The FoR3 Blog
Are these the new snobs?
OED: Snob, n. ‘One who despises those who are considered inferior in rank, attainment, or taste.’
The idea occurs that the highground of lofty superiority has shifted. Proms season again, and the old chestnut of To Clap or Not to Clap arises. Some prefer to reserve their applause until the end of the work; others like to yield to their spontaneous urge to applaud as and when.
Now, to despise others for their ignorance or lack of self-control might well be considered snobbish but there is nothing snobbish about merely preferring to wait until the piece has finished rather than to clap between movements or after every song. Unfortunately, your preference does not prevail against the preference of others to clap.
The ‘clap when you feel like it’ school of thought has become increasingly common. So far so … good. But what does one make of the accusation that preferring to keep one’s appreciation until the end is ‘fatuous snobbery’ (in full, ‘the fatuous snobbery of not clapping after any movement as proof of holier-than-thou cognoscenti-dom’), as a recent Guardian columnist (and Radio 3 presenter) would have it? That is not an attack on the point of view, it is a disparaging comment aimed at those who have a different preference. It says ‘my view is right’ and despises those of inferior taste. In other words, it’s a dictionary illustration of snobbery.
The choice of the adjective ‘fatuous’ is ironic. Could our critic not concede that not all who prefer there to be no applause until the end are trying to prove anything, nor do they necessarily have ‘holier-than-thou’ – or any other – feelings towards the clappers. Other than irritation, perhaps, since on the battle-ground between those who want silence and those who want to make a noise the winners are always the ones who want to make a noise.
It was a treasurable moment when that same Radio 3 presenter, two days after the concert about which he had been writing, was obliged to ask the audience, well, what exactly? He couldn’t quite bring himself to ask them not to applaud as, presumably, the performer had requested, but came out with: ‘Ladies and gentleman, you are welcome in that short gap … uh … NOT to applaud if you want to prove your holier-than-thou cognosc-… [no, I jest] … if you want to maintain the sense of nocturnal reverie …’ What you were welcome to do if you DID wish to applaud the presenter did not say. He certainly could have been clearer that the performer did not welcome applause at that moment.
But we rest our charge of snobbery on the obvious scorn shown towards the dissenters – who in most concert halls are likely to be the majority.
Even more bizarre is the argument raised by some that in the good old days people used to clap, chat, eat, drink, be merry and other things besides while the music played. So? Do they want to ‘turn the clock back’? Well, it makes a change from accusing others, contemptuously, of wanting to ‘turn the clock back’.
The new snobs are the ones who declare that their way is right when in fact they are merely jumping on the moving bandwagon of cultural fashion – which no fashionista would wish to miss.
The late night proms are the only ones I can guarantee getting to, Eusebius!
What Tom Service actually said at Prom 7 was highly ambiguous, so I don’t think that Radio 3 is doing a good job of ascertaining performers’ preferences, and communicating them effectively to the audience(s).
Good afternoon, Kleines C. I am, coincidentally, listening to that very recital just at this moment, having recorded it for later listening
. You were there? Lucky you!
I felt Tom Service didn’t make it at all clear that there had been a request from the soloist NOT to applaud. It sounded as if you were free not to but you could if you wanted to – which rather cancels out the request. (Oh, goodness, the coughing is nearly as loud as the piano!)
I agree, the Proms audiences are ‘for better or for worse’, but on the whole for the better? I think that Roger Wright, sadly, will always be where the wind is blowing. I certainly don’t think the preference of the audience or the promoters should take precedence over that of the performers.
FMW – it’s probably very difficult to ‘shush’ people without putting backs up and then being labelled a snob ( = “I’ve taken umbrage.”). It’s surely up to performers here to make their preference clear when they don’t want applause – and for management and presenters to convey that message.
I, too, was interested when Tom Service, at the beginning of prom 7, stood on stage to introduce Maria João Pires, and suggested that the audience did not applaud during ‘gaps’.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/2010/whatson/2107.shtml#prom7
Having established the performer’s preferences, Eusebius, the late nighters behaved appallingly, clapping whenever they wanted, coughing loudly and some joker even played a Chopin ring tone at the very end of the concert. Of course, a lot of the audience behaved impeccably, and my own view is that the proms audience is paradoxically both the best and the worst behaved in London, if not the world. One of the best proms of the season was, in some respects, ruined by Maria João Pires’s audience.
So Tom Service’s attempt at crowd control did not work. As I tend to oscillate between snob and inverted snob, I would suggest that everyone lets the organisers know what kind of audience participation they prefer. Roger Wright always seems to me to be a bit equivocal on the subject.
A spontaneous applause or hushed silence can be quite revealing, and a standing ovation can be mixed up with people rushing to get out. I remember once queuing up at Wigmore Hall for returns, and I got chatting to an American enthusiast who told me that a standing ovation was guaranteed. At the end of the concert, he did, indeed, stand up to applaud, but he was the only one. We had a laugh afterwards when I suggested that it was a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I am firmly in the camp of holding applause until the end of symphonic works in more than one movement. That pause is not only important to the structure of the music, but to the mental composure of the performers, and especially of the conductor. To many in the audience, it is a necessary break for quiet contemplation and preparation for what is to follow.
Much of the cannon of serious music is far from being an easy listening exercise for the audience. It is not merely a diversion for part of the evening. It should not be treated as such by the modernistic ‘clap anything at anytime’ element within the audience.
I would contend that this is not a matter of ‘keeping up with the cultural fashion of the day’ or one of simple ‘democracy of numbers’. The importance of hearing complex and sensitive work in complete silence is so important that it overrides any implied ‘right’ of the enthusiastic to clap when they feel like.
There is a form of snobbery and elitism behind much of the shushing that is used as a control of that enthusiastic element. But, it serves a purpose and is useful to reduce the impact of random applause on those who need the quiet. On balance, those that need quiet have more right than those wishing to give casual or enthusiastic applause, because there is no ‘burning need’ to applaud, whereas there is for many of us a burning need for quietude.
There is in life far too much noise and intrusion upon others: applause in inappropriate places and at inappropriate times is part of this most unfortunate trend. Ubiquitous piped-musak is another form of the modern tendency to fill every moment with noise.