The stupid-bitch-ass audience and fan thread

[gunslinger_burrito]

I copied this from my stupid facebook rant.

I have to take a minute to put some thoughts into words. There's been a theme lately among artists and musicians I respect. It's a theme that's nothing new, but I've just noticed it come up more in interviews lately. The idea basically boils down to "artist" versus "performer." One is being true to what they love and in this case usually makes some kind of impression. The other is making art or music or playing live in order to acquire some sort of publicity. This isn't anything new, I know, but I want to give my respect to those who constantly perform in front of unappreciative crowds and still give it their all. I like certain..."genres" for their basically theatrical qualities, but those qualities are just that: theatricality. The guys who dress how they want and write and perform what they want, BECAUSE it's what they want to make, and not because it fits into the paradigm they've chosen....those guys will always be my favorites. For example, the new song they might've wrote that kiiind of sounds like a pop song and has clean vocals and pretty sounds and heartfelt lyrics will always strike more of a chord for me than if they wrote 20 thrashing metal songs that sound just like the 100 thrashing metal songs they already wrote, because they're fucking human beings and humans change over time. If you don't change over time, you're dead. The end.

It's ok not to like your favorite band's new record. It's not okay not to like it because it deviates a bit from what you've come to expect. That's called evolution, change, etc. Case and point- Dredg. The symbol they've used for the band since day one is a derivation of the Chinese symbol for change. They've gone from mostly instrumental rock/metal, to pop rock, to a straight-up pop and R&B influenced sound. I like them still because they do what they love, and what they want, and they're lyrics are thoughtful and musicianship great. Some bands progress and make new things, all done well. Some bands just suck and no one cares. Some bands make something awesome, but keep making the same shit over and over until no one cares, and the only people who show up to their shows and listen to their records are feeling a feeling of nostalgia. I think nostalgia is the only thing that's kept bands like Metallica and Slayer and Black Sabbath going all these years. That, and older generations telling the younger ones that the old stuff is always better. Old stuff can be good, and a lot is. But it's not the only good stuff out there.

To all internet trolls and opinion dissenters out there: I don't want to hear your opinion unless you can intelligently defend why you like something. I don't expect us all to like the same thing.

Okay, phew. That was cathartic. End rant.

[The4455]

I don't care at all about what happens on stage, I go to concerts for the music. IF you have to be entertained visually entertained by a musician, is his/her music even worth listening to if it can't hold your interest without crazy lights and shit?

[rustywire]

Agree with first paragraph.
I've also delineated between artist and performer, although I've used the word "poseur" in place of performer.
I think I like your version better...

I think anyone in the arts makes a choice, whether conscious or not; it's a matter of sincerity and authenticity in attempting to create something special as opposed to striving for fame, to put asses in seats and chase money/further an agenda while making a spectacle of yourself and whoring out to the highest bidder.

As for the 2nd paragraph...I kind of got lost in the editorializing.

[D.o.S.]

I don't care at all about what happens on stage, I go to concerts for the music. IF you have to be entertained visually entertained by a musician, is his/her music even worth listening to if it can't hold your interest without crazy lights and shit?

You gotta go to more shows, dude.

A top-notch lighting setup elevates the material, doesn't distract from it.

I also think that artistic authenticity is a slippery slope. Too many people, including me, deal with it like pornography--that is to say "I know it when I see it."

[gunslinger_burrito]

I think a good show is important. But I think that some people are "performing" and some people get onstage and play their songs and it's fucking amazing. I like music that, when performed live, has an element of chaos or spontaneity to it. I hate choreography and shit like synchronized headbanging. In contrast, I think that some music/art does well with a visual element. Case and point- SunnO))). I would go see them because it's an experience, not just a "show." Dammit, it's really hard to express what I'm trying to say without crossing up my own semantics...

I just don't want to go see a band and feel like I'm seeing the same exact show they put on last night, step by step. "Ok, here's the cue for the fireworks! Ok, now when I stand this way, shine the red light on me!" That stuff just feels to me like I'm watching a circus or something.

For instance.... I used to really love Marilyn Manson. In fact, his older material is still some of my favorite stuff. But what he does now....changing costumes between songs, using more and more stage props....relying nonsense sounds as lyrics more and more....writing songs with titles like "arma-goddamn-mother-fuckin-geddon"..... it's fucking CONTRIVED.

Guh. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir. It's just been getting on my nerves lately.

[rustywire]

Def, DoS. Also @ this^

[D.o.S.]

Awww man you changed your avatar and now I'm gonna have to read your username or some nonsense.

And, again, I'd say that the only difference between Marilyn Manson and Sunn 0))'s gigs are the perceived levels of artistic credibility. But how does that stack up when its Sunn and, say, Radiohead? Or Tool? Neurosis used a heavy visual element in a lot of their shows, and Buzz*oven used to have loops of white noise/samples/what have you playing through the PA for their entire set... but the mythology around Buzz*oven kind of dictates that we take them seriously when they're on stage (ostensibly because a band that blew their entire Roadrunner advance on all sorts of seriously hard drugs can't possibly be doing anything that would be considered "performance art").

[gunslinger_burrito]

Also @ this^

Yes. My ranting has been a little out of control. I usually don't get on a soapbox like that. In fact, I haven't in a really long time. I have to purposely NOT scroll down when watching stuff on youtube, because of the instant troll-flame-bitching fest that always lurks just a couple comments down. I usually can laugh at or ignore stupid audience criticism, but the bullshit cup overfloweth on this day.

Awww man you changed your avatar and now I'm gonna have to read your username or some nonsense.

And, again, I'd say that the only difference between Marilyn Manson and Sunn 0))'s gigs are the perceived levels of artistic credibility. But how does that stack up when its Sunn and, say, Radiohead? Or Tool? Neurosis used a heavy visual element in a lot of their shows, and Buzz*oven used to have loops of white noise/samples/what have you playing through the PA for their entire set... but the mythology around Buzz*oven kind of dictates that we take them seriously when they're on stage (ostensibly because a band that blew their entire Roadrunner advance on all sorts of seriously hard drugs can't possibly be doing anything that would be considered "performance art").

I typed up a stupid-long answer before realizing that I'm totally over-thinking this. I agree that artistic credibility is a blurry, slippery line. I also think that the key word you used is "perceived." What does the audience perceive vs what the artist intended?

I'll admit that I' haven't seen Neurosis live, but I do like their music. Does anyone think that they thought to themselves "hey, we need a light show so more people will come see us live" ? I doubt it, and seriously hope not. Frills can make good art look better, or they can make a turd look like an almost-not-turd.

My original gripe was just that so many people bitch and moan when an established band breaks a bit from their pattern. Most of the time, their justification is regurgitated nonsense.

[backwardsvoyager]

It's ok not to like your favorite band's new record. It's not okay not to like it because it deviates a bit from what you've come to expect. That's called evolution, change, etc.

I agree with this, it makes me sad when a band decides to change their direction and still puts in the same amount of passion and hard work just to be met with 'this sucks, nothing like ____ record' (even if I don't like it myself)

I'm not a fan of theatrics or excessive light shows either. I saw one of those U2 arena shows a few years ago (I don't remember why but anyway) and it was probably the most terrible concert experience I've ever had, everything was just so distracting (probably to make people unaware of how bad the sound is in a football stadium).

At any rate, I think the issues gunslinger_burrito pointed out are only going to stay the same if not become worse over time. Most people feel they don't need to justify their opinions before spurting them out, I try to just ignore these things.

[basti moon]

I'm more suspicious of people who never sacrifice their artistic integrity and never becomes a 'performer' on stage when they're not feeling it. Those kinds of people are usually pretentious assholes- performers in a different way, their whole life.
It's not natural to be able to be your own artist all the time.
I have to sacrifice things all the time, it's hard working with music. What kind of difference is there between a client and an audience, if both pays you?
I'm not saying it's okay to keep being the same, just don't hack away at your own expression just so you can 'change jobs'. I think there's lots of fun creativity to be found in trying to compromise the way you change. Just being stubborn and doing what ever you want isn't all that creative, to me. John Frusciante is a good example, he never seems stubborn in his changes, just happy about finding a new synthesizer or drum machine. Billy Corgan, on the other hand.

Not sure if that's a very cohesive thought :/ It's complicated stuff! Large scale psychology of popular culture and audience relationships and stuff.

My original gripe was just that so many people bitch and moan when an established band breaks a bit from their pattern. Most of the time, their justification is regurgitated nonsense.

I see more of this coming from bands justifying their changes in the commercial world. They should find a way to surprise their audience without pissing them off. It's being done all the time, if the band miscalculated their cleverness then it's their own fault. If it's just the case of one or two youtube trolls, then it's not really a discussion, though, internet complicates things. Trolls breed trolls!

[rustywire]

"Artist" and "performer" shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive. After reconsideration I don't prefer that binary system, nor do I even think there is clear delineation between the 2...
But hacks and poseurs only chasing a paycheck are cheap & plentiful.
That's not to say that there's anything wrong with trying to make a living from your craft.
But artistic integrity has become rare and it's easy to spot someone who lacks it.

It's up to the person on the stage, in the studio etc to decide what their goals are and how to focus their energy.
It's up to the viewers/listeners to support the performer who they believe is worth supporting.

Yet so many fools/hacks/poseurs are elevated and become rich, iconic and even powerful...while shamelessly ripping off starving artists.
It may be a horrible injustice, but that's life. You can't make people care.

But you can try to make something personal, great, and maybe even stand the test of time.
I think novelty & disposability only makes everything cheaper and less relevant.

But some people like that sort of thing. A lot, in fact. Shiiiiiiit.

[gunslinger_burrito]

It's a tough subject, for sure. I chose "artist" and "performer" because I couldn't think of better terms at the time. I agree that you should "put on a good show when you play live," but I think that there's a line that gets crossed between performing honestly and becoming a "showman" instead of an "Artist." Once again, the best terms I can think of right now.

I was giving my respect to the bands that have to play festivals and the like who have to deal with shitty crowds, but still play their hearts out.

Personally, when I think about writing, or what I can do as a solo act, I end up looking at other solo acts (see my other thread...) and it's hard not to instantly see "novelty" in a lot of those acts. Personally, I think I'd rather see Seasick Steve or something instead of a guy who plays drums, keyboards, a guitar, and 5 loop pedals. Unless the latter is rocking the FUCK out the whole time.

[D.o.S.]

Related: I'm listening to Loaded, which is the Velvet Underground's "Sellout" album.

And it's fucking awesome.

[gunslinger_burrito]

I guess if someone can write an album intended to be more accessible, AND make it good, then they just get more cool points

I like it when bands can manage to step up to any circumstance or challenge and still kick ass.

[The4455]

I don't care at all about what happens on stage, I go to concerts for the music. IF you have to be entertained visually entertained by a musician, is his/her music even worth listening to if it can't hold your interest without crazy lights and shit?

You gotta go to more shows, dude.

A top-notch lighting setup elevates the material, doesn't distract from it.

I also think that artistic authenticity is a slippery slope. Too many people, including me, deal with it like pornography--that is to say "I know it when I see it."

Yah, all those lights and stuff. I've never liked it on stage or off. It's like salt.