a life without consequences

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

On the other hand, if you order a "cheeseburger in paradise" and the waitress brings your order with a side of political slaw, and "free slaw" was not listed on the menu as coming with your order, you might be annoyed when the slaw juice runs amok and sogs up the bun of your burger.

Jimmy Buffett has been known to incorporate some political commentary into his shows, also, though not nearly to the extent of some other artists.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[PLFXpert 0]

Buffett does quite a bit of hands-on charity work--he might make a comment or two about such, but I've never heard of him giving a political speech at one of his shows.

Frankly, imo, there is no right or wrong answer.

Sometimes it should be expected and other times, it's not appropriate.

Arts & entertainment are often more or less appropriate given the situation. And sometimes the only purpose of a piece of art is to be inappropriate.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,114]

>Bull - I paid to hear them sing a song, not give a speech.

Then refuse to go to concerts where you risk being offended by a speech. If enough people follow your lead, the problem will be solved.

Personally, if I want to hear a song, I listen to a recording. If I want to hear the performer - their takes on the songs they sing, the world around them, the audience, their takes on what's going on in the world - I go to a concert.

[billvon 3,114]

>An artist records music/comedy/whatever people like. People pay money
>to go see the artist perform that material.

If people want to hear that material, they listen to that material.

If people want to hear the artist do something other than his material as it sounds on the recording, they go to a concert.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

If people want to hear the artist do something other than his material as it sounds on the recording, they go to a concert.

Personally, I prefer an artist that closely matches their recorded stuff in concert, of which there are many. But that's all personal preference.

However, I agree with you -- if an artist fails to satisfy their audience in whatever way, the audience gets to vote with their feet.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Royd 0]

Quote

Buffett does quite a bit of hands-on charity work--he might make a comment or two about such, but I've never heard of him giving a political speech at one of his shows.

Besides, those Parrotheads are probably so screwed up on Margaritas that it doesn't matter what's going on.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

Expecting an artist NOT to express their viewpoint on stage on anything because it might 'ruin your enjoyment' is a rather ignorant position to take IMO. It destroys the purpose of Art entirely and reduces it to 'bubble gum' (to be consumed and disposed of)

Bull - I paid to hear them sing a song, not give a speech. If they want to give speeches, they need to quit singing and become politicians.

Anyone can be an artist. They can do anything they want. Some artists are entertainers. They are paid to provide entertainment.

Over the years, I have heard Linda Ronstadt perform live twice. She had no political content to her songs.
They were ballads, love songs, etc.

People came to hear her perform, not recite a political monologue. People paid to hear the poignant love songs that she is known for and to escape for a moment.

That escapism and those feelings are part of the concert product. People are entitled to expect to receive the "product" that they are paying for, not to be badgered.

On her last tour, she started making speeches.
People walked out, demanding their money back.
Enough people did that and they cancelled her tour.

Granted, she has enough money that she really doesn't need to tour. There are no tours planned.

So, she probably understands the consequences of her actions. She can continue to make speeches, but she will have much smaller attendance at concerts from her 50-60 yo fan base.

People can live their lives in any fashion that they choose. The rest of us mortals have consequences for our actions.

I just think that performing artists should be adults too, and not start the spoiled whining because they want to be able to piss off their audience, yet still be paid.

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

If people want to hear the artist do something other than his material as it sounds on the recording, they go to a concert.

Personally, I prefer an artist that closely matches their recorded stuff in concert, of which there are many. But that's all personal preference.

.

Really? The live versions from a lot of performers are often longer, with additional material, more instrumentals, etc. Examples - Pink Floyd, quite a lot of the Stones stuff, The Who...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,114]

>The live versions from a lot of performers are often longer, with additional
>material, more instrumentals, etc.

Everybody prefers different stuff. I recently went to a Rush concert where they played their songs identically to their recorded stuff. Also went to an Eagles concert where they were trying new stuff, and changing older songs around (partly just because they're getting old!) Eagles was a lot more interesting overall.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Really? The live versions from a lot of performers are often longer, with additional material, more instrumentals, etc. Examples - Pink Floyd, quite a lot of the Stones stuff, The Who...

Sure thing. And there are also bands that follow their recordings very closely. Rush is an example -- they play in concert almost note for note against their often complex recordings. Benefit of being a classically trained musician, I guess.

But either way, as long as they're not up there preaching to me how wonderful Bush is, or telling me how great the economy is, I don't care.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I recently went to a Rush concert where they played their songs identically to their recorded stuff.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

>The live versions from a lot of performers are often longer, with additional
>material, more instrumentals, etc.

Everybody prefers different stuff. I recently went to a Rush concert where they played their songs identically to their recorded stuff. Also went to an Eagles concert where they were trying new stuff, and changing older songs around (partly just because they're getting old!) Eagles was a lot more interesting overall.

Then they release the "XXX live at the YYY" album . (I am old enough to have heard Cream live, in 1967)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

Really? The live versions from a lot of performers are often longer, with additional material, more instrumentals, etc. Examples - Pink Floyd, quite a lot of the Stones stuff, The Who...

Sure thing. And there are also bands that follow their recordings very closely. Rush is an example -- they play in concert almost note for note against their often complex recordings. Benefit of being a classically trained musician, I guess.

But either way, as long as they're not up there preaching to me how wonderful Bush is, or telling me how great the economy is, I don't care.

Of course, then there are bands that sometimes people go to see because of their political message, such as Rage Against the Machine, Pearl Jam, etc.

But, as has been noted, to each their own.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Two weeks ago, I went to see a live parrot show (because dead parrots are boring). .

Not if it's a Norwegian Blue, pining for the fjords.

He's not pining, he's DECEASED!

He is an EX-PARROT!

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

>The live versions from a lot of performers are often longer, with additional
>material, more instrumentals, etc.

Everybody prefers different stuff. I recently went to a Rush concert where they played their songs identically to their recorded stuff. Also went to an Eagles concert where they were trying new stuff, and changing older songs around (partly just because they're getting old!) Eagles was a lot more interesting overall.

Then they release the "XXX live at the YYY" album . (I am old enough to have heard Cream live, in 1967)

So if the live album is the only one you own, and then you go see the band and they play the songs exactly like the original studio versions, where does that leave you?

[kallend 2,147]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>The live versions from a lot of performers are often longer, with additional
>material, more instrumentals, etc.

Everybody prefers different stuff. I recently went to a Rush concert where they played their songs identically to their recorded stuff. Also went to an Eagles concert where they were trying new stuff, and changing older songs around (partly just because they're getting old!) Eagles was a lot more interesting overall.

Then they release the "XXX live at the YYY" album . (I am old enough to have heard Cream live, in 1967)

So if the live album is the only one you own, and then you go see the band and they play the songs exactly like the original studio versions, where does that leave you?

You go around and around until you disappear up your own - well, you get the idea.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

the irony is staggering, but simply proves the point that people only hear what they want to hear and dismiss everything else that disputes their personal myopic view point.

I think it's more probable that for some people (not me!) the only difference between a stalker and a lover is whether or not you want that person around.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Sometimes what makes an artist great is precisely that they refuse to fulfill the expectations of the audience. If their primary goal is to fulfill expectations, at best they are mediocre artists.

If you're basing that comment SOLELY within the confines of their profession, then I agree.

I think you are adopting far to narrow a definition of what the profession of Artists really is, and so relegating Art and Artists to the limits of 'bubble gum entertainment'.

The public absolutely has the right to 'vote with their feet/dollars' but they do not have the right to dictate the contents of the performance.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Zenister is correct, and you are wrong.

Zenister is always right, except when he is wrong, which seems to be quite often. Never admitting you're wrong doesn't make it so.

Ask the Dixie Chicks if they have "complete control over their performances". You may say that they do, but the almighty dollar taught them a lesson they've not forgotten. Their method of performance changed when the audience stopped showing up.

So who's in control of their performances again?

Asserting someone is wrong when you cannot logically defend your own position doesn't make you right either, no matter how many badly phrased swipes you take at your opponent.

the Dixie Chicks are very much in the vein of 'bubble gum entertainment' so it is to be expected that they (and their audience) react negatively when confronted by that which is outside their expectations of 'disposable fluff'.

It is one of the compelling differences between Art/Artists and 'mere' Entertainers. The Artist's primary goal is expression of a point of view (not necessarily that of the Artist even) entertainment 'value' is secondary and may not be present at all.

The Entertainer's primary goal is the acquisition of money from the audience. Great Art can certainly be entertaining but entertainment rarely achieves the same level of respect (or longevity) as Art and is usually forgotten when the 'flavor of the moment' passes.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Sometimes what makes an artist great is precisely that they refuse to fulfill the expectations of the audience. If their primary goal is to fulfill expectations, at best they are mediocre artists.

If you're basing that comment SOLELY within the confines of their profession, then I agree. Juxtapose that with Kanye West putting both feet in his mouth up to the hips during the Katrina telethon.

There's a reason why the album is called "The Joshua Tree" and not "Bono's Best Political Rants" - peoply pay to hear him sing, not to go on about his political cause du jure.

I would venture to say that some people do come to hear him speak about those political causes. Clearly, not all people though. It's interesting that all the examples given so far of objectionable speech that is "outside of the confines of their profession" are left wing examples. What about a musician who says a few words to praise Jesus or to support the troops during a show? Again, some people will be okay with it, some not. How is that so different?

[billvon 3,114]

>Ask the Dixie Chicks if they have "complete control over their
>performances". You may say that they do, but the almighty dollar taught
>them a lesson they've not forgotten.

Indeed they have not. They are now one of the more successful bands in the US, partly because of their political stance. After their statements in 2003, they were attacked, boycotted etc - and the hatred expressed towards them by a vocal minority attracted a lot of attention by the press and generated a huge amount of support from fans.

Their first album after their political statement debuted at number one on both the U.S. pop albums chart and the U.S. country albums chart, and sold half a million copies in the first week. It contained a song that talked about what happened to the band after their political statement, and that song won the 2007 Grammy Award for best song, and was #4 on US charts for some time.

In 2006, they repeated their statement during a live, televised concert - "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." It was met with thunderous applause.

So I guess the lesson is - if you want to make it big in music, talk politics at concerts. If you want to make it even bigger, make sure bigots attack you. It is especially ironic that the band used the phrase from one of the more hateful letters they received - "shut up and sing" - to achieve their remarkable success.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

It is one of the compelling differences between Art/Artists and 'mere' Entertainers. The Artist's primary goal is expression of a point of view (not necessarily that of the Artist even) entertainment 'value' is secondary and may not be present at all.

Very interesting distinction, but the Chicks happen to be both entertainers and extremely talented artists -- their music is art.

Quote

The Entertainer's primary goal is the acquisition of money from the audience. Great Art can certainly be entertaining but entertainment rarely achieves the same level of respect (or longevity) as Art and is usually forgotten when the 'flavor of the moment' passes.

Another interesting perspective, and probably applies to many forms of entertainment, but if the entertainer is expressing real art on the stage, where does that leave you?

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

>Ask the Dixie Chicks if they have "complete control over their
>performances". You may say that they do, but the almighty dollar taught
>them a lesson they've not forgotten.

Indeed they have not. They are now one of the more successful bands in the US, partly because of their political stance. After their statements in 2003, they were attacked, boycotted etc - and the hatred expressed towards them by a vocal minority attracted a lot of attention by the press and generated a huge amount of support from fans.

Their first album after their political statement debuted at number one on both the U.S. pop albums chart and the U.S. country albums chart, and sold half a million copies in the first week. It contained a song that talked about what happened to the band after their political statement, and that song won the 2007 Grammy Award for best song, and was #4 on US charts for some time.

In 2006, they repeated their statement during a live, televised concert - "Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." It was met with thunderous applause.

So I guess the lesson is - if you want to make it big in music, talk politics at concerts. If you want to make it even bigger, make sure bigots attack you. It is especially ironic that the band used the phrase from one of the more hateful letters they received - "shut up and sing" - to achieve their remarkable success.

Clever -- you took my statement, which was true as I meant it only in the first phase of their "ordeal", and turned it around to point out that they have indeed acheived great success in no small part due to their political statements (but their music is amazing too).

. . =(_8^(1)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sometimes what makes an artist great is precisely that they refuse to fulfill the expectations of the audience. If their primary goal is to fulfill expectations, at best they are mediocre artists.

If you're basing that comment SOLELY within the confines of their profession, then I agree.

I think you are adopting far to narrow a definition of what the profession of Artists really is, and so relegating Art and Artists to the limits of 'bubble gum entertainment'.

The public absolutely has the right to 'vote with their feet/dollars' but they do not have the right to dictate the contents of the performance.

And I could equally argue that you take too broad a view - which one of us is right (or wrong) - who knows?

As the audience has no right to dictate the contents of the performance, neither does the artist have the right to complain when the audience reacts to a performance they don't care for.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If you want to make it even bigger, make sure bigots attack you.

Your bias is showing again, Bill.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706