I totally disagree with this. Why do you think orchestras dress in black tie and not jeans and t-shirts? Because the sense of aristocracy is part of the collective "persona."
Also, an historical fact we need to remember; performance to mass audiences was a new phenomenon of the mid-to-late nineteenth century, made possible by industrialization and urbanization that gave the masses money to spend on tickets and brought them close enough together to be able to form audiences that could financially support theaters and concert halls and professional performers to appear in them. Before that you had to have either court or church patronage, which entailed a whole other "persona" you had to cultivate for success.
As soon as the mass audience appears, so does the performer's persona. Chopin and Paganini made the impression they did not simply in their virtuosity but in their dazzling charisma on stage. People seem to keep thinking that it's a zero-sum game, that having great stage persona means "not playing great music." Chopin knew that wasn't the case; a successful performance means both charisma AND virtuosity - indeed the virtuosity is part of the persona.
Well said. It is the persona that drives the virtuosity, and image is of course part and parcel of the persona, but it's the end result that garners interest, which is music. You can't have the music without the personality of course, but that's a given in any walk of life. The proof is in the pudding, in this case the listening. All the posturing in the world can't compensate for that. A good pitch is needed, but useless if the product doesn't match the promise.
