the performer's responsibility to the audience?

[ibbar]

I was thinking today about what exactly a performer's responsibility is to his audience.  I don't think anyone would argue that basic technical competency is of critical importance.  However, does a performer accomplish his task best when he "plays down" to his audience, so to speak, by giving them familiar pieces and comfortable interpretations?  Or is the performer who plays whatever he wants, regardless of the audiences' tastes and sensibilities, staying more true to his art?  What do you think that the proper relationship is between a performer and his audience?

In general, I don't view a "performer" as an "entertainer," so I don't believe that it's his responsibility to pick his repertoire and shape his interpretations around ideas that his audience will find agreeable.

[pianistimo]

having a combo of known pieces and unknown is kind of nice.  and, to have more extensive program notes on the unknown - and/or speak a little bit about the program.  it has taken me a long time to want to utter a word at the same time as remember a few pieces - but, i hope someday to be able to speak a bit - as i see other performers do.  it seems to warm up an audience to you - even if it's jsut a few words. 

[cfortunato]

It's the performer's responsbility to try and play music that the audience will enjoy - whether familiar, new or a combination depends on the audience.  But it has to be for them, not you.   They are paying you.  If you want to play only to please yourself, play in your livingroom.  If you feel the need to make them appreciate "really good music," because they have the taste of plebians and need you to teach them, that's hubris.

Also remember - those very familiar pieces are probably only pleasantly familiar to the audience - not played out, as they may well be to you.

[rc]

Best of both worlds: play whatever tickles your fancy, but try and make it more accessible to the audience with some background information, maybe even explaining how the music is organized with some examples, to help an audience know how to listen to the particular piece. I don't see what's hubris about that.

Know what's hubris? Making me look up a word like hubris!

hu·bris    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (hybrs) also hy·bris (h-)
n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: “There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris” (McGeorge Bundy).

 

[alzado]

To address this issue, let me go to two examples:

cfortunado writes, "It's the performer's responsbility to try and play music that the audience will enjoy - whether familiar, new or a combination depends on the audience.  But it has to be for them, not you.   They are paying you."

What would cfortunado think of the aging Myra Hess, that gifted concert pianist who was so much loved by British audiences?  In her last few years of performing, she would come up with programs where she would ONLY play Beethoven's last sonatas.  But that was it.  Take it or leave it. (The bio did not explain WHY she insisted on doing this.)

It is a testament to the Britishers love for her that she still filled auditoriums.

Example 2:   A number of composer-pianists DEPLORED the great love of the audience for certain of their short pieces.  For example, Rachmaninoff became deathly tired of playing his Prelude in C# Minor, even though audiences asked for it.   Some of these composer-pianists still played these "old chesnuts," and it is probably because they felt the need to please the audience, despite being very tired of them. (I believe Rachmaninoff deplored ever writing the blasted thing.)

[prometheus]

Imo the audience has a much much bigger responsibility towards the performer (and the composer).

[rc]

Imo the audience has a much much bigger responsibility towards the performer (and the composer).

That's an odd one, why's that?

I think the audiences only responsibility is to themselves, it's up to them to get any enjoyment out of the music, everything else is pretty much out of their hands.

The composers are often dead, they've fulfilled their responsibility by writing good music.

In a performance, it falls into the hands of the performer to make the music real. Being true to the music is the same as being true to any listener, because they'll hear it, and from there it's whether or not the listener is able to enjoy the music.

It could be a question of what the audience expects to hear from the outset, if they're expecting one thing and the performer gives them something else, they probably won't enjoy it. With the Myra Hess example, besides being well established, so long as people know they're in for late Beethoven they won't be cheesed when they don't hear 'Moonlight'.

I think that people who are already inclined to go see a concert, wouldn't be too opposed to hear something different, so long as they know beforehand. Those who aren't interested in something different, can stay at home.