
to figure out that the music has actually ended, and to remember how
much they enjoyed the music, particularly the more bombastic parts.

BTW, I don't think this plan on the part of our orchestra was out of any
desire to be contrarian, or to take a chance of leaving something other
than unbridled enthusiasm in the minds and ears of the audience over the
summer months. Rather, I think it was just happenstance, or dare I say,
less than completely careful planning?

Ed Lacy
University of Evansville

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For personal help: email doublereed-owner@-----.org
Doublereed is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org