Should We Play Music for the Audience or Ourselves?

Many things in our world have to do with marketing ourselves in order to make better sales, be famous, so on and so forth. We have our sense of individualism while also doing our part in bettering the community around us. Artists make sculptures or paintings that are uniquely theirs then place them in exhibits to showcase to the general public, writers have their poems or novels to publish and share to readers, and musicians have the music of the great masters to learn and play in concert. The question arises though, do we play for ourselves —to satisfy our own goals and dreams— or for the sake of the collective good? Are they mutually exclusive?

If you are asking me, dear reader, I am among those who like to play for oneself. I like learning pieces that I enjoy and let those who like it appreciate it further. I respect the fact that there are people who do like other genres for music, which is why I play some pop and jazz occasionally. In themselves, the aforementioned two have their merits; I just like classical music more. I may agree with pianist Sviatoslav Richter on playing for oneself, quoting him as follows:

I don't play for the audience, I play for myself, and if I derive any satisfaction from it, then the audience, too, is content.

The quote, taken from Bruno Monsaingeon’s Sviatoslav Richter: Notebooks and Conversations, has its merits. If I enjoy my performance on stage, so will the audience. In my opinion it is much of a capitalist standpoint harking back to Adam Smith, wherein he says the following, quoting from his work The Wealth of Nations:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.

It may seem selfish, I agree. But the thing though about us musicians is that we have our sense of individuality when performing. You cannot have two musicians play the same work by a composer in the same way; it is how each of them serves the music in their ideas that make it special.

On the other hand, there are musicians who do play for others as their main goal. For example, the great Richard Strauss as advice for conducting said that the following:

Remember you are making music not to amuse yourself but to delight the audience.

Coming from the man that made big hits with his works, it makes sense. Until now, we use the likes of Also Sprach Zarathustra as part of movie soundtracks —looking at you, Stanley Kubrick. Following such line of thought, we would play music to serve others, regardless of personal sentiment. Such was the case for a period of time when composers were employed in the service of the monarchy or church. I believe it was during the time of Beethoven wherein the composer just did not care about public opinion and just ran along with bangers. After all, musicians in general have a market to chase. Taylor Swift can appeal to her demographic when she writes her songs because she is relatable. Musicians will not be able to get everybody, but there will be a niche for them. If music has a utilitarian value in the eyes of such artists, then why not? If it can serve the public good, then by all means, perform for them.

Both stances have their merits and drawbacks. It shall only be a matter of personal preference.