A few months back, Gizmodo posted a video by VSauce on the subject of clapping as a form of expression.
At about the five minute point in the VSauce video, they talk about how in the early 19th century people hired themselves out as professional “claques.” They would learn operas and then applaud and laugh at the correct places as a way to prompt the rest of the audience. Today, television shows have signs that prompt people when to respond.
I was interested to learn that while babies will naturally learn to clap, parents are encouraged to teach their children to connect clapping to an enjoyable event. Even though we might unconsciously start clapping when we see something we like, we have been socialized to do it rather than it being a natural reaction.
The big question that came to mind was, why are people so intimidated by not knowing when to clap during a symphony? Since it is a socialized practice, they can just wait until everyone else starts, right?
The place that really trips people up is the pause between movements. For a few moments, I wondered if society had betrayed classical music by creating an expectation that you start clapping immediately at the end of a piece.
Perhaps earlier audiences had more patience and let things simmer a moment before clapping and that had evolved to an ever shorter period of time?
But there was a New Yorker piece pictured in the VSauce video by Joseph Wechsberg who was a member of a claque during the mid-1920s in Vienna. He talks about how hard it was to be part of the claque for operas like Carmen because the audience was likely to break into “wild applause” at the incorrect moments and it was the job of the claque to influence the audience “into orderly channels.”
Clearly, people were no less apt to clap at the wrong times nearly 100 years ago. According to Wechsberg, even young boys followed opera and thought wild clapping was heresy so I am sure there were a lot more venomous stares being delivered in concert halls then versus now.
Individual singers would pay to have people clap for them, but it basically was just enough to cover tickets to the show so the claques were essentially just doing it for free tickets.
With that in mind, I wondered if there was any value in reviving the practice of giving people comp tickets in return for their leadership in applause? Or perhaps more constructively, to act as mentors for new attendees?
With email and social media, people with the knowledge claques possessed could be used to much greater effect than a dependable source of applause.
Since Joseph Wechsberg’s description of his claque was basically that of poor artists and students, having them act as guides in return for tickets might be an interesting and productive arrangement.
Joe,
I’m a board member and volunteer at Woolly Mammoth Theatre in DC. When Woolly launched our connectivity initiative a few years ago (basically an effort to introduce an added body of activity that would increase the probability of audience members engaging explosively with the art and with each other – yes, it was that vague) our first connectivity director envisioned a body of volunteers that helped her do whatever it was she needed to do. I suggested the term “Claque” which I’m pretty sure I learned from a footnote to a translation of Cyrano I read in high school. As connectivity continues to, well I want to say evolve, but that certainly overstates the case, probably what it really does is scurry from promising idea to wild inspiration, at any rate, as it does that, that body of volunteers keeps changing how it forms, functions, and goal sets; but it is still called a claque.
Pete-
What sort of things does the claque do? Can you give some examples how you have seen it change form/evolve? This sounds quite interesting.
Early on, claque work was fairly evenly balanced between helping to execute events like pre-show receptions, post show discussions, and extra programming (like a film screening thematically related to a production) and trying to recruit audience. Claque members would be given promotion codes for each show and told, in a modestly competitive way, how many attendances they had each inspired. That direct audience recruiting role has largely dropped off, although particular members who have some kind of community connection to a thematically relevant group still have a role recruiting people “Like them” (whatever that may mean in a particular case.)
Claque members also participate in connectivity planning for the season. There is usually a series of events, shortly after season announcement, when claque members participate in table reads of extracts of scripts or whole scripts then spend time together pulling themes and connectivity hooks out of what they read. They also function as a ready focus group for what may or may not be interesting to hang around a particular production. To some extent, the particular opportunities presented by any given production change what is asked of the claque.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. Every little idea that has been tested under practical conditions is helpful
I ask my volunteers to start clapping as our audience can be slow to react or withhold their responses–they’re very reserved. But having claques change how and when people do respond enthusiastically is a bit troublesome to me. Yes, I know when it’s appropriate to clap during a symphony’s performance and not everyone does but do we want to discourage reaction and applause? Must we conform people to how and when they respond? It reminds me of killing creativity and expression when a person is told their artwork doesn’t measure up. Is positive response ever truly wrong? Being afraid to respond “inappropriately” is what keeps some people away and makes our organizations seem elitist.