The comments on Greg Sandow's post last week about a recent concert experience of his edged their way, perhaps inevitably, around to the matter of audience response and how performers and presenters can encourage or nudge audiences towards particular kinds of responses, including responses that might not be normal for a particular concert mode.
My response is no longer timely and takes a discursive (and old) tangent, so I post it here – perhaps not so much a story for the composer as for the Juilliard violinist Greg invokes:
My orchestra a few years ago invited Christopher Hogwood and Robert Levin to perform a Mozart piano concerto. Levin, as he does, was going to improvise fresh cadenzas in each performance. Also on the program was Mendelssohn's Scottish Symphony, which I found interesting since I blame Mendelssohn (in his roles as composer, conductor and administrator) for helping to remove spontaneous applause from concert practice. He hated applause between movements, said it "murdered the mood", and the Scottish is deliberately written with segues to remove the opportunity for between-movement applause altogether. So that became one of the themes that I raised in my pre-concert talk, especially as a foil to Mozart and the improvisation culture of the 18th century that Levin was evoking. I think I ended up saying something like:
"If you really like Robert Levin’s cadenza in the first movement of the Mozart, try clapping. And if you find that you simply can’t bring yourself to disturb the sacred silence, remember Mendelssohn."
Now this was all outside the auditorium, separate from the concert, and it was important to me that I communicated permission to clap or to remain silent according to the listener's choice. What was beautiful in the concert was that our usually "well-behaved" subscription audience (quite possibly led by the 200 or so who'd been at the talk) did burst into applause after the first movement of the Mozart. Not half-hearted, uncertain, apologetic applause, but genuine, enthusiastic clapping. And better still, on the first night Hogwood (and perhaps only he could do something like this) turned around and told us all that we'd "all just done a very authentic thing". It felt really good to be a part of that performance.
But I don't think a line in the printed program or a prior instruction from the stage would have had the same effect (as another comment also suggests). No one much likes to be told what to do; but it's satisfying to come into a concert already knowing that you have permission and justification to respond in a way that your ears and heart might be telling you you'd like to. (And also, in the case I've described, knowing that enough of your companions have that knowledge too, so you won't feel like a complete dork when you pipe up with applause, foot-stamping, whatever.)
Ironically, that's precisely the same dynamic that also stops people clapping spontaneously: there's a critical mass of people who arrive knowing that applause between movements is the "wrong thing" and who know that the majority of those around them know this also. That's what gives them the confidence, you might say, to sit on their hands. When you can shift the dynamic such that a critical mass knows that there are places where applause is ok and to be celebrated and that there are other listeners who are aware of this also, then of course you have an audience that has the confidence to clap.
It's not just the exceptional experience at the Hogwood/Levin concert that leads me to this conclusion. At the ballet, where there is a continuous tradition of acceptable applause within works and therefore the audiences recognise with confidence when in the performance those moments are occurring, there is none of the angst about clapping that's encountered in classical concerts. And we're not completely discrete groups, either.