Avoiding applause

[IanT]

More specifically - avoiding applause in the middle of works or between movements.

Does anyone have any techniques to let the audience know that they shouldn't be applauding yet?  I've noticed Alicia de Larrocha tends to leave one hand on the keyboard as an indication that she hasn't finished. 

How about techniques to let them know that you have finished?  You can always get up and walk off stage I suppose.  Hopefully someone starts clapping before you make it all the way off!

Ian

[Dazzer]

1) start the next movement as quickly as possible (option). Of course, unless you want to pause, for effect.
2) don't move your hands towards you, as if to return to a relaxed position. or try not to.
3) tell the audience before hand at the start of the concert. also put it in the program.

that's what i think.

[pocorina]

The "one hand" thing is a good one. Something I used to do was to keep my body in the position of playing and not look round, but to look sort of satisfied and yet still as though you are about to play more. If you do want them to applause, get up and stand next to the piano in front your stool, facing the audience, with one hand resting on the piano and one tucked in front of your tummy, ready to bow. You don't need to walk off the stage unless it is the end. I have seen many people do this. But I find that generally the audience do not clap between movements anyway.  

[marialice]

The most effective thing to do is definitely to tell the audience before you start playing (or have someone else tell this). I have seen this happen quite a number of times, and it works pretty well.

[maxy]

hey... why should we care about that?
Most of the time you get huge amount of coughing between mvts...
Might as well let them applaud.

[Waldszenen]

When my teacher performed, she always lifted a hand up and smiled as a gesture that she hadn't finished.

[galonia]

If you list the movements in the program, surely people can figure it out.

[soundtrk]

Just tell them.

Or, once I had an MC tell them because I didn't want to speak on stage.

[Hmoll]

There's nothing wrong with applause between movements. If people applaude, and you don't acknowledge it, you are a rude performer. If people applaude between movements, you should make a quick bow, or even nod toward the audience.

Making an announcement to the audience before a performance  that they not applaude between movements is the height of pomposity. The people in the audience who know not to applaude will think you're insulting their intelligence, and the people who don't know not to applaude will wonder what the hell your problem is. 

The best advice: subtle body language - not fully removing your hands from the keyboard, like what was mentioned.

[sonatainfsharp]

Don't move between movements.

[whynot]

Hmoll is exactly right.  The applause is the audience's gift to you... it's rude to dictate a gift, better to graciously help them by your own manner.  If you're not finished, make sure you don't LOOK like you're finished.  I would never lift a hand to the audience like a traffic cop.  If people applaud between movements because they don't know better, it means you got people to come to your concert who don't normally attend such events.  That's fantastic!  It would be ungracious to let them feel foolish for not knowing all the performance customs.  When you're done, look done, and if they're still not clapping after several seconds, stand up and smile-- don't walk off before they have a chance to figure it out, the audience will be confused and embarassed.  The point of etiquette isn't to be exclusive, it's to make people comfortable, and we can really help audiences with that.   

[IanT]

Yes - I think Hmoll and whynot have nailed it.  I once heard a quote (I think from Rubinstein) admonishing someone who tried to stifle inter-movement applause: "Young man, never shush your audience!"

I think the key is to look like you're not finished.  If you want a longish gap between movements then you can freeze at the end of the movement until the obvious point for applause is passed and then relax.

I once attended a concert where the audience started applauding at the end of the B section of Chopin's Bb- scherzo.  I don't know what they thought when the pianist started on the reprise of the A section.  I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them thought "Oh no, he's going to play it again - we must have clapped too loud"!

Any other inappropriate applause stories out there?

Ian

[pianowelsh]

Best way - if you have audience that dont know the pieces (or are playing new works) is to either publish a programme OR ... even better.. talk to the audience and explain the piece to them (ie no of movements - title, meaning of the piece - other light facts and annocdotes circ 30 seconds) before you play - granted this can take away the impact from some pieces but of this is a concern i would plump for the paper version. When i am playing a piece with variations of something like estampes with three mts i tend to hold the attention by either physically keeping the movement static ie hold extremely still between mvts (so they can see no noticeable break in my concentration) or if the movement follows attaca i try and sythesise the 'off' movement of the first part into a continuos movement 'into' the next piece. What not to do is look up/ to the audience, blow nose or fiddle with the stool as this signals to the public 'look i finished' and their instinct is to clap - its REALLy important to hold the mood with your physical gestures or lack of and make it obvious when you have finished - when satisfied with your last notes decay. an upward look and a clear standing up motion turning to the audience - they cant fail to miss ' i finished - you can clap me now!'      Its difficult to get it right and it does take practice - you have to be you but bear in mind how the audience is seeing you ( a video recorder can help - make sure they get clear signals)

[sznitzeln]

have two signs with you .... "playing" and "done" .... self-explanatory

[maxy]

Best way to avoid unwanted claps= screw up big time and make sure to badly miss the final chord of a given mvt.   

[invisible]

have two signs with you .... "playing" and "done" .... self-explanatory

Yeah, hang a "do not disturb" sign from the piano and then flip it over when you are ready for the applause "housekeeping needed..." oh wait... 

sincerely,
invisible

[Ludwig Van Rachabji]

Making an announcement to the audience before a performance  that they not applaude between movements is the height of pomposity. The people in the audience who know not to applaude will think you're insulting their intelligence, and the people who don't know not to applaude will wonder what the hell your problem is. 

I disagree. Applause in the middle of a piece ruins the piece's atmosphere. For example, say you were playing Beethoven's Opus 111. Don't you think it would kind of spoil the ending of the piece if the audience claps after the first movement? Simply letting them know that the  piece is not over until you lift your hands or whatever is perfectly all right. However, I do agree that ignoring the audience's applause is very insulting to them, and if, by any chance, people still clap after you tell them not to, the last thing you want to do is play over their applause (believe it or not, I've seen a pianist do that before!).

[ramseytheii]

I disagree. Applause in the middle of a piece ruins the piece's atmosphere. For example, say you were playing Beethoven's Opus 111. Don't you think it would kind of spoil the ending of the piece if the audience claps after the first movement? Simply letting them know that the  piece is not over until you lift your hands or whatever is perfectly all right. However, I do agree that ignoring the audience's applause is very insulting to them, and if, by any chance, people still clap after you tell them not to, the last thing you want to do is play over their applause (believe it or not, I've seen a pianist do that before!).

In that particular case, I would not even put a space between the movements.  It is better to connect with pedal, to let the final chord of the first movement fade into the first of the next.

Walter Ramsey

[erinpez]

First off, don't ever feel like you should start the next movement quickly just to avoid applause. You shouldn't let the music be affected by stuff like that. Leaving your hands, (or at least one), on the keyboard really helps. Also, just stay in the zone. Show with your face and your body language that you're not done. Once you figure out how to do that, it really does work!

[Siberian Husky]

ARG YOU GUYS HAVE IT ALL WRONG!!!

look buddy..this is what you do...

when your done playing your movement...quickly get up off the piano bench..people will begin to applaud...you then run for the nearest Mic...grab it..lunch to the audience and say "LOOK GUYS..IM NOT EVEN DONE RIGHT NOW OKAY?! DONT YOU GUYS KNOW THAT THIS IS ONLY THE FIRST MOVEMENT!..GOD!!!...HOW IGNORANT!...IF YOU CLAP BETWEEN MOVEMENTS ONE MORE TIME I SWEAAAAR I'LL TELL MY MOM ON YOU...AND MY DAD CAN BEAT UP ALL YOUR DADS SO SHUT UP"...

then walk gracefully walk back to the piano bench in a professional fashion..its guaranteed to work..you wont hear anymore interrupted applauses...well..you might not have an audience either...but that and no applause go hand and hand...


okay..seriously...applauding is special...enjoy it...the performance is for THEIR satisfaction..not YOURS...

[lostinidlewonder]

It is funny, because if you for instance go to a Jazz recital people are encouraged to clap whenever they feel like, especially after a solo run has come to an end. I feel in concerts it doesn't matter if they applaud each movement, each movement deserves it I reckon. Sometimes it might be beneficial so the audience can do something physical to wake themselves up for the next movement, especially if you play long pieces.

[decadent]

I don't mind audiences applauding between movements...  i think some more musically educated audiences observes the tradition of applauding after the completion of all movements with a sense of snobbery.

In fact, when I attend recitals or concerto performances, or actually playing a concert myself, I often feel the silence after an emphatic ending of say, the first movement of Tchaikovsky's 1st PC rather awkward.  Surely, with such adrenaline pumping ending of that movement, its more satisfying for both the performer and the audience if there were spontaneous applauses, no?

[pianowelsh]

Frankly its not all that important - its better that they clap in the 'wrong' places than not at all!  I didnt mean to suggest that you should talk down to an audience and preach about not clapping - far from it! - so please dont pick me up wrong.  What i meant to convey is that if you have a young audience (prob not a music school - just average) then to explain the structure of the piece and some anecdotal things about it may help them listen better and give a clearer idea of when its finished. This approach can be useful in small concert parties or in situations where you know you havent got a particularly knowledgeable audience - or if you are playing little known pieces) If you are giveing an ordinary Pro/semi-pro concert 99% of time you wont need to because there are enough people in the audience who know the works to lead the applause.  However i reackon its something we ought not to worry about too much! we have far more important things to remember than worrying about how the audience will react - thats their bit really

[ehpianist]

1) List movements in the program
2) If you don't want a long pause between povements keep your body and hands over the keys so it looks like you have not completely finished and slowly move your hands to the beginning of the next movement.
3) Sometimes even audiences that know not to clap between movements will feel compelled to clap after being impressed by a highly energized movement, there is nothing wrong with clapping between movements, it was common practice before the 20th Century.  I look at them smile, nod, and turn back to the piano.  They'll get the hint.

Elena
www.pianofourhands.com

[BoliverAllmon]

why can one clap after aria's in an opera and not during a concerto?

boliver

[xvimbi]

why can one clap after aria's in an opera and not during a concerto?

boliver

One can. In the olden days (Mozart, etc), it was absolutely common to clap, boo, or do anything at any time during a concert. Sometimes, the ruckus was so severe that the orchestra couldn't be heard. The tradition continued, albeit somewhat more civilized: it was quite common to applaud after every movement of a concerto, particularly when the performance was very good. I think it started in the US (but I could be wrong), that the rule was created to sit stiffly and not clap until the very end. Now, this "custom" seems to be the standard in Europe as well. Instead of showing enthusiasm for a particularly well-done cadenza, anybody who starts clapping after the first movement is looked upon as a crazy, ignorant fool. That takes the fun out of it. How sad 

[jhon]

A sure way to avoid applauses between pieces, movements, variations, etc, is to avoid a "non-classical" audience, which is alsmost impossible unless you will play in a piano competition where, more often than not, only ONE applause is allowed - that is in the end, after you played all your pieces.  (It's ironic that classical music competitions don't consider "audience impact" on the criteria for judging.)

[Bouter Boogie]

My advice: don't start the next movement to quickly, but let somebody tell the audience (before you start playing) you're playing a couple of movements.. The audience hopefully will understand they don't have to applause between the movements..

[kevink]

"Although my first concert was full, and all the boxes and stalls were sold out three days in advance, it did not make an impression on the public as I understood it.  The first Allegro, intelligible to a few, received a bravo, but as far as I could see it was because they felt they had to show amazement at what it was and they apparently had to appear to be connoisseurs!  The Adagio and the Rondo produced the greatest effect, more shouts were heard at this point."

F. Chopin, writing about the premiere of his second piano concerto of March 17, 1830.

I guess poor Mr. Chopin wasn't educated about when it isn't OK to clap...  Someone should have made an announcement.


To clarify: performance practice used to be that movements of concerti were split up, and in between the orchestra performed other pieces--overtures, intermezzi, etc.  I'm being sarcastic above because I strongly believe that we should encourage the kind of lively audiences that jazz musicians, theater, cinema, ballet, opera, and just about any other kind of performance art receives all the time.  People love to applaud what they appreciate, and to ask them to hold it for the sake of the artist or the architecture of the piece or what have you is just pure snobbery. 

Perhaps some of the problem that we are experiencing with declining youth interest in live classical music (and by extension, classical records) is due to the fact that, face it, no one wants to subject himself to an exclusionary atmosphere.  And that is just what we are creating when we dictate audience etiquette!

[kevink]

One can. In the olden days (Mozart, etc), it was absolutely common to clap, boo, or do anything at any time during a concert. Sometimes, the ruckus was so severe that the orchestra couldn't be heard. The tradition continued, albeit somewhat more civilized: it was quite common to applaud after every movement of a concerto, particularly when the performance was very good. I think it started in the US (but I could be wrong), that the rule was created to sit stiffly and not clap until the very end. Now, this "custom" seems to be the standard in Europe as well. Instead of showing enthusiasm for a particularly well-done cadenza, anybody who starts clapping after the first movement is looked upon as a crazy, ignorant fool. That takes the fun out of it. How sad 

Woops, wrote my post without realizing someone else beat me to it.  Yes, what he said....


...Hey, anyone want to try to resurrect the old way of doing things?  Let's start clapping in between movements!  Or, in order to avoid stepping on other peoples' toes, let's start encouraging our own audiences to do so.

[Daevren]

Classical music culture needs less applauses. Its really annoying, both for the performers and the music lovers.

[jamie0168]

Personally, I like to use the "one hand on the keyboard" technique. I've seen it happen several times: the performer(s) would play several movements and the ausience would clap after each one. By about the third time, the audience grows tired or bored of applauding and the final amount of applause is alot smaller than it would have been. I like to make the audience hold their applause until the very end. That way, you get one big burst of applause instead of several smaller amounts. 

[Nightscape]

Classical music culture needs less applauses. Its really annoying, both for the performers and the music lovers.

I love applause.  And I also love applauding.  I believe that applause is in a way the human response to the acknowledgement of the existance of music.  It's like saying "I just heard this music, and I have felt such a connection with it that it demanded audible attention of its own - that is, the clapping of my hands."

Keith Otis Edwards over at Classical Archives has written an intriguing article on this very subject.  I will reproduce it here:

MIMES WITH BATONS

As I discussed in previous rants, popular music has degenerated to the Lowest Common Denominator, consisting of nothing but pinched and nasal whining with dumb kids strumming random chords on loud guitars. Pop music does, however, put on a good show. There is elaborate lighting and nymphets dancing in their underwear and fireworks ignited on stage occasionally set fire to the building. It's all very exciting.

But what of classical music concerts? I would fain admit that I no longer attend many classical concerts, and the reason can be summed up in two words: bore ring.

When you registered with the Classical Archives, you probably didn't bother to read the full text of the terms you agreed to, and you are thus unaware of the fact that we are monitoring your activities whenever you access this site. For instance, we have seen on our screens that most older people who have read the previous paragraph become enraged, even apoplectic. Their reaction typically runs, This crude fellow has the temerity to state at the Classical Archives that classical music is boring?

I believe that the music itself is great, but the manner in which it is presented is dull, and I am not alone in this opinion. In his 1960 book, Crowds and Power Elias Canetti gives this description of classical music concerts.

All outward reactions are prohibited. People sit there motionless, as though they managed to hear nothing. It is obvious that a long and artificial training in stagnation has been necessary here. 

This, from a cultured European who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work, and he is quite correct—classical music has grown stagnant. A classical concert is an experience similar to attending worship in a Presbyterian church—perhaps spiritually enlightening, but hardly a thrill.

The reaction of readers to this is What do you expect? We are mature people—and serious! Do you expect us to engage in stage diving?

Very well, but it wasn't always this way.

In his book The Maestro Myth, English smart-guy Norman Lebrecht provides this account of a performance conducted by the great Arthur Nikisch (1855-1922):

Tchaikovsky's fourth symphony under his direction had a London audience jumping up on to the Queen's Hall seats, "stamping and shouting themselves hoarse; many chairs were broken." 

And also:

The London Symphony Orchestra found themselves playing Tchaikovsky's Fifth "like fiends: when we reached the end of the first movement, we did rise from our seats and actually shouted." 

Well, that's interesting. When was the last time you saw a classical musician jump and shout?

And this is from Raymond Lewenthal's notes to his recording, The Operatic Liszt:

When Thalberg descended on Paris in 1835 he brought with him a trick. When he first played his fantasia on Rossini's Moses people could not believe their ears. They stood up in their seats to see what was going on and to try and find out how it was done. 

People standing on their seats again. What has happened to classical music from the time of Arthur Nikisch until today when the audience is required to act as if they were all paralyzed? What caused this change? Was there a period in which nuns with whips patrolled the aisles, ready to lash someone who wasn't being serious enough?

Or is it that classical concerts are simply so dull that they naturally attract only the local farbisener? It would be great to get such people to break out of their shells and rouse them until they're standing on their seats, but classical concerts instead seem to have the opposite effect and only reinforce their prim behavior.

Classical performers must realize the dullness of their enterprise, and conductors have gradually changed their demeanor to introduce some showmanship. In 1937, Leopold Stokowski left the Philadelphia Orchestra to Eugene Ormandy and emigrated to Hollywood so that he could appear in such profound movies as 100 Men and a Girl and Walt Disney's Fantasia. There he fell in love with Gretta Garbo and stayed to conduct at the Hollywood Bowl. In these outdoor concerts, he had spotlights trained on his hands—he conducted without a baton—so that the shadows of his hands would be cast on the structure of the Hollywood Bowl itself.

That was a sort of light show, and never having witnessed the spectacle, I can't comment on its effectiveness (though Hindemith called Stokowski a "charlatan"), but Stokowski's stylized mannerisms on the podium seem to have had a deleterious effect on modern conductors.

Just what does a conductor do that sets him apart from his rivals? What makes him great, and what distinguishes the maestros whose names we recognize almost as readily as those of the great composers? Obviously, it is the quality of the performance he is able to wring from his players and his ability to cause people leaving the hall to speak not of Beethoven, but his Beethoven—as if mere Beethoven on his own was not worth listening to and needed some enhancement.

And just how does a great conductor achieve such an effect? How does he turn a mediocre thing like a Beethoven symphony into a work of art? In today's musical world, with union contracts mandating overtime pay, a conductor really has little time to rehearse the orchestra, and most of this limited time is spent getting acquainted with whatever new or unfamiliar material is on the bill. The standard repertoire is usually relegated to a quick run-through, or only difficult passages may be rehearsed.

How then, does the maestro work his magic? The modern technique if for the conductor to elicit the desired performance by a series of body contortions and exaggerated gestures. He makes the music fit and healthy by performing calisthenics on the podium.

The gaudy gestures seem to be the result of Stokowski's influence, as most of the legendary conductors of the past used a minimalist approach to conducting. The aforementioned Arthur Nikisch stood perfectly still with only his baton in motion, and his pupil, Adrian Boult, pretty much followed his example. (Boult said that as a youth he "nearly went mad" each night he watched Nikisch conduct. Afterward he realized that Nikisch's hand had never once risen above face level throughout the entire explosive experience.) Toscanini and Furtwängler kept their feet in place, the difference between them being that Toscanini's baton was precise like a metronome, while Furtwängler's beat was impossible to follow. Fritz Reiner stood like a cat ready to pounce, but never moved much. The twitching of his baton was so slight that musicians tell the story of a wisenheimer bassist in the Chicago Symphony who once pulled out a spyglass in rehearsal and trained it on Reiner's baton in hope of seeing the beat. (Of course, the man was fired on the spot.)

In addition to the contortions and arm-waving, the conductor always makes a dramatic show of cueing the entrances, particularly those of the brass players. These guys are all making a minimum of $80 grand a year, and they don't know enough to count their measures rest so as to come in at the right spot?

Even worse is the fact that I was always unable to watch the broadcasts on the US Public Broadcasting System of performances by the New York Philharmonic conducted by Kurt Masur. His technique, in addition to swaying about the podium in an intoxicated manner with the usual grand gestures and theatrical cues, is to make faces at the orchestra. While I have no doubt that Dr. Masur is a great musician, and I certainly respect his courage in the face of the repressive communist regime in his native East Germany, it must be admitted that he is nowhere near what may be termed as handsome. So why is it that the directors of cultural programming assume that, except for seeing the solos in the wind sections—and, of course the tympani; it's very important to show the sticks beating on the tympani—viewers would want to spend two hours staring at this dog-face grimacing and raising his eyebrows at the orchestra?

But do these techniques actually work? That's an easy call, as I think it's obvious that they work every bit as well as the similar "body english" that a bowler applies in enticing the ball to strike the ten pin once it leaves his hand, and I base this assessment on empirical observations made while attending symphony concerts. The martinets I played under in my youth always demanded that every member of the ensemble watch his majesty the conductor at all times, so I'm always curious to see if professional musicians likewise keep their eyes on the maestro. Perhaps it is due to the homeliness of men like Kurt Masur, but I can report that symphony musicians seldom turn their gaze directly at the man on the podium. They may only be playing a repeated series of whole notes, but somehow it seems necessary for them to stare directly at the sheets of music on their stands.

If, then, the gesticulations of the conductor have at best an indirect effect on the ensemble, just whose benefit is the conductor carrying on for? Obviously it is all a charade designed to hoodwink the poseurs of the classical audience into believing what they desperately want to believe—that they are witnessing some transcendental event in which the lofty goals of "aht" are being realized through the medium of musical genius. It must be musical genius; why the hell else would that old man be waving his arms about madly while performing an awkward ballet on a platform? He's acting in an absurd and deranged manner, yet he's well-respected and highly-paid, therefore the only explanation is artistic genius at work.

Today's youth are highly cynical, and they're buying none of it. They find the conventions of the classical world as embarrassing as if they'd stepped into a Pentecostalist revival, only it's worse than embarrassing and worse than the revival, because it's boring. The proof of this is that audiences no longer react with the excitement reported in the examples cited above, and each year the situation only worsens.

A hundred years ago, when classical music dominated all forms of culture, when it was alive and vibrant and worthwhile, audiences regularly cheered at the end of a movement if they were so moved. As with jazz, audiences often applauded during the music—if the passage or solo merited cheering. In today's strict rules of decorum, however, no one is allowed to express delight or react in any way to what was just heard. In recent times, the situation has only deteriorated in that orchestras now take longer and longer to start the next movement of a piece—ostensibly to prepare for the change in mood. (That's precisely what happened to professional baseball—the games became drawn-out and tedious because there is now so much time when absolutely nothing is happening other than frequent spitting.) Still worse is the fact that orchestras now find it necessary to tune-up between movements. Professional musicians making top dollar, and they can't keep their instruments in tune for forty minutes?

All of this is quite obvious to any objective observer, so it shouldn't be necessary to continue with additional examples of what's wrong with classical performances, but what can be done to improve the situation? How can the music of Beethoven be made as exhilarating and emotional two hundred years after its creation as it was one hundred years after its creation?

Certainly changes are in order. Concerts need to be tightened up with less time between movements and pieces, and the conductor's ridiculous parading off and then back on stage between pieces must be eliminated. (Who started that, anyway?) But what I'd relish seeing is an imitation of Hans von Bülow and his Meiningen Band all of whom had their music memorized—there were no music stands and no paper was on stage. All the members of this orchestra performed standing—even the cellos. In such a scheme, it would be interesting to also see the performers move around on stage during the performance. A soloist might step forward, and an instrumentalist whose part called for thirty-two measures rest could retire to the rear.

That's just a thought, and it may or may not be a good suggestion, but it's a moot point anyway, as the classical audience of today is entirely hostile toward improvements. They don't want any change whatsoever, and they'd certainly react in the indignant manner of some Catholics when the Mass was modernized after the second Vatican Council. Only a person who has become so deluded as to think of himself as a supreme intellectual who lives for "aht" enjoys the modern artifice and posturing of classical music rituals, but that's precisely the type of person classical music now attracts. If the concert ritual is oppressively boring, it's to their taste; making it rousing or even entertaining would ruin the rigid decorum of the ceremony for them. The tales recounted above of concerts during the great days of classical music are regarded by such a person as being comparable to the extermination of the Arawak Indians by Columbus—a rather unpleasant historical curiosity. If they could go back in time to change it, they would, but alas . . .

These people are but a small portion of the population, which is fortunate, or we'd yet have blue laws on Sunday, but they are the core of the dwindling classical audience. This situation would seem to doom the future of classical music in public, as such people don't seem to reproduce with much fecundity (for reasons I'll leave to your speculation). In our state of perpetual financial crisis, it is only a matter of time before the general taxpayers object to further subsidizing of this minority form of entertainment.

But I don't care. I have my scores, and I have my keyboard, and I have my CDs and LPs, and I have a refrigerator full of beer, and anyway, what those puritans prefer has nothing to do with the Brahms I know.

[Rach3]

How does he turn a mediocre thing like a Beethoven symphony into a work of art?

#%$*^%(*^&!!!

[Nightscape]

Don't worry, Rach3, he's just being sarcastic!   Reread the paragraph right before it and you'll see what I mean.

"as if mere Beethoven on his own was not worth listening to and needed some enhancement. "

Kieth is saying that he feels many conducters approach a Beethoven Symphony as if it were a "mediocre thing" and it requires them to make it a work of "aht", a truly great piece.  From the title of the article, "Mimes with Batons", you should be able to gather that Kieth is making an attack on the ridiculous gestures and flamboyance of today's conducters (gestures that supposedly enhance the performance of the said 'mediocre' work) by comparing them to conductors of the past, who used a minimalist, simple, approach, yet still caused thier audiences to work into a frenzy, not by thier grotesque facial gestures and body twitches, but by the quality of the work being conducted and thier faithful interpretations of it.

[Triton LE 76]

I hate when people begin to applause when i'm not done..
I couldn't take the last broken chord in the FI by chopin!!!
The morons that were watching begun much more earlier than they should have..

I agree with Siberian Husky 
maybe i'll try it someday....

[bearzinthehood]

#%$*^%(*^&!!!

Was about to quote that one too. 

[laurenlynnette]

I think ALL applause should be acknowledged GRATEFULLY. 

Applause is "thank you."  Nodding and smiling in acknowledgement is your way to say "your welcome."

[danyal]

Applause is great! But between movements breaks the idea of it being a big work. Its disracting to me, the performer, to the listeners (the ones who know better are distracted and annoyed by the ignorance of the ones who dont know better... who are ultimately distracted by the annoyance of the know-betters and are embarrased by their own ignorance etc) All in all, its a nuisance.

And it doesn't help stating the mvmnts in the program. A friend of mine once played a recital, where in the program it clearly stated "Slavicky- 12 small etudes" They clapped after the 3rd, the 5th, the 6th and the 9th. Ultimately, she was highly annoyed, skipped the 10th and 11th and moved straight to the last.

Really, theres nothing you can do. Your audience is your audience, they're going to be different each time. I've learned not to be at effect of them and just let them be. Its not your duty to teach them to count. Or to teach them concert etiquette. ~I like the one hand idea though. I think I'm going to use it.

[dbrainiak914]

I didn' read the whole thread, but I don't know if it's been covered, but sometimes the audience feels they simply must applaud between movements.  When I saw Yefim Bronfman play Prokofiev 2 with Cincinnati Symphony, after the second movement (crazy unending 16th notes) the whole hall was alive, gave him a standing ovation for minutes on end.  It was just absolutely amazing, he deserved it.