Rent-a-crowd! Understanding how applause magnitude impacts music performance appraisal

Abstract

Applause is ubiquitous in the reception of music performance. Applause magnitude can reveal and sway audience reactions, and it is critical for musicians and educators to understand how audiences and evaluators respond to this extramusical effect in the appraisal of music performance. This study investigated how listeners respond to applause magnitude and prompted discussions about extramusical effects and social influence. Three applause levels (polite, strong and vocal) were added to two identical solo trumpet performances (one Fanfare and one Vocalise). Thirty listeners rated these six performances for overall quality and five performance dimensions (intonation, expression, balance, rhythmic accuracy and dynamic control). Vocal applause significantly impacted ratings of overall quality, expression and dynamic control compared to polite applause. Listeners were aware of varying applause levels and the majority were susceptible to unconscious or conscious bias in their evaluations. Most listeners were unaware of the identical audio and found the experiential learning process ‘enlightening’. Listeners became cognisant of their susceptibility to extramusical effects and reflected on evaluation strategies. Future studies should employ experiential learning to inform emerging music professionals about perceptual vulnerabilities and enhance critical thinking and expert evaluation skills.

Keywords

Applause magnitude experiential learning extra-musical effects music evaluation social influence

Introduction

Applause is an integral component of the concert experience, and both performers and audiences share a tacit understanding that applause is an indicator of performance success (Gilbert, 2001; McParland, 2009). The intensity and duration of this response is loaded with meaning and the levels of applause intensity reveal the audience’s appreciation and reception of the performance (Dobson & Sloboda, 2016). Audiences are acutely aware of the responses of those around them (Barsade, 2002), and these sway their impressions of the performance. This study investigates the effect of applause magnitude on the appraisal of music performance. A perceptual test of applause magnitude (after Springer & Schlegel, 2016) prompted discussions about how audiences are susceptible to extramusical bias.

Extramusical effects in evaluating music performance

The reception and evaluation of music performance is complex (Thompson & Williamon, 2003). At any performance, the audience is exposed to a multi-sensory event (O’Reilly et al., 2016) where their focus is not exclusively on the music, but is bombarded with myriad non-musical information. These multi-sensory stimuli inadvertently contribute to their immediate impressions of the performance, and audiences’ perceptions can be overwhelmed by extra-musical information. Audiences prefer musicians who fulfil their expectations of concert etiquette (Waddell & Williamon, 2017). Student musicians who exude confidence through eye contact (Antonietti et al., 2009), beaming smiles (Wapnick et al., 1997) and self-assured stage entrance (Platz & Kopiez, 2013) are perceived as more successful than their less engaging peers. Audiences tend to make gestalt decisions about performers and appropriate marks, rather than respond to a series of marking criteria (Stanley et al., 2002). They determine the quality of a performer according to their expressive body movements (Davidson, 1993), performing posture (Davidson & Coimbra, 2001), physical attractiveness (Griffiths, 2008) or even the clothes they wear (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2022).

The extramusical effect of applause

In the 17th and 18th centuries, performers and audiences enjoyed a lively relationship, and audiences were free to applaud and cheer, creating dynamic feedback that heightened the emotional intensity of concerts (Brandl-Risi, 2011; Gilbert, 2001; Nicholls et al., 2018). However, for much of the 20th century the classical music audience has been regarded as passive receptors of the skills of musicians’ high art (Pitts, 2005). Music students understand classical concert etiquette, where unwritten rules and rituals underpin every music performance (Wilson et al., 2014). These accepted norms restrict movement, noise and interruption during the classical performance (Ross, 2010; Wagener, 2012) and ensure the audience is focused on the performer (Frisch, 2013) and can experience heightened emotional engagement with the performance (Adams et al., 2023). Even inexperienced concert attendees understand how to conform to expected concert behaviours and when to clap and when not to clap (Baker, 2000; Rajan, 2016). Pop and jazz audiences are not as restricted, and are instead encouraged to applaud and cheer spontaneously during live performances (Brand et al., 2012).

Peer influence and social contagion

Music audiences are susceptible to applause as peer influence, as it is human nature to observe the behaviour of others (Crozier, 1997) to attempt to conform to be part of the in-group (Garrido, 2017). As early as 1820, the Paris Opera employed a group of claquers to enhance and affect the musical experience (Rosselli, 2002). The chef de claque orchestrated the applause, murmurs of approval, laughter and weeping by a cohort of up to 100 paid claquers to steer the audience’s appreciation and reception of the operatic performance (Brandl-Risi, 2011).

Music is inherently social, and even strangers attending a musical event identify as part of the wider community of listeners (Pitts & Burland, 2016). Music audiences tend to mirror the behaviour and mimic the feelings of others (Dearn & Price, 2016; Pitts, 2005), and this heightens their feelings of collective and enhanced emotions (Garrido & MacRitchie, 2020). This emotional contagion (Juslin et al., 2014) helps explain why individuals report empathy when listening to music (Egermann & McAdams, 2013). In fact, it seems that audience reactions to music performances can be manipulated by the intensity of the post-performance applause, or lack of applause (silence), even when the audio of these performances are identical (Springer et al., 2018; Springer & Schlegel, 2016).

Communicating through applause

Applause is a ubiquitous form of non-verbal communication which plays a critical role in every performative setting. On the sports field, soccer umpires are swayed by the cheers of a home crowd and biased to the home team rather than the away team when refereeing (Balmer et al., 2007). Crowd noise interferes with the decisions of judges and in sports, such as gymnastics, which use subjective rather than objective scoring (Unkelbach & Memmert, 2010). In the 2016 US presidential debates, applause duration and intensity significantly increased the speaking candidates’ likability (Stewart et al., 2016). In these debates, applause was more ‘socially contagious’ than laughter or booing and could effectively influence others’ opinions (Stewart et al., 2018 p. 2). Crowds monitor and mimic the behaviour of people around them to coordinate with the group (Bull & Wells, 2002) and applause duration is guided by the overall crowd response (Mann et al., 2013).

Experiential learning to understand extramusical effects

The evidence of extramusical effects on music evaluation/reception is compelling, but the information may be intangible or unrealistic in music training. Critical research findings are not necessarily accessible to those who can use and practise them. Musicians, audiences and assessors are rarely challenged to consider their vulnerability to extramusical effects, such as performers’ appearance or demeanour which may impact their judgment of the music performance. When music students were asked to assess performances, designed deliberately to draw their attention to the visual aspects of performance, they became acutely aware of their perceptual susceptibilities in their evaluations (Mitchell & Benedict, 2017). Experiential learning, rather than traditional passive content delivery, provides an educational opportunity to challenge music students’ appreciation of extramusical effects, such as concert dress (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2022). Discussing their direct experiences of their assessments generated music students’ explicit understanding of new knowledge. It transforms music students’ capacity to apply critical thinking to established knowledge, and to make it useful and meaningful (Mitchell, 2018).

Aim

The effect of applause is underestimated, and it is now vital to explore applause as an extramusical effect which impacts audiences’ evaluations of music performance. Perceptual studies have confirmed that global audience reactions sway individuals’ responses to music performance (Springer et al., 2018; Springer & Schlegel, 2016), but have not investigated audiences’ awareness, recognition and understanding of this extramusical effect. This study aimed to investigate the effects of applause magnitude (polite, strong or vocal applause) on listeners’ evaluations of solo trumpet performances of a fast Fanfare and a slow Vocalise and explore awareness and influence of applause as extramusical effect. We designed an experiential learning opportunity to elicit listener responses to applause magnitude and prompt discussions about extramusical effects and social influence.

Method

Study design

Three applause levels (polite, strong and vocal) were added to the end of two identical solo trumpet performances (one Fanfare and one Vocalise). Thirty listeners rated these six performances for overall quality and five performance dimensions (intonation, expression, balance, rhythmic accuracy and dynamic control) on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 6 (outstanding; after Springer & Schlegel, 2016). The true intent of measuring the effect of applause magnitude was not shared with participants. Each listener took part in an interview about the assessment experience and the extramusical effect of applause magnitude was revealed.

Listener participants

A purposive sample of 30 listeners, 13 females and 17 males, between 18 and 58 years of age (M = 28.6, SD = 13.5) from a range of musical backgrounds completed the perceptual study. Six listeners had never received formal music training, 15 were musicians who played instruments other than trumpet, and nine were trumpet players. Regardless of formal music experience, all indicated they listened to music regularly and 26 had attended a live concert in the past 12 months. Interested participants responded to an advert about the project.

Materials

Musical stimuli

A university trumpeter and professional pianist played two contrasting trumpet pieces were selected for stimulus material (after Springer & Schlegel, 2016). Vocalise (S. Rachmaninoff Op. 34, No.14, 1915) is a stylistically slow, lyrical piece and was deliberately juxtaposed with Centennial Horizon (K. McKee, 2011), a fast fanfare. In the study these are referred to as the Vocalise and Fanfare respectively.

Recording

Performances were recorded as mp3 files using a Zoom H5 recording device in in a hall (30 m²). The Zoom H5 was placed 10 m away from the performers and set up to record between −12 and −6 dBu to ensure minimal post-recording gain.

Applause

Recordings of three different levels of applause intensity (Table 1) were sampled from live recital performances recorded at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music. All recordings in the hall were captured with identical audio settings and exported as mp3 files.

Table 1.

Applause magnitude definitions (after Springer & Schlegel, 2016).

Applause label	Applause type	Definition
Polite	Low magnitude	Continuous, weak audience clapping at the end of the excerpt only, with no audience vocalisations.
Strong	Medium magnitude	Continuous, stronger audience applause with generous clapping, some minor audience vocalisations.
Vocal	High magnitude	Continuous, strongest audience applause, audible audience vocalisations of cheering and whistling.

Excerpt creation

The trumpet excerpts and applause samples were imported as mp3 files into Logic Pro X editing software. Three identical clips of each piece were created and the three types of applause magnitude were cut into the end of each of the excerpts, resulting in six unique audio stimuli. The edited excerpts included the final 45 seconds of the chosen piece and 30 seconds of applied applause, resulting in a total time of 1 minute and 15 seconds per excerpt. The six tracks were uploaded to a private YouTube channel to be embedded into the online test.

Perceptual test

Table 2 shows the definitions of evaluation criteria which were provided to all listeners before the excerpts were played. The perceptual test was hosted in RedCap and excerpts were embedded as YouTube links with a fixed black background. Presentation order was randomised. Excepts were rated on five specific performance dimensions on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 6 (outstanding; after Springer & Schlegel, 2016), and excerpt overall quality rating out of 10 (1 being poor, through to 10 rated as outstanding; after Stanley et al., 2002).

Table 2.

Definition of performance dimensions provided to participants for the perceptual study.

Dimension	Definition
Intonation	The trumpet player’s accuracy of pitch
Expression	How effectively the trumpet player communicated emotion
Balance	How appropriately the trumpet player and accompaniment are matched in volume
Rhythmic accuracy	The trumpet player’s rhythmic accuracy
Dynamic control	How appropriately the trumpet player and accompaniment vary dynamic level
Overall quality	The quality of the overall performance

Follow-up interviews

Listeners were asked to discuss their experience of evaluating each piece in the perceptual study, how they approached the criteria and when they arrived at their decisions. Listeners were then asked about their perceptions of the applause in concerts before the true purpose of the study was revealed, and they were invited to comment or ask any questions.

Procedure

The institutional ethics committee approved the project. Listeners were introduced to the study by the researcher through Zoom (to comply with COVID-19 restrictions) and were given the opportunity to ask questions. Listener participants were emailed a unique link to the RedCap perceptual study and guided to use high-quality headphones when listening to the excerpts. Listeners were asked to complete a short demographic questionnaire including age, sex and years of musical training. Listeners were informed they would hear recordings from six different university recitals and listeners assessed each excerpt after the applause had subsided. Once participants had submitted responses, they were not able to alter their evaluations retrospectively. Immediately after finishing the perceptual evaluation, listeners completed a short semi-structured interview which was recorded using Zoom, lasting 10 to 15 minutes.

Analysis

This study employed a two-way repeated measures ANOVA (3 (applause) × 2 (music)). Listeners’ evaluations were tested for the effects of applause and musical piece. Bonferroni post hoc tests were undertaken to perform pairwise comparisons. Interviews following the perceptual study were transcribed and coded thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2006) according to music and performer evaluations, concert etiquette and awareness of others, confidence in assessments, the impact of applause and social contagion and the true nature of the applause intervention.

Results

Perceptual test

Descriptives

We examined the data to see if the listeners could be treated as one population. As there were no significant differences (p > .05) between non-musicians and musicians’ responses to any of the performance criteria we combined the datasets. Table 3 presents the complete dataset, showing the overall means and standard deviations for ratings of overall quality, intonation, expression, balance, rhythmic accuracy and dynamic control following each applause level for each musical piece. Each rating was considered separately for effects of applause (polite, strong, vocal) and musical task (fanfare, vocalise).

Table 3.

Mean ratings and standard deviations for performance dimensions, intonation and expression and overall quality for the fanfare and vocalise in each applause magnitude condition (polite, strong, vocal).

Dimension	Polite applause		Strong applause		Vocal applause
Dimension	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Fanfare
Intonation	4.5	0.9	4.3	0.8	4.6	0.8
Expression	4.6	1.3	4.7	0.8	5.1	0.9
Balance	4.8	1.0	4.6	0.9	5.0	0.9
Rhythmic accuracy	4.7	1.1	4.6	1.1	4.9	0.9
Dynamic control	4.7	1.0	4.7	0.9	5.1	0.9
Overall quality/10	7.9	1.2	7.9	1.1	8.6	0.9
Vocalise
Intonation	4.2	0.9	4.6	0.9	4.6	1.0
Expression	3.9	1.2	4.7	1.0	4.5	0.9
Balance	4.2	1.1	4.8	0.7	4.5	1.0
Rhythmic accuracy	4.4	1.0	4.5	1.0	4.6	0.6
Dynamic control	3.8	1.2	4.6	1.1	4.4	1.1
Overall quality/10	7.0	1.4	7.8	1.0	7.5	1.2

Overall quality

A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was performed on ratings of overall quality (Figure 1). There was a significant effect of applause on overall quality F(2, 57) = 5.861, p = .005, $η^{2}$ = .171. A post hoc pairwise comparison using the Bonferroni correction showed significant differences in overall quality between polite and vocal applause (p = .003). An interaction between applause and music was shown to affect the rating of overall quality F(2, 57) = 3.604, p = .034, $η^{2}$ = .112. In Vocalise musical tasks, mean overall quality ratings increased from polite (M = 7.0, SD = 1.4), to strong (M = 7.8, SD = 1.0) before falling to vocal (M = 7.5, SD = 1.2). For the Fanfare, overall quality ratings increased from polite (M = 7.9, SD = 1.2), and strong (M = 7.9, SD = 1.1), to vocal (M = 8.6, SD = 0.9).

Figure 1.

Main effect of applause on ratings of overall quality with interaction between fanfare and vocalise.

Expression

A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was performed on ratings of expression (Figure 2). There was a significant effect of applause on expression F(2, 57) = 4.633, p = .014, $η^{2}$ = .093. A post hoc pairwise comparison using the Bonferroni correction showed significant differences in Expression between polite and vocal applause (p = .010). In both the Fanfare and Vocalise musical tasks, mean expression ratings increased from polite (Fanfare M = 4.6, SD = 1.3, Vocalise M = 3.9, SD = 1.2), to strong (Fanfare M = 4.7, SD = 0.8, Vocalise M = 4.7, SD = 1.0). For Fanfare, ratings increased again to vocal applause (M = 5.1, SD = 0.9) but not for Vocalise (M = 4.5, SD = 1.0). There was no interaction between applause level and music.

Figure 2.

Main effect of applause on ratings of expression for both fanfare and vocalise.

Balance

A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was performed on ratings of balance (Figure 3). There was no effect of applause on balance ratings but there was an interaction between applause and music performed which affected the mean rating for balance F(2, 57) = 4.695, p = .011, $η^{2}$ = .075. Mean balance ratings for the Fanfare decreased from polite (M = 4.8, SD = 1.0), to strong (M = 4.6, SD = 0.9) and increased to vocal (M = 5.0, SD = 0.9), but for the Vocalise, mean ratings increased from polite (M = 4.2, SD = 1.1), to strong (M = 4.8, SD = 0.7) and decreased to vocal applause (M = 4.5, SD = 1.0).

Figure 3.

Interaction effect of applause on ratings of balance between fanfare and vocalise.

Dynamic control

A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was performed on ratings of dynamic control (Figure 4). There was a significant effect of applause on dynamic control F(2, 57) = 5.777, p = .005, $η^{2}$ = .169. A post hoc pairwise comparison using the Bonferroni correction showed significant differences in dynamic control between polite and vocal applause (p = .004). Mean dynamic control ratings increased significantly between polite (Fanfare M = 4.7, SD = 1.0, Vocalise M = 3.8, SD = 1.2), and vocal applause (Fanfare M = 5.1, SD = 0.9, Vocalise M = 4.4, SD = 1.1). An interaction between applause and music was shown to affect the rating of dynamic control F(2, 57) = 3.406, p = .044, $η^{2}$ = .104.

Figure 4.

Main effect of applause on ratings of dynamic control with interaction between fanfare and vocalise.

Intonation and rhythmic accuracy

There were no significant differences on intonation or rhythmic accuracy ratings for applause or musical piece.

Interviews

Music and performer evaluations

Listeners believed each of the six performances were unique and had strong preferences for performers and musical piece, as they believed they were responding to individual musicians in each excerpt. Nineteen listeners preferred the fanfare to the vocalise because it was more ‘dynamic in nature’ (P4) and ‘the performer had a lot more room to express themselves’ (P8). Four of those 19 participants specifically reported that the fanfare with vocal applause was their favourite above all others: ‘that person played very accurately. . . it was the best one’ (P9).

Concert etiquette and awareness of others

Listeners were acutely aware of concert etiquette and understood traditional concert conventions. They agreed that applause is a codified practice that ‘is like a collective energy’ (P21) which establishes ‘a sense of dialogue between the audience and the orchestra’ (P7). Fourteen listeners were cognisant of the audience as a collective ‘hive mind’ (P17) or ‘community of people’ (P18). They believed that ‘it’s not just about you and the performers on stage, it’s also about you as part of a bigger audience, and what others in the audience are doing’ (P7). Even non-trained listeners were mindful to conform: ‘imagine being the first person to clap and you mess it up!’ (P2).

The impact of applause and social contagion

All listeners believed that applause is a natural response to the end of a live performance. Before the true purpose of the study was shared, 25 noticed varied levels of applause, 17 were distracted by the varying levels of applause and seven believed it impacted their marking. Listeners revealed they were susceptible to the applause magnitude in their marking and when ‘the piece had a really big applause and some cheering and, in the end, I gave it a higher mark than I’d anticipated. . .’ (P13). Listeners believed ‘the applause really matched the performance [and] it made my judgements more informed’. (P11). It appears that listeners were vulnerable to the reactions of others and were subconsciously agreeing with the audience response, however four were confused by the changing applause magnitude:

‘It was very weird – it almost sounded the exact same [as other excerpts] but just as an overall atmosphere, because of the audience, it just made the performance seem almost better in general’ (P20).

Confidence in assessments

Listeners were unsettled by the varying levels of applause, and this impacted their confidence in completing the assessment tasks, however, the majority of listeners (N = 26) did not notice that the musical audio was identical. Four listeners questioned whether there were any audible differences between the excerpts: ‘I swear all of these just sound the same but then I thought that’s just my lack of musical understanding’ (P4). These listeners felt completely ‘out of [their] depth and couldn’t hear any difference between any of them’ (P2) but marked each excerpt differently. They attributed their inherent insecurity in making judgements to their lack of musical experience and were perplexed that the musical sounded identical, but the applause differed. Only one listener asked, ‘was that six pieces of identical music?’ (P10) and held their nerve to rate the Fanfares and the Vocalises the same.

Revealing applause magnitudes

When the participants were told about the different applause magnitudes they were ‘amazed’ (P3) and ‘completely surprised’ (P1) as ‘the applause definitely does change my view of how the piece was played. I didn’t think it had any influence though before’ (P22). Participants who did not notice the applause realised ‘now I think about it, I remember the ones with the big applause, and I did think that was the best one’ (P5). Others ‘didn’t think that the applause had that much of an impact on my response, but that is insane, wow’ and were intrigued ‘they were identical tracks?’ (P24). It appears that applause ‘colours your whole perspective’ (P1).

Participants were ‘really glad [they] did this study!’ (P20) and found the process ‘very enlightening’ (P17). ‘There’s a lot to think about. You’ve blown my mind!’ (P20). Even when they ‘very expressly did not want to be influenced by the applause . . . it still influenced me’ (P16).

I learnt a lot from it, because as a person who is assessing, if there is a really rousing reception then you know you think woah, it does make a difference to your perception of the piece (P19).

Discussion

Applause is an integral part of music concert culture. This study aimed to investigate the effects of applause magnitude (polite, strong or vocal applause) on listener evaluations of solo trumpet performances of a fast Fanfare and a slow Vocalise and explore awareness and influence of applause as extramusical effect. Listeners’ ratings of overall quality, expression and dynamic control of performances with vocal applause were rated significantly higher than those with polite applause. The experiential learning opportunity enabled listeners to explain and understand their perceptual strategies and consider how they were impacted by applause magnitude. Learning by doing is a powerful mode of learning to facilitate immediate understanding of complex musical concepts (e.g. Mitchell, 2018). Individuals were swayed by the intensity of this perceived audience response, and 26 were surprised to learn that the audio excerpts were identical. The majority of listeners reported they were aware of the applause magnitude and seven deliberately followed the perceived enthusiasm of the crowd to make their evaluations. It appears that applause was a critical extramusical effect which biased listeners’ evaluations of these solo musical performances. The implications of this knowledge are essential to musicians’ understanding of live concerts and the reception of their performances.

Listeners in this study were susceptible to applause magnitude which impacted their assessment of all performances. The use of authentic levels of audience feedback (polite, strong and vocal) were familiar to listeners, who were acutely aware that this concert etiquette was a reflection of the audience experience (Brand et al., 2012; Gilbert, 2001). For overall quality, expression and dynamic control, listeners’ evaluation ratings increased according to the three levels of applause magnitude for the fast Fanfare but peaked at strong applause for the slow Vocalise. This study extends previous gradations of applause from silence to low and high magnitude (Springer & Schlegel, 2016), where their listeners responded favourably to high magnitude applause for fast performances, and silence for slow performances. Springer and Schlegel (2016) speculated that their listeners may have been affected by differing applause magnitudes or silence and suggested that varying levels of applause may better suit different musical excerpts. In this study, the use of three realistic applause levels captivated the listeners, who responded in line with the increasingly positive feedback, just as the audience of the Paris Opera responded to the claquers (Brandl-Risi, 2011; Rosselli, 2002).

Listeners were aware of the applause incongruence but underestimated their compliance with the response of the crowd (Balmer et al., 2007). Here, the use of unanimated polite applause, rather than a control condition of silence (Springer & Schlegel, 2016; Springer et al., 2018), resulted in a poorer performance quality for both the Fanfare and Vocalise when compared to strong and vocal applause. Listeners in this study mentioned the collective emotion of the crowd specifically (Garrido & MacRitchie, 2020), but were oblivious to their impressionability. For example, when these listeners did not enjoy the performance, but heard vocal rather than polite applause, they were motivated to rate the excerpt more favourably (Mann et al., 2013). In interviews, listeners were naïve to the empirical studies on the extramusical effect of applause, but this experiential learning opportunity transformed their appreciation of extramusical effects.

In this study, we invited listeners to rate performances for overall quality, in addition to the five performance dimensions (after Springer & Schlegel, 2016). The overall quality mark was essential to understand listeners’ gestalt responses and was rated out of 10 as is familiar in an examination mark (e.g. Davidson & Coimbra, 2001). Contextualising these marks against institutional performance grades showed Vocalise ratings improved from Credit (6.5–7.5) to Distinction (7.5–8.5) and Fanfare ratings from Distinction (7.5–8.5) to High Distinction (8.5–10) when followed by vocal applause rather than polite applause (Stanley et al., 2002). This is of particular relevance to candidates and panels in music examinations, as it may be that applause magnitude can affect examiners’ responses.

Performance dimensions such as expression and dynamic control were also impacted significantly according to increases in applause magnitude, but ratings of rhythmic accuracy and intonation remained stable. Listeners explained that the objective nature of rhythm and intonation provided more accessible criteria for assessment. It appears that the more subjective terms were more easily influenced by personal experience or opinion (Springer & Schlegel, 2016) and were indeed susceptible to the effects of applause. Seven listeners admitted they specifically considered applause as such a salient evaluation tool, it was critical to their judgments. It appears that these listeners became part of the ‘social performance’ (McParland, 2009, p. 120), and most indicated that they relied on applause levels to assess expressivity in all performances.

Applause is integral to live music performance and affects audiences’ reception and judgment of performances. The majority of listeners were convinced they heard musical differences between the identical audio excerpts but subconsciously responded to varying applause magnitudes. While we might assume that experienced evaluators can discern differences in performance quality more reliably and consistently (Thompson & Williamon, 2003), listeners were impressionable to the extramusical effects of applause. This is not the first study to track extramusical effects in music assessment using identical audio, and these results confirm that applause is an extramusical effect similar to concert dress (Urbaniak & Mitchell, 2022), stage behaviour (Wapnick et al., 2000) and eye contact (Antonietti et al., 2009). Only one participant recognised that excerpts were identical, and was unmoved by the differing applause magnitude. It is critical to utilise perceptual tests as meaningful learning opportunities to translate key music research into real-world applications. This study is timely to equip music performers and evaluators to recognise their susceptibility to potential bias, and develop more robust evaluation strategies. Musicians and music educators need to be aware of their own susceptibility to the responses of those around them and the impact on their evaluations of music performances.

The results of this study may be subject to certain limitations. Recorded audio-only samples were useful to focus attention to the aural aspects of music performance in this study but are not truly representative of a live performance (e.g. Springer & Schlegel, 2016). Additionally, this study used only two musical excerpts, which would be unrealistic in a series of recitals, even on the same instrument. We recognised the rating criteria were unrealistic to music evaluators but necessary to the perceptual test. Most use a gestalt approach, and we added an overall quality rating to reflect audiences’ overall impressions to counter this effect (e.g. Stanley et al., 2002). Interacting with others in a concert involves observation and mimicry of others in the group (e.g. Pitts & Burland, 2016) and may influence responses in a more authentic environment. Playing different styles of music or instruments may elicit discrete responses which need to be considered in future studies (e.g. Brand et al., 2012). We believe the addition of short interviews provided essential insights to these listeners’ impressions of the experience and have presented key directions for future studies.

Conclusion

The results of this study are compelling and confirm that all levels of applause may likely generate pervasive extra-musical effects. Throughout history, applause has been used to manipulate audience responses (McParland, 2009; Rosselli, 2002) and has even been harnessed as a marketing ploy (Brandl-Risi, 2011). These listeners confirmed they were biased, but were naïve to the extent of their fallibility. This type of experiential learning promotes awareness and discussion to encourage critical thinking in music evaluation skills. It is now essential to provide educational tools for musicians and music students to counteract the influence of extramusical effects. Future studies should foster experiential learning to demonstrate the impact of social influence, and safeguard evaluators against the complexities of extramusical effects. Listeners’ impressions of music performance are undeniably influenced by the reactions of others. Today’s musicians need to seize the tacit knowledge of the Parisian claquers about applause magnitude to optimise audiences’ experience of their music performances.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Olivia Utharntharm

Helen F Mitchell

References

Adams

Springer

D. G.

Geringer

J. M.

Nápoles

Davis

M. N.

(2023). Effects of transitional elements on listeners’ aesthetic responses to a choral performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 71(1), 111–128.

Antonietti

Cocomazzi

Iannello

(2009). Looking at the audience improves music appreciation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33(2), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-008-0062-x

Baker

(2000). Stop re-inventing the wheel: A guide to what we already know about developing audiences for classical music. Association of British Orchestras. http://culturehive.co.uk/resources/a-guide-to-developing-audiences-for-classical-music

Balmer

N. J.

Nevill

A. M.

Lane

A. M.

Ward

Williams

A. M.

Fairclough

S. H.

(2007). Influence of crowd noise on soccer refereeing consistency in soccer. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30(2), 130–145.

Barsade

S. G.

(2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094912

Brand

Sloboda

Saul

Hathaway

(2012). The reciprocal relationship between jazz musicians and audiences in live performances: A pilot qualitative study. Psychology of Music, 40(5), 634–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735612448509

Brandl-Risi

(2011). Getting together and falling apart: Applauding audiences. Performance Research, 16(3), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13528165.2011.606021

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Bull

Wells

(2002). By invitation only? An analysis of invited and uninvited applause. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(3), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X02021003002

10.

Crozier

W. R.

(1997). Music and social influence. In Hargreaves

D. J.

North

A. C.

(Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 67–83). Oxford University Press.

11.

Davidson

J. W.

(1993). Visual perception of performance manner in the movements of solo musicians. Psychology of Music, 21(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/030573569302100201

12.

Davidson

J. W.

Coimbra

(2001). Investigating performance evaluation by assessors of singers in a music college setting. Musicae Scientiae, 5(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/102986490100500103

13.

Dearn

L. K.

Price

S. M.

(2016). Sharing music: Social and communal aspects of concert-going. Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network, 9(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.31165/nk.2016.92.428

14.

Dobson

M. C.

Sloboda

(2016). Staying behind: Explorations in post-performance musician-audience dialogue. In Burland

Pitts

(Eds.), Coughing and clapping: Investigating audience experience (pp. 159–175). Routledge.

15.

Egermann

McAdams

(2013). Empathy and emotional contagion as a link between recognized and felt emotions in music listening. Music Perception, 31(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2013.31.2.139

16.

Frisch

(2013). Music in the nineteenth century (1st ed.). W.W. Norton & Company.

17.

Garrido

(2017). Why are we attracted to sad music? (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing.

18.

Garrido

MacRitchie

(2020). Audience engagement with community music performances: Emotional contagion in audiences of a “pro-am” orchestra in suburban Sydney. Musicae Scientiae, 24(2), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864918783027

19.

Gilbert

(2001). Joyful noise: Reflections on applause. Southwest Review, 86(1), 13–33.

20.

Griffiths

N. K.

(2008). The effects of concert dress and physical appearance on perceptions of female solo performers. Musicae Scientiae, 12(2), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/102986490801200205

21.

Juslin

P. N.

Harmat

Eerola

(2014). What makes music emotionally significant? Exploring the underlying mechanisms. Psychology of Music, 42(4), 599–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613484548

22.

Mann

R. P.

Faria

Sumpter

D. J. T.

Krause

(2013). The dynamics of audience applause. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 10(85), 20130466. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0466

23.

McKee

(2011). Centennial horizon: For trumpet and piano [Musical score]. Kevin McKee Music.

24.

McParland

R. P.

(2009). The sounds of the audience. Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, 42(1), 117–132.

25.

Mitchell

H. F.

(2018). Music students’ perceptions of experiential learning at the moot audition. Music Education Research, 20(3), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2017.1327947

26.

Mitchell

H. F.

Benedict

(2017). The moot audition: Preparing music performers as expert listeners. Research Studies in Music Education, 39(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X17709631

27.

Nicholls

C. D.

Hall

Forgasz

(2018). Charting the past to understand the cultural inheritance of concert hall listening and audience development practices, Paedagogica Historica, 54(4), 502–516.

28.

O’Reilly

Larsen

Kubacki

(2016). Marketing live music. In Pitts

Burland

(Eds.), Coughing and clapping: Investigating audience experience (pp. 7–21). Routledge.

29.

Pitts

S. E.

(2005). What makes an audience? Investigating the roles and experiences of listeners at a chamber music festival. Music & Letters, 86(2), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/ml/gci035

30.

Pitts

Burland

(2016). Prelude. In Pitts

Burland

(Eds.), Coughing and clapping: Investigating audience experience (pp. 1–6). Routledge.

31.

Platz

Kopiez

(2013). When the first impression counts: Music performers, audience and the evaluation of stage entrance behaviour. Musicae Scientiae, 17(2), 167–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864913486369

32.

Rachmaninoff

Smedvig

(1982). Vocalise, op. 34, no. 14. [Musical score]. International Music Co. (Original work published 1915).

33.

Rajan

R. S.

(2016). Front row seats: Preparing young audiences for live performances. Music Educators Journal, 103(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432116654947

34.

Ross

(2010). Hold your applause: Inventing and reinventing the classical concert. [Transcript]. https://alexrossmusic.typepad.com/files/rps_lecture_2010_alex-ross-2.pdf

35.

Rosselli

(2002). “Claque”. In Root

(Ed.), Grove music online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O002398

36.

Springer

D. G.

Schlegel

A. L.

(2016). Effects of applause magnitude and musical style on listeners’ evaluations of wind band performances. Psychology of Music, 44(4), 742–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615591307

37.

Springer

D. G.

Schlegel

A. L.

Nápoles

(2018). Effects of applause magnitude and musical style on listeners’ evaluations of choral performances. International Journal of Music Education, 36(3), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761418771985

38.

Stanley

Brooker

Gilbert

(2002). Examiner perceptions of using criteria in music performance assessment. Research Studies in Music Education, 18(1), 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X020180010601

39.

Stewart

P. A.

Eubanks

A. D.

Dye

R. G.

Gong

Z. H.

Bucy

E. P.

Wicks

R. H.

Eidelman

(2018). Candidate performance and observable audience response: Laughter and applause-cheering during the first 2016 Clinton-Trump presidential debate. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1182–1182. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01182

40.

Stewart

P. A.

Eubanks

A. D.

Miller

(2016). “Please clap”: Applause, laughter, and booing during the 2016 GOP presidential primary debates. PS, Political Science & Politics, 49(4), 696–700. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516001451

41.

Thompson

Williamon

(2003). Evaluating evaluation: Musical performance assessment as a research tool. Music Perception, 21(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2003.21.1.21

42.

Unkelbach

Memmert

(2010). Crowd noise as a cue in referee decisions contributes to the home advantage. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.4.483

43.

Urbaniak

Mitchell

H. F.

(2022). How to dress to impress: The effect of concert dress type on perceptions of female classical pianists. Psychology of Music, 50(2), 422–438. https://doi.org/10.1177/03057356211001120

44.

Waddell

Williamon

(2017). Eye of the beholder: Stage entrance behavior and facial expression affect continuous quality ratings in music performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 513–513. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00513

45.

Wagener

(2012). Why do people (not) cough in concerts? The economics of concert etiquette (IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc). http://ideas.repec.org/p/cue/wpaper/awp-05-2012.html

46.

Wapnick

Darrow

A. A.

Kovacs

Dalrymple

(1997). Effects of physical attractiveness on evaluation of vocal performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(3), 470–479.

47.

Wapnick

Mazza

J. K.

Darrow

A. A.

(2000). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage behavior, and dress on evaluation of children’s piano performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48(4), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345367

48.

Wilson

Marczynski

O’Brien

(2014). Ethical behavior of the classical music audience. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 16(2), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1891/1559-4343.16.2.120