I have been thinking a lot recently about the topic of engaging with the audience.
How important is it?
Is it natural or can it be taught?
Does it involve looking directly at members of the audience?
Can you still be engaging if you are using the music?
How does one make one's performance touch the audience?
Can this be missing in someone who is otherwise technically brilliant and if so, how does it affect their career?
And, does the way you look have anything to do with it?
Full Version: Having rapport with the audience as a performer
My opinions only.
How important is it?
- to me, I only care that the performer looks presentable and that they are reasonably enjoying themselves. A smile to the audience when entering and leaving would be enough for me.
Is it natural or can it be taught?
- It can be taught.
Does it involve looking directly at members of the audience?
- I would find it highly creepy to be at a concert and have the performer looking directly at me. I was taught to look at a spot on the wall in the far distance while performing solo. During the final bow, I would look around and smile at people.
Can you still be engaging if you are using the music?
- Yes.
How does one make one's performance touch the audience?
- Play well. Prepare well and study the music so you have something to say with it. I cannot stand performances where the performer is making all sorts of facial expressions and extraneous movements that do not have to do with the music (obviously, I don't include singers in this as their facial expressions and movements do have to do with the music). I find it off-putting and annoying and it detracts from my appreciation of their musical ability. I don't go to concerts to watch a beauty parade, I go to a concert to listen to good music. (Again exception made for musical theatre or opera where the visual aspect is more important). I also hate it when they seem to be obviously acting up "for the camera". If you have something to say, say it through the music. (Edit: I do not mean, by the above, that I think performers should dress down eg. not wear makeup and a dress if female, not wear suit if male - rather I mean the sort of acting where it seems like they are not only trying to show their musical ability but how beautiful / handsome they are. Hair flipping, posing theatrically, etc)
Can this be missing in someone who is otherwise technically brilliant and if so, how does it affect their career?
- I personally wouldn't care if there is absolutely no rapport with the audience if the music is good enough. But I can see how some people might look for other things.
And, does the way you look have anything to do with it?
- To me, only if the appearance is so slovenly that it would be generally unpresentable.
How important is it?
- to me, I only care that the performer looks presentable and that they are reasonably enjoying themselves. A smile to the audience when entering and leaving would be enough for me.
Is it natural or can it be taught?
- It can be taught.
Does it involve looking directly at members of the audience?
- I would find it highly creepy to be at a concert and have the performer looking directly at me. I was taught to look at a spot on the wall in the far distance while performing solo. During the final bow, I would look around and smile at people.
Can you still be engaging if you are using the music?
- Yes.
How does one make one's performance touch the audience?
- Play well. Prepare well and study the music so you have something to say with it. I cannot stand performances where the performer is making all sorts of facial expressions and extraneous movements that do not have to do with the music (obviously, I don't include singers in this as their facial expressions and movements do have to do with the music). I find it off-putting and annoying and it detracts from my appreciation of their musical ability. I don't go to concerts to watch a beauty parade, I go to a concert to listen to good music. (Again exception made for musical theatre or opera where the visual aspect is more important). I also hate it when they seem to be obviously acting up "for the camera". If you have something to say, say it through the music. (Edit: I do not mean, by the above, that I think performers should dress down eg. not wear makeup and a dress if female, not wear suit if male - rather I mean the sort of acting where it seems like they are not only trying to show their musical ability but how beautiful / handsome they are. Hair flipping, posing theatrically, etc)
Can this be missing in someone who is otherwise technically brilliant and if so, how does it affect their career?
- I personally wouldn't care if there is absolutely no rapport with the audience if the music is good enough. But I can see how some people might look for other things.
And, does the way you look have anything to do with it?
- To me, only if the appearance is so slovenly that it would be generally unpresentable.
I suppose it depends what you mean by "engaging." A person could have a good rapport - be chatty and friendly (say) and get the audience on side and then totally fail to engage them musically. So for my answer, I'm going to assume you mean engaging musically, connecting through the music, not through witty introductions and the like.
I think engaging with the audience is very important, possibly because that's something my teacher encourages me to do. In lessons he often asks me to project emotion in to what I'm playing and then gets me to ramp that up so the "people at the back of the hall" can feel it too, "not just the front row"
To me it means projecting what you, as the performer, is feeling through the music to the listener. I don't think you have to be looking directly at the audience (hard in a big auditorium anyway). I don't think having the music in front of you is necessarily a hindrance, as long as you've not so engrossed in the score that you only project as far as the paper and not beyond it to the back of the hall. I can make my teacher feel what I'm feeling as I play, even when I'm using a score.
This engagement can definitely be missing from the performance of otherwise highly skilled musicians, but it doesn't necessarily ruin their careers. Some people will pay to see any emperor's new clothes and will be dazzled by a complex Paganini piece, especially if the player is very young. Other's would be left cold by the lack of connection to the music and the audience. I would rather see the player who touches me with his/her music and gets a few notes wrong, than the perfectionist who is more wrapped up in "getting it right" than actually engaging with the audience.
The way you look has nothing to do with it. Obviously if you look like Vanessa Mae it might be easier to grab initial attention, but if your playing is boring, it's not going to hold anyone's attention for long.
I think engaging with the audience is very important, possibly because that's something my teacher encourages me to do. In lessons he often asks me to project emotion in to what I'm playing and then gets me to ramp that up so the "people at the back of the hall" can feel it too, "not just the front row"
To me it means projecting what you, as the performer, is feeling through the music to the listener. I don't think you have to be looking directly at the audience (hard in a big auditorium anyway). I don't think having the music in front of you is necessarily a hindrance, as long as you've not so engrossed in the score that you only project as far as the paper and not beyond it to the back of the hall. I can make my teacher feel what I'm feeling as I play, even when I'm using a score.
This engagement can definitely be missing from the performance of otherwise highly skilled musicians, but it doesn't necessarily ruin their careers. Some people will pay to see any emperor's new clothes and will be dazzled by a complex Paganini piece, especially if the player is very young. Other's would be left cold by the lack of connection to the music and the audience. I would rather see the player who touches me with his/her music and gets a few notes wrong, than the perfectionist who is more wrapped up in "getting it right" than actually engaging with the audience.
The way you look has nothing to do with it. Obviously if you look like Vanessa Mae it might be easier to grab initial attention, but if your playing is boring, it's not going to hold anyone's attention for long.
QUOTE(BadStrad @ Jun 11 2012, 01:36 PM) 
The way you look has nothing to do with it.
Though I think it's difficult for an audience to feel comfortable unless the performer looks comfortable too. Watching my own daughter perform I have come to the view that something as simple as a small change in posture can make a performer seem more relaxed and help the audience to focus on the music - rather than the performer's anxiety! Where the performer loves performing this is probably not an issue!
QUOTE(Halka @ Jun 11 2012, 01:56 PM)
QUOTE(BadStrad @ Jun 11 2012, 01:36 PM)
The way you look has nothing to do with it.
Though I think it's difficult for an audience to feel comfortable unless the performer looks comfortable too. QUOTE(Halka @ Jun 11 2012, 01:56 PM)
QUOTE(BadStrad @ Jun 11 2012, 01:36 PM)
The way you look has nothing to do with it.
Though I think it's difficult for an audience to feel comfortable unless the performer looks comfortable too. Watching my own daughter perform I have come to the view that something as simple as a small change in posture can make a performer seem more relaxed and help the audience to focus on the music - rather than the performer's anxiety! Where the performer loves performing this is probably not an issue!
I've been to concerts (mostly young people) where something has caught my eye and I haven't been able to focus on anything else. When I've felt like that it's always been because of posture and never to do with how the person is dressed or looks normally.
QUOTE(notmusimum @ Jun 11 2012, 04:02 PM)
I've been to concerts (mostly young people) where something has caught my eye and I haven't been able to focus on anything else. When I've felt like that it's always been because of posture and never to do with how the person is dressed or looks normally.
But maybe that's because they didn't engage you with their performance.
I've only performed as part of a group of players, so I'll go from the audience perspective with my analysis of this question.
1. Audience members can get nervous for the performer, especially if they look ill at ease.
2. If the performer can establish some kind of rapport with the audience (possibly by just appearing friendly and relaxed rather than aloof and formal) this will tend to relax the audience
3. Being relaxed allows the audience to fully concentrate on and enjoy the performance.
4. The performance can still be good or bad, but at least the above behaviour will give a decent performance a chance.
1. Audience members can get nervous for the performer, especially if they look ill at ease.
2. If the performer can establish some kind of rapport with the audience (possibly by just appearing friendly and relaxed rather than aloof and formal) this will tend to relax the audience
3. Being relaxed allows the audience to fully concentrate on and enjoy the performance.
4. The performance can still be good or bad, but at least the above behaviour will give a decent performance a chance.
For me, I don't really care how they look. As far as I'm aware they could be stark naked 
(hope not though). I go to concerts to listen to the music and for most of the time I sit there with my eyes closed just listening and absorbing the sounds. I find watching soloists or orchestras too distracting. Perhaps it's an inversion of the old proverb "seen and not heard" ......... I like to "hear and not see". Unless of course it's an opera or play or something which has a necessary visual aspect. I often listen to the broadcast from the Metroplitan opera house on Radio 3, Saturday evenings, and wish I could actually see what is happening. It gets frustrating when I hear the audience laughing about something which has happened on stage but have no idea what they're laughing about. 
(hope not though). I go to concerts to listen to the music and for most of the time I sit there with my eyes closed just listening and absorbing the sounds. I find watching soloists or orchestras too distracting. Perhaps it's an inversion of the old proverb "seen and not heard" ......... I like to "hear and not see". Unless of course it's an opera or play or something which has a necessary visual aspect. I often listen to the broadcast from the Metroplitan opera house on Radio 3, Saturday evenings, and wish I could actually see what is happening. It gets frustrating when I hear the audience laughing about something which has happened on stage but have no idea what they're laughing about.
I think it depends a lot on the style of music.
For jazz (also pop, rock etc), it's essential for my enjoyment that the performers engage with the audience.
It can be via verbal introductions; it can be by responding to the audience in how/what they play (easier when there's an improvised element and no published programme of works to br performed); it could be by eye contact; it could be by movement on stage. Most of all it's a feeling of "energy" transmitted from the performer to the audience.
There's a band I've seen playing in a number of venues, some small, one outside and a couple of larger venues. I've loved all the performances apart from the one at the Barbican where the distance from the audience meant that there was just no audience engagement at all. I've given up going to the Barbican because for me it just doesn't work as a venue.
Thinking about the classical recitals I've been to, the ones I've most enjoyed have been where there has been some kind of audience engagement. Most often that is through the introductions to the music, incorporating little anecdotes etc. I would be disappointed if a performer came on stage, performed (however beautifully) and did nothing at all to acknowledge the audience - that's missing the point of live music as far as I'm concerned.
For jazz (also pop, rock etc), it's essential for my enjoyment that the performers engage with the audience.
It can be via verbal introductions; it can be by responding to the audience in how/what they play (easier when there's an improvised element and no published programme of works to br performed); it could be by eye contact; it could be by movement on stage. Most of all it's a feeling of "energy" transmitted from the performer to the audience.
There's a band I've seen playing in a number of venues, some small, one outside and a couple of larger venues. I've loved all the performances apart from the one at the Barbican where the distance from the audience meant that there was just no audience engagement at all. I've given up going to the Barbican because for me it just doesn't work as a venue.
Thinking about the classical recitals I've been to, the ones I've most enjoyed have been where there has been some kind of audience engagement. Most often that is through the introductions to the music, incorporating little anecdotes etc. I would be disappointed if a performer came on stage, performed (however beautifully) and did nothing at all to acknowledge the audience - that's missing the point of live music as far as I'm concerned.
The director of one of the jazz bands my son is in engages with the audience all the time, makes jokes, gets them clapping etc. It makes a real difference to the atmosphere; they played at a big band competition, and to my mind both they and the senior band gave better performances because of the director.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.