July 20
2003
Proms ruined by the Prommers (Sunday Telegraph)
» Posted on July 20, 2003 03:00 PM » Category: Music
The Proms, which started on Friday, are every bit as good as the hype would have it. By far the most varied and consistently high-class music festival in the world, they are in almost every respect a model of British cultural life.

In almost every respect. There is, however, one big problem with the Proms: the Prommers. Somehow the myth has taken hold that the people who pay £4 to stand in the arena - the area that would normally have stalls seats, which is handed over to the Promenaders for the duration of the Proms - are the greatest audience on the planet.

Nothing would, of course, suit the prevailing ethos of our time - access - better than those Prommers being the ideal mix of decorum, good taste and calm enthusiasm. It is an article of the arts establishment's faith, after all, that it is the people in the cheap seats who are the real fans, showing up the more expensively-seated philistines who snooze through Ein Heldenleben until it is time for a G&T in the interval.

Talk about the wish being father to the thought! There is no other audience quite so noisy, fidgety, intolerant, smelly and plain bloody awful as the Promenaders. I know how bad they are because I used to be one of them. I started when I was a student and for more than a decade I put up with their din, their restless twitching, their inanity, their cliquiness and, perhaps worst of all, their appalling personal hygiene. I did it because of the astonishing value of a £4 entrance fee. And if the Albert Hall audience was so awful, well, that was the price to be paid for obtaining such a fabulous musical education.

As I got older, work commitments meant that I was not getting good enough value from my season ticket and so I decided to buy normal tickets - seats, that is - for the half a dozen or so Proms that I could get to. And guess what? I discovered that it is possible to listen to a Prom without being surrounded by chatter, without having to put up with couples, oblivious to their surroundings, eating each others' cheeks, without having to hear crisp packets being opened during the softest pianissimo, without having to watch your neighbour pick her nose during the slow movement and without having to ration your in-breaths to avoid being asphyxiated by body odour.

The mythology is all wrong. The Prommers may seem a wonderful, romantic ideal of an arts audience. But they are not. It is the Prommers who talk to each other in the middle of the St Matthew Passion, and the boring people in the seats who listen attentively. It is the Prommers who lie flat on the floor and fall asleep and the seated enthusiasts who hang on the orchestra's every note.

The real problem about the Promenaders is that they are not there for the music, but to be part of a rather sad club that meets nightly at 7.30 and is defined by a series of inane rituals. So the highlight of their evening is not Martha Argerich playing Ravel, but the chance to chant "heave" when the piano is shifted onto the stage, or their asinine mock applause when the orchestra leader plays a note on the piano for the orchestra to tune up to.

I have always wondered what they do between October and June when there are no Proms to go to. Stay at home, I hope, for the rest of our sakes.

MessageSpace
Comments

Clearly you do not know many Promenaders or you do not go to many concerts in London or elsewhere outside the Proms Season, since it is unusual not to find familiar faces in the audience. Moreover, you clearly do not know that quite a number of Promenaders can be seen sitting in seats in other parts of the Albert Hall not only during the Proms but at other times of the year, not in the stalls or the boxes, but on the platform.

Just for one example, and she is far from unique, one Promenader has, in the last twelve months sung in the Vatican (Mahler's Resurrection), Paris and Athens (Beethoven 9) and is touring Kuala Lumpur and Perth later this year. That in addition to a couple of dozen concerts throughout Britain. That is the dedication and love of music that is shown by the sort of real lover of music (i.e. amateur) that you would have found at the proms were you capable of seeing the facts rather than riding your bigoted hobby horse.

And it is you making the point about riding on other people's subsidies. The Proms receive none and we pay for our little bit of floor. When I play for an amateur orchestra I pay for the privilege. It appears that you revel in the role of "journalist" - being paid to state mistruths about other because, by encouraging their ignorance, you can amuse the benighted.

Incidentally, I thought the performance of the Ravel that you mentioned was the worst I have attended. I understand that she had been ill, but whatever the reason, she clearly didn't think it was serious. It was not helped by the vast crowds all saying that she was wonderful - though some admitted her faults on the occasion, they still said it was marvellous. Promenaders tend to be critical - after all, we have been at some pretty stunning performances, most don't reach that, but at least the performers try.

Probably every amateur orchestra and choir in London has a few Promenaders among its membership. The Prommers' Orchestra & chorus performed annually outside the Albert Hall during the Proms season for 9 years and raised money for charity - it stopped because the performance area was turned into a bar and the BBC provided so many weekend afternoon concerts that there was no time to rehearse.

To say that we are not interested in the music is offensive, not to say blatantly untrue.

I challenge you to attend St Boniface's Church, Adler St, E1 at 6 p.m. on 2 May 2005. It is not a Promenader event, but you will find a lot of Promenaders there. If you merely listen, you will show that you have a vague, non-participatory interest in music. If you want to show that you can approach us in interest, turn up the previous weekend so that you will have rehearsed enough to be admitted to perform - or don't you know how to?

Incidentally, I am an IT consultant by profession. I have guessed that by "anti-spambot Turing code" you mean thte number displayed. If that guess is wrong you won't see this. (My initial understanding wat that I had to write "anti-spambot Turing code" below.

On the whole, your page fails the Turing test which means I assume it is written by a machine not an intelligent being. That rather confirms my opinion of the content.

Stated by: John Underwood on February 2, 2005 7:43 AM
Stated by: bundlebox on July 1, 2006 12:20 AM
Post a comment

    


    •