Who are you without your audience ?

[m1469]

I am perhaps being too reflective at the moment, but I have been doing a bit of performing in various ways lately, and have gotten a bit of attention in the process.  I will admit, I have liked it, and, I am growing quite used to being on stage.  Maybe so used to it, that currently, as I am sitting here alone in my house with only my piano and my voice staring at me, I feel like perhaps I am nobody at all -- perhaps I am invisible at the moment, or perhaps I don't even really exist.

And, that leads me to wonder if I feel as though I am nobody, simply because my identity is becoming tied now with being on stage and the whole idea of people seeing me when I am there; my audience -- it's like "they" are now my affirmation that I exist.  It's perhaps an addiction.  Who am I without my audience ? 

This frame of mind just doesn't seem altogether healthy to me.  I feel like I am craving this contact with people and music in this particular way, and, well, that's a little scary to me because I think it could get possibly WAY out of control.

Perhaps this is a real process, though ?  For people who become performing artists ?  Their identity becomes changed, to some extent, to include their audience within their very sense of self ?  That seems to be happening with me anyway, as best as I can understand it currently.

[opus10no2]

A piano recital is called a recital because the pianist recites, it's not a 2-way communication.

I never intend to play to anyone, though it is perfectly possible(and done frequently) to play to please someone else's interests.
I think the purest and best music making happens when a pianist plays to please themself.

Maybe you're addicted to the catharsis of communicating yourself with many people, maybe you're addicted to the feeling of being admired?

Are you saying you don't enjoy playing just to yourself as much as you did?

Losing sight of playing music for musics sake is dangerous. 

[m1469]

A piano recital is called a recital because the pianist recites, it's not a 2-way communication.

Well, though I think I get this and that there is a general thought like this, somehow it just doesn't ring completely true for me on all levels.  Even though the audience is not saying or sharing in the same ways that the performer may be, the listener must make himself vulnerable in order to let another share one's soul with them.  So, really, it is about people's souls meeting somewhere in the middle.  That's my experience, anyway.

Maybe you're addicted to the catharsis of communicating yourself with many people, maybe you're addicted to the feeling of being admired?

Well, yes, these both might be true.  And, especially for the second one, I am somewhat ashamed to admit it, though  .  I feel like that is wrong of me to enjoy being admired.

Are you saying you don't enjoy playing just to yourself as much as you did?

No, this is not it.  It's just that I always include my audience in my practicing, too.  I am constantly thinking of them, as it turns out -- and this does often make my practicing even more enjoyable.  And, this is not to say that I don't enjoy playing when I am alone, because I do.  It's something different.

[opus10no2]

Well, though I think I get this and that there is a general thought like this, somehow it just doesn't ring completely true for me on all levels.  Even though the audience is not saying or sharing in the same ways that the performer may be, the listener must make himself vulnerable in order to let another share one's soul with them.  So, really, it is about people's souls meeting somewhere in the middle.  That's my experience, anyway.

True, but this is the after-effect of the playing, it doesn't, or at least shouldn't effect the playing itself.
It's a connection of empathy, partly...you play something, they feel it, you feel that they feel it, and it's a cycle.
It feels good, but this is a social phenomenon, and not a musical one.
Reciprocal feelings are always a pleasure.

Well, yes, these both might be true.  And, especially for the second one, I am somewhat ashamed to admit it, though  .  I feel like that is wrong of me to enjoy being admired.

It's not. Trying to be admirable for the sake of being admired is a part of human nature, and can be seen as fake...but this isn't what you are. There are things admirable about you which are unintentional, without trying to be admired.
I and others admire you just from your posts here, it's only right for you to like it.

As I said, there are 2 things one can be admired for - our nature, and our work.
In piano playing, I admire a pianists technique for the work they put into it, but I also admire that which came naturally to them, with no effort at all.

It's funny, who should be more admired - the pianist with amazing natural talent, or the pianist with much less talent but who works much harder.

Which is more admirable?...

No, this is not it.  It's just that I always include my audience in my practicing, too.  I am constantly thinking of them, as it turns out -- and this does often make my practicing even more enjoyable.  And, this is not to say that I don't enjoy playing when I am alone, because I do.  It's something different.

It's not a problem, as long as it doesn't detract from the purity of your own musical intentions, your socio-physological feelings shouldn't matter, do whatever feels best.

I too enjoy playing alot more sometimes when I imagine I'm being listened to.

Yesterday I though I had my window open, and I knew people were just outside.
I enjoyed thinking someone was listening, and I played confidently, and better than average.
When I had finished, I noticed the window wasn't even open, and noone had heard me

So, whatever works , feels, and sounds best  to you, is right. 

[pianowolfi]

The thing is that you have always an audience. But to believe that and to live that is certainly not always so easy, at least not to me. I change between the human audience and the "divine audience". I need both, definitely. The "divine" audience prepares me for the "human" audience.

[rc]

Performance is a big reason I began to learn piano in the first place.  All my dreams were of playing for an audience.  Not just the recognition, but to share the music I like so much with others, and the feeling of creating it myself...  The whole package, if I didn't want to perform it'd have been a whole lot easier to just listen and enjoy recordings.  Lending a recording doesn't work for sharing music, they usually don't listen to it, but they will if it's being played live.

It's a nice ego stroke being the centre of attention, and if we're good at something we put a better effort with an audience.  This is a part of our nature to be embraced, though you're right that it can get out of control m1469!  If somebody gets too preoccupied with the attention, then when they fulfill that goal they quit progressing and stagnate.  I can't picture an egotistical m1469 though

On the other end, if I haven't performed for a while the whole thing starts to lose meaning.  Whenever I learn a piece then don't play it for people, I feel as if I've only gone halfway with it.  After learning a few pieces without performance I start thinking "what's the difference?", and motivation erodes.  Frequent performance is important to development.  I take whatever opprotunities I find.  I should be creating more as well.

[ramseytheii]

Here is an excerpt of a very short story by Jorge Luis Borges:

-----
At twenty-something he went off to London.  Instinctively, he had already trained himself to the habit of feigning that he was somebody, so that his "nobodiness" might not be discovered.  In London he found the calling he had been predestined to: he became an actor, that person who stands upon a stage and plays at being another person, for an audience of people who play at taking him for that person.  The work of a thespian held out a remarkable happiness to him - the first, perhaps he had ever known.  But when the last line was delivered and the last dead man applauded off the stage, the hated taste of unreality would assail him.  He would cease being Ferrex or Tamerlane and return to being nobody.  Haunted, hounded, he began imagining other heroes, other tragic fables.  Thus while his body, in whorehouses and taverns around London, lived its life as body, the soul that lived inside it would be Caesar, who ignores the admonition of the sibyl, Juliet, who hates the lark, and Macbeth, who speaks on the moor with the witches who are also the Fates, the Three Weird Sisters.  No one was as many men as that man - that man whose repertoire, like that of the Egyptian Proteus, was all the appearances of being.... The fundamental identity of living, dreaming and performing inspired him to famous passages...

History adds that before or after he died, he discovered himself standing before God, and said to Him: I, who have been so many men in vain, wish to be one, to be myself.  God's voice answered him out of a whirlwind: I, too, am not I; I dreamed the world as you, Shakespeare, dreamed your own work, and among the forms of my dream are you, who like me are many, yet no one.

                       ---- "Everything and Nothing"

Walter Ramsey

[ted]

Once again I appear to have missed the bus. I am very happy without an audience. Unlike most players, indeed most people in general, I really loathe being the centre of attention. I am not antisocial and am not reluctant to take my turn at the keyboard at informal gatherings. I have a normal willingness to share ideas, learn from others and I have no qualms at all about being recorded. However, once any hint of promoting or exhibiting myself or standing out in any way appears I become uncomfortable. I don't know why I am the opposite of most players in this way. I am pretty sure it has something to do with being forced to play in front of large audiences when I was very young.

Who am I without an audience ? I am my musical self at its deepest and most fulfilling. Imagine an audience ? Good heavens no, I am too deeply into the sounds. I have learned ways to share music which do not involve performance. I don't much like being the audience either, come to think of it, aside from at very small gatherings. The last formal concert I attended was in 1967.

No, hang on a minute, that was Ogdon playing the Liszt studies in 1967. I saw Ashkenazy playing the Hammerklavier a year or two after that and nothing since. The music intrigued me but I didn't like listening to it in public and I bought an LP of him playing it so I could listen to it at home "properly".

This is a good question but my honest answers are starting to make me feel a bit loopy.

[opus10no2]

That's true, ted. For a rich musical experience I watch a video or listen to a recording. For all the unique musical elements a concert can provide - chiefly the direct sound from instrument to ear, and the unique spontineity, the biggest reason I have attended performances has been the all-round experience, and not particularly the music.

Watching the fingers, enjoying the buzzing atmosphere, and one some occasions checking out the remarkably fine posterior of some female performers.

[fizzy]

This is an excellent point you bring up, m1469. It seems there are people who thrive with an audience, as well as those who are perfectly happy playing alone. Maybe you're part of the first group?

For me, playing music is a very personal thing, but I like sharing it with an audience, because I think they'll enjoy it (usually!). But then I get hung up on making everything perfect, because I don't want them to see me in a weak spot. Playing by myself is usually the most fulfilling and enjoyable thing I do. Practicing 5 measures for an hour just to perfect it so the piece is ready to perform in public tends to ruin my enjoyment of the music and stress me out.

I still get a "buzz" when I perform, and I do love the response I get, when the audience really enjoyed something.

[pianowolfi]

This is an excellent point you bring up, m1469. It seems there are people who thrive with an audience, as well as those who are perfectly happy playing alone. Maybe you're part of the first group?

That's what I think too, m1469. You are a performer.

[timothy42b]

I am perhaps being too reflective at the moment, but I have been doing a bit of performing in various ways lately, and have gotten a bit of attention in the process. 

This frame of mind just doesn't seem altogether healthy to me. 

I had the opposite impression.  I've played brass instruments and sung with groups all my life.  When I started trying to learn piano a couple years ago it was with the purpose of playing in church.  As part of learning I came to various forums and encountered a phenomenon I had not imagined could exist:  people actually put years of effort into perfecting skills that they NEVER intend to display in public. 

This struck me as about as healthy as only making love alone. 

In time I have come to understand it a little better.  But I think for your art to remain vibrant and alive you must perform, if only occasionally.  The music teachers I meet on a gig moonlighting seem to be the best motivated ones, I think that performance is a definite enhancement to the rest of what you do. 

[pianistimo]

very young people (children) and very old people are the very best audiences for people like me.  occasional memory lapses but still have intensity.  they're very forgiving and really don't care if things are 'perfect.'  the thing is - i really want to end up with audiences that are somewhat critical and give some feedback as to what to improve.  so, on the one hand you have 'feel good' and the other hand 'musical integrity/honesty.'

i suppose a little of both is nice.  one thing leads to another, imo.  if you perform a lot - then you have a chance to get better and impress those you might want to impress.  although, at the end of the day - it still comes back to enjoyment.  probably the most enjoyment comes from stress-free performances done out of the goodness of your heart and not for money or big recital fame.  just for music's sake.

kids make you feel so good!  i just helped with an elementary musical - and i feel so good today because of all the camaraderie.  little children just have a way about themselves that expresses exactly who they are on stage.   there's no pretense or over stressing.

[a-sharp]

m1469, I don't think there's any harm in admitting you enjoy playing for people. Music is sound, and sound is genearlly meant to be heard, or at least felt. Anyway - it sounds different to everyone else than it does to us sitting at our instruments... even just acoustically-speaking. Just because we get great satifcation from the positive feedback and peoples' expressions of how much they enjoy hearing us, doesn't mean we are going to lose our identity ... unless, of course, you allow that to happen.

I agree with much of what Pianistimo said. ...

I like to think that you are not invisible, but just 'resting" between performances. you are not nobody in those resting spaces ... it is equally worthwhile to play for ourselves - but it totally OK to long for the next performance opp - JHMO.

[timothy42b]

It has been interesting to watch some of the controversy about the Joshua Bell subway experiment.

One observation that I thought rang true was this:  though he is an incredibly skilled musician, and I guess capable of reaching the typical symphony orchestra audience, he is not a busker and had not a clue how to reach the audience he was playing for.  The immediate response of most was to blame the audience, but the busker community pointed at him. 

[keyofc]

m1469,
Going back to your question - Who are you without your audience -it makes me think of an article I was reading the other day in the May or June's edition of National Wildlife Federation.
Hey - I know it sounds off the topic,
but anyway - through researching songbirds they have found that they memorize and sing in the brain before they sing.  They listen to the sounds around them that the other birds make.  They pick up random phrases until they can develop their vocal ability.  So a songbird of one species that is brought up by another will learn the "wrong song" for their own species because they are being brought up by foreign birds to their species.

However, a dove - can be brought up by any bird - and it will innately sing the song of a dove.  It doesn't matter if they have ever seen another dove or not. 

Anyway - I thought this was fascinating - and I started wondering why I have such a hard time picking up jazz the way I want to do it.  Yet - other music flows easily from me.  I wondered if I'm trying to learn from the wrong bird.... Or the wrong song - so many people who do play jazz seem to play it effortlessly and it seems innate within them.

 I don't know if this helps you - but it came to mind,   Mainly - probably because with or without an audience - I'm singing the song or playing the song in my heart.  And for me, that expression is the joy. 
Hope this doesn't sound strange.....

[m1469]

Actually, no, it doesn't sound strange to me at all and I thank you for sharing it because it's somehow right up my alley.  It somehow perfectly relates to the topic for me, but I need to ponder it for a bit. 

Thanks for posting in with this, I find it quite fascinating .
m1469

[keyofc]

Glad you can see the connection I was trying to make...

[lostinidlewonder]

If you really think about it anything you do is utterly useless. In the end you are going to die and everything you have done will be pretty much forgotten. A musician plays music because it allows them to play with emotions, remember personal life experiences, a meditation, connection to God or whatever. It is YOU and MUSIC always first, then when you choose to share it with others it can become whatever you wish.

When you can play music it is an instrument of healing for yourself, when you play it well, it can be an instrument of healing for others. When you choose to give it to others you might transfer this healing effect to them. The idea that a recital is a one way stream, i.e: the performer reciting to the audience is in my mind wrong. You are both rebounding things back and forth, there are invisible elements, emotions flowing through your audience members which you encouraged through your music. What is stopping you from asking the audience questions or responsing to what they say to you? They don't have to stand up and shout it out to for you to know that they are feeling it. I've had concerts where people sit around the piano and watch my whole body close up and comment on what they see and hear so there are no rules as to how you present your recitals.

However music is still this ball of energy even without listeners. Does a falling tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it? Even if you only play for yourself you are still the same person as if you where to perform all over the world. It is only our fault when we start trying to change the definition of what music means for yourself.

Playing for other people should not change your definition of music or yourself. When you choose to perform you do so not because you want to play for people but beacuse you have a musical reason to do so. If I do a concert it is not because, hey I want people to listen to me, it is because I say, ok now I have worked so hard and this list of pieces are mastered, I feel I want to present this to an audience and let them experience the joy that I get from playing this set of music. Also I want to reveal to them how I personally see the music and reveal the stories behind the composers and the "hidden meaning" behind their music. This journey through the music I take would not change even if I had no audience, it is something I am totally interested about without anyone else saying "What are you doing there?"

Also most people who play music never get to a high enough level to actually perform. Of course there are different types of audiences, an audience who doesn't pay big money to see you is of course a lot more forgiving for mediocre performances. But what about the 99% of people who play music and never perform? Does this mean that the feeling they recieve from playing is substandard from the concerting performers? Hardly! Some people get utter joy from creating even simple sounds, this happiness is a powerful source no matter what notes you play, it is produced in the brain not by the fingers and is an attitude, nothing to do with the piano really. Some people would get this feeling from different past times, and it doesnt matter how good you are in comparison to MR X because that doesn't change anything unless you have some weak competitive mind.

The audience to me are no different from people I walk by on the street every day. They are not unique, they only choose to sit and listen to what I have to say, in that respect they are different, they are more important to me because they want to listen to what I have to say. This can make you feel important, like people are needing you and to feel needed/appreciated is nice. But remember they only like you for the entertainment you give them and the polite conversations you have, I wonder if they would stick by you if you threw a tantrum or needed to move house.

[m1469]

Wow, what an interesting post -- thank you lostinidle ! 

As I read through your post I realized that I feel a bit differently now than I did when I even first created this thread --and, I think it's a good thing-- but, I also sense some more changing in my attitude about this in my very near future (already underway, I think).

Thanks again !

[alzado]

Mainly my audience is just my two cats.  They hop up on a nearby sofa and watch me play.  It is not unusual that they remain curled up there, watching me play for over an hour. 

The small cat is the more dedicated, I think. She is more musically attuned.  In her personal life, she vocalizes a lot.  When cats vocalize, there's a lot of sensitivity to pitch, and a lot of "glides,' so to speak.  So it may not be too "nuts" to expect that cats could appreciate music.  Cats are essentially singers -- they kind of "sing" their various vocalizations.  And most cats have a wide repertory of vocalizations that they can make. 

I like to play to hear myself, and to please myself.  However, one reason I continue to take lessons is so that at least once a week a human being can listen and comment, thus not relying totally on the cats. 

If the cats dislike my playing, at least they are decent enough to keep it to themselves!

[rc]

Little Boo also seems to like music.  He can't hear me practice because I'm always plugged into headphones, probably thinks I'm crazy sitting there just plunking the keys...  But whenever I have a CD in, he'll stop to listen.  Also a very vocal cat, he'll talk your ear off.

[ahinton]

My piano teacher at college used to tell me that I should be aware that there is always an audience listening to every note that I play, even when I may just be sight-reading something or even only playing some technical exercises and that, even though this audience might be limited to only one person, that person has purchased a ticket in good faith to listen to my playing, so I had better project well and bear in mind that someone is listening with concentration to everything I'm doing.

Now I am not a pianist, as some people here already know, so I cannot and do not necessarily expect to be able to comment usefully about such issues in the way that a performer might, but I think that he had a point, which was that there is no purpose to be served by anyone playing the piano under any circumstances if no one is listening and that, even if only the pianist is available to listen (as is almost always the case during practice sessions), he/she should concentrate hard on doing so in just the same way as anyone else should. It's an interesting persepctive and, I think, a valid one.

Of course, it may not go very far to address that "buzz" aspect of public performance as such, although it could perhaps be argued that adherence to its principle might yet at least help towards preparing for the effects of that "buzz" when it comes.

Although this is a piano forum and the question is presumably intended to be addressed to pianists, it is still applicable to composers such as me; in answering it from that perspective, I would say that there comes a point at which what one does risks being compromised to some degree without an eventual audience (and I still say this even after several years in a position of responsibility for the music of Sorabji). Copland once said that he didn't feel that he had finished a piece until it had been performed several times, possibly revised, etc.; whilst the matter of the point at which a piece is ever actually "finished" (either in the composer's view or in anyone else's) is a rather different question to the one posed here, Copland's view on it presumes (at least in part) the involvement of audiences.

Best,

Alistair

[keyofc]

If I believed that everything I ever did amounted to nothing - I would never get out of bed.  Nor would I go to my piano and play or teach...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you really think about it anything you do is utterly useless. In the end you are going to die and everything you have done will be pretty much forgotten. A musician plays music because it allows them to play with emotions, remember personal life experiences, a meditation, connection to God or whatever. It is YOU and MUSIC always first, then when you choose to share it with others it can become whatever you wish.

[burstroman]

You always have good posts and considerate replies.  In my practice time, I am my most critical audience.  Students are a wonderful audience too.  I have been moved to tears hearing one of my colleagues practicing.  She had an unknown audience and was fantastic to hear.

[allchopin]

Who am I without an audience ? I am my musical self at its deepest and most fulfilling. Imagine an audience ? Good heavens no, I am too deeply into the sounds. I have learned ways to share music which do not involve performance. I don't much like being the audience either, come to think of it, aside from at very small gatherings. The last formal concert I attended was in 1967.

No, hang on a minute, that was Ogdon playing the Liszt studies in 1967. I saw Ashkenazy playing the Hammerklavier a year or two after that and nothing since. The music intrigued me but I didn't like listening to it in public and I bought an LP of him playing it so I could listen to it at home "properly".

This to me is intriguing, ted, that you mention that an LP gives you more than a concert can.  Was there a particular event or performance that disgusted you or do you truly feel that modern technology is more equipped to entertain than the real world?  Lately I've been thinking about this very issue:

What do recordings offer that performers cannot (given simply one or the other, ignoring the aspects of file-sharing, price, etc)?
1) repeatable/interruptible
2) better sound quality and acoustics
3) probably the most accurate rendition of the performer's musical intentions
But is a performance better?
1) a guaranteed "new" manifestation of a piece
2) elements of the unknown, surprise
3) visual stimulus (a good female figure can sometimes be worth the ticket, as opus10no2 mentioned )
4) possible 'celebrity' appeal of certain performers (e.g. mention of seeing Ashkenazy or Ogdon, rather than just 'some performer')

Obviously they both fulfill different musical needs.  But there would not be recordings without people to perform, but performers there have always been, without recordings.