Musician is the Pied Piper

We hear musicians on T.V shows and concert stage say that if not for the audience, musicians and music could not thrive. Really? 

How much should the audience matter for the musician?

When a person on stage says that an art form does not thrive without the audience, he would not be there if not for the audience, or asks the audience to support the art form or even thank them for being there......he is simply expressing his need to hear the audience cheer. He is enslaved by name and fame. He likes the sound of claps.

My focus is mainly on the carnatic concert stage and not the n number of music programs on T.V which are tailored to audience. 

Art survives and thrives solely because of the practitioner, not the audience. Think for a minute. 

Good music is a magnet. If the musician has all the slices (of music training, voice, and creativity) that I had explained in my earlier post, audience will be attracted. They will stay as long as good music is offered. 

On the other hand, the musician should use his discretion to decide how much feedback he should seek from his audience. If his performance is too janaranjakam to reach the audience, he is still not catering to some portion of the audience. Otherwise, this term wouldn't have been invented.  He may sing one/two krithis as per audience requests, but not the entire kutcheri. Whether he is singing in Europe or Mylapore Temple, he should choose his songs accordingly. That is not the discussion here.

He is on the dais primarily because he likes to sing. As a consequence, he will refine and redefine the taste of audience. Both the musician and audience evolve eventually.  So, HE should be the Pied Piper of the audience, not the other way.

Note:  The term Pied Piper is used to explain the idea of who is the leader. Should not be interpreted in its full meaning where music would then be delusional.