Does a musician sing to please?

[kvchellappa]

Does a musician sing to please?

I started to hear a talk. The issue posted by the speaker was, ‘We artists tend to become arrogant thinking we make the audience happy. Does the artist try to make the audience happy?’ I was not patient to listen further and turned off, but my mind turned on the issue. Whatever I write below is not in response to the speaker’s views as I did not listen to it.
Does a singer sing to make the audience happy? He sings because he knows to sing and the audience comes because they want to hear the music. Certainly, neither the singer nor the audience unite to turn the other off. Happiness is a frame of mind in which we go to a performance. I expect to return in the same frame of my mind at least. The normal human tendency is to seek happiness and there seems nothing amiss in it. A singer does not present himself to tickle the audience, but to share his musical experience. There is nothing wrong if he makes the audience happy or feels happy himself that he has achieved it. The best I read about happiness is that you are happy when you make others happy.
That is not to say that the musician is out to make the audience happy. His job is to sing and in singing, the effect of happiness may be produced. He cannot do anything else to make the audience happy. A joke here and there is not an issue.
Does that success (making the audience happy) make an artist arrogant? My take is that arrogance is an attitude that sticks out like a sore thumb from some congenital disorder that has not been tamed by upbringing, education and true humility (Paramacharya comes to mind). The musical accomplishment is only an outlet and not the cause.

[Nick H]

I believe that a singer does sing to please. Without that wish, there is point in leaving the house and sitting on the stage.

It is not the same as saying that an artist performs to please the maximum number of people, perhaps also for the maximum financial reward.

[vgovindan]

Till the time a CM musician does not make a mockery of his musical talents (remember the 'taNNi toTTi' song sequence in the film Sindhu Bhairavi where the hero sings a TappAnkuttu for sake of a drink), all human experiments are valid expressions. If the musician is not singing to please, why should he rehearse? Even the great MS used to rehearse before a concert - that is what I understood from one of the posts.

Elsewhere (TMK not singing in this Dec) we are discussing about Silk stores etc which is most nauseating. Commercialisation of music has gone to that level that even if there is one musician who does not sing to please, he will be likened to the Tamil proverb 'AvuttuppoTTavan Urle kOmaNam kaTTinavan payittiyakkAran'.

There were indeed great people for whom music is simply a Self expression. They are exceptions to the rule. But people fail to understand that these exceptions to rules are the driving forces for change of the rules of the game - others are only 'also rans'. I may also add that an artist today who goes by commercial interests, may well progress towards the goal of music as self expression. It may be worth remembering that a Saint is not born - it is a progression (I am not referring to Sainthood conferred by some religious head).

[VK RAMAN]

Musicians sing because they like singing and they have vidwat imparted to them by a Guru. Any effort to please others or listeners without one self enjoying it is a futile effort IMHO.

[SrinathK]

Haven't we all seen on the forum what happens when a musician seemingly defies the audience's expectations? So yes, a musician must sing to please or else woe the wrath of the average rasika!

Ok, I think what you really mean by this question is trying to highlight the difference between a) Music as the art, unbound by professional fetters and b) Music as the profession with all the good, the great, the bad and the ugly. Now that would require a separate thread if i were you - "Music - The Art vs. The Profession".

Interestingly, here are some personal quotes from the legendary cellist, Grigor Piatigorsky -- (Do read the book on his life by Terry King, it's very interesting from start to finish). "...Since I was 7, I have been playing the cello. After 40 years, it is only natural for me to be my
own severest critic. When the amateur plays, he is in heaven; the professional sweats blood as he is in the other place. It is the same in any field of creative endeavor...."

He goes on to make a number of experiences he's faced in the professional field, and at another place --- "...Piatigorsky had become increasingly wary of the virtuoso life. He would complain to friends that he “loved the music” but “hated the profession.” Harry Ellis Dickson recalled: Whenever he came to Boston and I would ask: “Grisha, how are you?” his answer was always the same: “Lousy! Goddamn profession, always traveling, always worried, always nervous. Lousy profession...! " -- Partially exacerbated by the fact that he lost a marriage along the way too... The great Jascha

Heifetz is supposed to have remarked that an artist must have "...the nerves of a bullfighter, the vitality of a night-club hostess and the concentration of a Buddhist monk..." He probably should have added this too - "as fit as a professional tennis player"

Of course, virtually all or Piatigorsky's complaints were related to the stress of non-stop touring and the lack of rest. Among other things, he also felt that his valuable instruments were subject to some serious abuse shifting between all sorts of climatic conditions in a matter of hours. The book is full of all the challenges that he had to encounter along the way. I seriously recommend it - The book's a 'darn good read'.

He isn't alone though. Semmangudi didn't want his children taking to the field as a profession either. And GNB had declared that the music world is like a jungle and one in the family was more than enough! There was even one incident where LGJ (it's from the book) in a moment of agony remarked that maybe violin accompanists should turn to solos full time if they wanted to be happy playing their music. It happens to the best of us ...

The art vs the profession -- the ideal vs the reality. Now that would make for a very interesting topic alright. Then again, name any profession in the world (even raising kids) that's supposedly "perfect" and doesn't have it's own issues -- name any job where in a moment of sheer stress you didn't tell yourself at least once, "Why am I even doing this @#$#%$%$". We'll wait.

[arasi]

Thanks for your post, Srikanth

[kvchellappa]

SrinathK gave life to this post and I am happy I posted it for this one masterly piece.

[Sundara Rajan]

If a musician sings for his own pleasure, he could easily do so inside his home, or on the banks of a river or a mountain top with no audience. He sings on the STAGE either to please the audience and be appreciated and/or to make a living.

[vgovindan]

There is a subtle difference between Music as an art (Western and Indian concept) and music as Self Expression (Indian concept). Though I am not much familiar with the Western notions (of Self expression through music), in the Indian tradition, music has been held as either an accessory to the (bhakti) path of mOksha (SrI tyAgarAja in 'cakkani rAja mArgamu), or as an end in itself - mOksha sAdhana (nAda yOga) (SrI tyAgarAja's 'vidulaku mrokkeda', 'SObhillu sapta svara' mOkshamu galadA' etc.,).

In one of the biographical videos (in Youtube) of a famous but penury (muslim?) artist (name I am forgetting), he expresses 'if I don't sing everyday morning and evening, what will I do?' Though this person might not have been initiated as such, that is the 'nAda yOga'. Where they sing (stage or home or bank of river or mountain top) is of little consequence. The state of mind is what matters.

Today is being 'celebrated' as International Yoga day. There is also the same problem. The physical aspect of yOga is of little (or no) relevance to the main theme as propounded by sage patanjali. But we cling on to the gross which prompted one of the outspoken critics of Indian traditions, Sri Kushwant Singh to say "If I had known that practice of Yoga results in greater sexual enjoyment, I would have learnt it much earlier' (or words to that effect). So much for the art!

[VK RAMAN]

Yes there are musicians who sing in their homes or were singing on on the banks of river. If you take all those saints they were all not singing for fame and fortune. They are/were the ones who left legacy for all of us to follow. What legacy all these present day singers who go after fame and fortune at the cost of rasikas leaving? something to ponder?

[Nick H]

It is not black and white. Whilst the obvious answer would seem to be that if an artist doesn't enjoy their own music they would not even get as far as pleasing others, SrikanthK makes some very valid points about the "trade."

Also, have we not all heard of musicians, regularly overheard producing divine music in their homes, gardens and private spaces, who had the very greatest difficulties in coming to the stage?

Perhaps these are the extremes. The artists that I talk to mostly do not seem to have any great difficulty with the stage --- although they may admit to finding some aspect of the performing difficult.

[rshankar]

He probably should have added this too - "as fit as a professional tennis player"

Most, if not all of the CM artists would fail this requirement....And possibly, world musicians as well....

[SrinathK]

It was not meant to be a criticism, not at all -- the quote was made by a musician who is considered to be the greatest violinist of his era (and would be on the top 3 for the greatest WCM violinist of all time), who traveled more than 2 million miles in his career (mainly from 1914-1960, what to speak of today!) - over 4 round trips to the moon and back!

It should give you an idea of just how much mileage the very best have accumulated on their bodies and instruments and what they need to have, physically, mentally, emotionally -- to withstand it all -- while they have throw out their best, performance after performance before (typically) unforgiving audiences consisting of mostly (or wholly ) critics, most of whom could never sing half a song in tune if their lives depended on it.***

And along the way learning, practicing, teaching, performing 200-300 (or even more, donno, I've seen one accompanist do 3 in a day on one occasion) concerts per year, now all over the world and not just India AND running a family !! That's what you're really doing day in and night out while "singing to please". Next time you listen to that video of MS amma singing at 80, or you run into nostalgia over that artiste who died too soon, keep that in mind

I have read a joke on karnatik.com that (no offense please) Ganesha wasn't getting married because they wanted a GNB concert in heaven and no dates were available! No seriously, what else can you say when you have to book 3 years in advance?

The dark side of the story are the long term repetitive stress injuries and the strain on the system that can (and have) cut short the careers of many a talented musician. I have rarely heard the topic of injuries or fitness even mentioned here.

The lack of fitness was something that REALLY bothered our most recent Sangeetha Kalanidhi awardee and I think I've seen a video of him doing weighted squats on this forum sometime ago. http://sanjaysub.blogspot.in/2015/01/fi ... urney.html So yeah, at least today gyms have sprouted up and even ladies manage to get in some yoga and exercise (I wonder if it would have even been imaginable 50 years ago...)

*** We should admit, anybody and everybody can be a critic nowadays . The only real qualification requirements for a critic these days is an internet connection and a computer .... or at the very least one functional ear within reception range of rant

[Nick H]

an idea of just how much mileage the very best have accumulated on their bodies and instruments and what they need to have, physically, mentally, emotionally -- to withstand it all

I saw Ravikiran play, here in Chennai, a few days ago. He had arrived from Australia the day before, and was leaving for UK the day after.

[arasi]

Srikanth,
True. And how some of the musicians of the recent past could have lived longer and could have had longer careers as well, had they taken care of their health!

For that matter, all the artistes who are out there have to be appreciated for all the inconveniences and hardship they go through to stay in the profession. Our forumite Erode Nagaraj's thread some years ago on his having to deal with inconveniences as a physically challenged person only threw light on how difficult it is to deal with travel, lodging, inefficient organizers and so on.

I don't envy the fame and eclat they gain. What goes with the territory can be pretty off putting. In that sense, all musicians are candidates for an Endurance award...

Nick,
The jet setters were considered glamorous in the past. Now, they work hard, travel regularly
like the techies, criss crossing the world--dealing with delays, jet lags and the rest. Travel anywhere, we all know, is not exciting anymore in getting from place A to B...

[SrinathK]

Hopefully on one of these : http://bittenbythetravelbug.com/review- ... -airlines/
http://www.ausbt.com.au/why-business-tr ... dreamliner

Or else hope it will become the norm a few years from now and result in happier musicians... I particularly liked the point about the better air quality (more pressure, more O2 and more humidity with less sore throats) and the mood lighting that really helps with the jet lag.

[Rsachi]

I think Srinath, Govindan and others have already covered the topic. I read the last few posts just now.

My own 3 cents:
1. Music is all about the aesthetic joy experienced first by the musician and then shared with the audience.
2. Musical aesthetic experience =Rasa. It is inherent in man and we Hindus believe it is a godly quality (rasO vy sah)
3. Rasikas, when they enjoy the music, give a positive boost to the artiste and it is the most beautiful example of "it blesseth him that gives and him that takes".

Thyagaraja has said it. For him the audience is God. For others, people come first but the aesthetic proposition is the same.



The hardships of the profession, the lack of income, the health hazards, are all inherent in every busy profession (CEOs, doctors, construction engineers, sportsmen,even teachers). But rasa or aesthetic is the huge upside for a musician. And if audiences don''t enjoy their music, musicians suffer deeply within.

[Music]

Given the pleasure one can derive out of music, the musician would sing to please somebody - himself/herself, audience, or God (as demonstrated by saintly
vaggeyakaras ).
If singing in front of an audience, pleasing the audience is a key factor just based on the fact that they are performing in front of them. If the musician is singing in front of the audience just to share their joyous experience with music with the audience, it would be a very rare and sublime experience for the listeners.

[varsha]

http://www.mediafire.com/listen/2e59xzc1w8clvq1/OST.mp3

Does a musician sing to please?

Yes Indeed. To please the Gods . What else can explain this beauty ?

[arunk]

> Given the pleasure one can derive out of music, the musician would sing to please somebody - himself/herself, audience, or God
+1

Somehow this seems similar to the three pursuits/yogas to reach self-realization - raja, karma and bhakti? In that pursuit all three are considered equally worthy, then I wonder why many/most seem to think one form (especially bhakti) is necessarily better in the cm context, and thus a musician who on stage mainly wants to provide enjoyment to others (audience) is billed as "pandering to the crowd" and thus debasing the music and himself/herself? Perhaps that majority of the compositions are indeed of the bhakti variety, and this probably leads us to think that way ..., but perhaps a more holistic look better serves us all?


Arun

[arasi]

Flowers appeal to human beings, music too.
Not all flowers have fragrance (bhakti?). Do we reject their color, symmetry, beauty for the lack of it?
Even the gods favor some without any fragrance.

Say, bhakti is heightened feeling. rAgAs have a way of conveying bhAvAs--bhakti bhAvA too...

[maduraimini]

When an artist sings, he does so because he has the vidwat and can sing. When we sing, it makes us happy (including those who sing in the bathrooms). If a vidwan sings to a group of people, he is supposed to make them happy also. (forget it is his bread and butter too). So, when an artist sings for his everyday living, he may think about the money he'll receive. But I am sure he/she sings, because they love to sing and there are people who love to listen to them. The good artist tries to sing to please the audience aand himself. He should be happy the way he sang that particular kriti. Just to please the audience, he cannot sing anything they ask for - But, within the limits of good music. If he adds Bhakthi to his music, it is better as most of CM is composed by saintlike people on Gods. M.S Subbulakshmi's music was drenched in Bhakthi in her later period and it was really like Amritham. The people who don't like their music cannot be a good singer, I think.

[priyaram78]

I am sure all musicians started singing at the age of two or four to please their parents first !