4 ms·

What a poor attitude honestly. He’s lucky enough to come up with hit songs that have been known for decades, he should be smiling anytime someone asks him to pl

What a poor attitude honestly. He’s lucky enough to come up with hit songs that have been known for decades, he should be smiling anytime someone asks him to play one because that means he made it in a way the vast majority of musicians never do.

popularrecluse 3y ago
Not everyone makes music for the consumption and enjoyment of other people. Sometimes it's just a side-effect.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  Fair enough, but here, we are considering the situation where Lou Reed chose to perform before a paying audience. Dave Brubeck, who performed almost to the end of his life, never seemed tired of playing 'Take Five' as the finale to his set, and it was not even his composition.
  - maleldil 3y ago
    And the audience should be aware that he didn't like playing those songs. There are many artists that are like this, and it's fine. You're not entitled to the artists playing your favourite songs.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    The difference is that Brubeck and Reed each have different approaches to music. That's great that Dave loved playing 'Take Five' for the entire span of his career, but there's nothing wrong with other artists wanting to move on from something they've done in the past. The idea that artists owe us something or should play whatever the crowd wants with aplomb is misplaced, in my opinion.
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      The point here is that it is implausible that Lou Reed was, in fact, uninterested in "[making] music for the consumption and enjoyment of other people" when he was performing for a paying audience (well, I'll grant that he might have been uninterested in whether they enjoyed the performance.)
      - whstl 3y ago
        It is perfectly plausible. Plenty of musicians enjoy playing live for lots of factors other than "wanting others to enjoy". Whoever else is on the ride gets to enjoy too, but that not the main goal. Also, this is how most artists make money, so there's that. This argument is like saying that pro sports players wouldn't/shouldn't play in stadiums if their main goal isn't the consumption and enjoyment of other people. Also more on topic: it is also not implausible that he enjoys playing his current songs for an audience, but doesn't really enjoy playing older songs.
        mannykannot 3y ago
        Sure, there are others in the same boat, and all that means it that is is not just about Reed. Of course artists are free to become disdainful of the very works that made them popular in the first place, but by accepting a paid gig you are taking on some tacit but well-understood obligations that cannot reasonably be waived away on the grounds of this new-found disdain.
        jjulius 3y ago
        If the audience isn't aware of who they're paying to go see and what that artist is "about", then I fault the audience, not the artist.
        mannykannot 3y ago
        Unless there are good reasons to think otherwise, the audience can reasonably assume that what the performer has sold to the public, and is what has made them popular enough to have an audience for the performance, is, to a large extent, what they are about.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      I could care less if he plays whatever song. Oftentimes a set list depends on what you’ve been rehearsing. But he chose to play it with an attitude according to the commenter. Thats what I think is the poor behavior. People aren’t paying a ton of money to see him act like that.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  Billy Joel had something to say about this. "Oh, you're an artist, not an entertainer. No-one made you sign a record deal. You made plenty of money. Just shut up and be happy for your fortune."
  - coldtea 3y ago
    That's why Billy Joel is much shallower.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      Maybe so, maybe far more 'populist'. But he also has a point. How much do you get to play the tortured artist feigning disdain for popular appeal when you signed with first small, but then multiple increasingly large record labels? I mean, don't sign with RCA and Warner and act like popular appeal isn't putting food in your mouth, by your own choice. And this is said as someone who loves much of Reed's catalog.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        Artisty, being brooding, merely having standards and not wanting to be a song-and-dance man, is orthogonal to being on a record label, large or not. Getting on label is just a deal to package your output and sell it. Doesn't have to come with compromises, especially if you don't do avant guard music but something that does have a livable audience anyway. You dont owe them to "sell even more". In other words, the middleman pressing your records and distributing it, doesn't have to be your artistic advisor, on how you write or what songs you perform. Sure, if you want to put some water in your artistic wine, you can always do it. And if they don't like you, they can always drop you. >I mean, don't sign with RCA and Warner and act like popular appeal isn't putting food in your mouth, by your own choice. Sales of your music is what is "putting food in your mouth". You don't owe them money, you MAKE them money. Not to mention most artists in the 60s and up to the 80s with those big companies got horrible record deals and revenue sharing percentages anyway. They made the company $50 million (after expenses) and maybe they saw 5 of those, if they were lucky. So your choice is merely going to a company with more reach, to sell what you write to more people, not to tell you to change what you write so that it sells more. They didn't sign a songwriter-for-hire, but a specific songwriter with specific tastes.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Then he shouldn't have signed a record deal to sell his music to consumers if he felt that way about it. Its the definition of the job he chose.
jjulius 3y ago
Respectfully, it's this take that is poor. Musicians don't owe people anything and aren't obligated to smile any time anyone asks them to perform something. Some musicians will enjoy playing the same song a million times, while others have a different relationship with that music that may necessitate them feeling the need to "move on" from it. Music will always mean different things to different people.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  If anything its showing disrespect towards his fans who pay for his life. Ok, maybe he felt one way or another about the song or the time it was written or who knows. That being said you should be mature enough to set that aside and understand the value this song has brought to your fans. He’s a professional musician after all and should probably not pout about it at this point. Its not like this is some new concept with the job of professional musician on tour, its part and parcel.
  - jjulius 3y ago
    >If anything its showing disrespect towards his fans who pay for his life. If anything, fans who don't know that Lou Reed wouldn't be too keen on mining his past aren't the strongest fans and the attitude they demonstrate can also be deemed disrespectful. >Its not like this is some new concept with the job of professional musician on tour, its part and parcel. A professional musician's job is to make music that they want to make, full stop. What you're describing - bucking up, putting on a smile and doing as your fans demand - crosses into entertainer/star territory. Lou was a musician first, and an entertainer/star last. That, too, is not a new concept. I have to fault the audience for showing up expecting someone to be something that they clearly are not and never were.
stcroixx 3y ago
I agree, but of course Lou would not have. He chose to be miserable most of his life. There’s no way his life could have turned out that he would have been satisfied with.

popularrecluse 3y ago

Not everyone makes music for the consumption and enjoyment of other people. Sometimes it's just a side-effect.

mannykannot 3y ago
Fair enough, but here, we are considering the situation where Lou Reed chose to perform before a paying audience. Dave Brubeck, who performed almost to the end of his life, never seemed tired of playing 'Take Five' as the finale to his set, and it was not even his composition.
- maleldil 3y ago
  And the audience should be aware that he didn't like playing those songs. There are many artists that are like this, and it's fine. You're not entitled to the artists playing your favourite songs.
- jjulius 3y ago
  The difference is that Brubeck and Reed each have different approaches to music. That's great that Dave loved playing 'Take Five' for the entire span of his career, but there's nothing wrong with other artists wanting to move on from something they've done in the past. The idea that artists owe us something or should play whatever the crowd wants with aplomb is misplaced, in my opinion.
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    The point here is that it is implausible that Lou Reed was, in fact, uninterested in "[making] music for the consumption and enjoyment of other people" when he was performing for a paying audience (well, I'll grant that he might have been uninterested in whether they enjoyed the performance.)
    - whstl 3y ago
      It is perfectly plausible. Plenty of musicians enjoy playing live for lots of factors other than "wanting others to enjoy". Whoever else is on the ride gets to enjoy too, but that not the main goal. Also, this is how most artists make money, so there's that. This argument is like saying that pro sports players wouldn't/shouldn't play in stadiums if their main goal isn't the consumption and enjoyment of other people. Also more on topic: it is also not implausible that he enjoys playing his current songs for an audience, but doesn't really enjoy playing older songs.
      - mannykannot 3y ago
        Sure, there are others in the same boat, and all that means it that is is not just about Reed. Of course artists are free to become disdainful of the very works that made them popular in the first place, but by accepting a paid gig you are taking on some tacit but well-understood obligations that cannot reasonably be waived away on the grounds of this new-found disdain.
        jjulius 3y ago
        If the audience isn't aware of who they're paying to go see and what that artist is "about", then I fault the audience, not the artist.
        mannykannot 3y ago
        Unless there are good reasons to think otherwise, the audience can reasonably assume that what the performer has sold to the public, and is what has made them popular enough to have an audience for the performance, is, to a large extent, what they are about.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    I could care less if he plays whatever song. Oftentimes a set list depends on what you’ve been rehearsing. But he chose to play it with an attitude according to the commenter. Thats what I think is the poor behavior. People aren’t paying a ton of money to see him act like that.
FireBeyond 3y ago
Billy Joel had something to say about this. "Oh, you're an artist, not an entertainer. No-one made you sign a record deal. You made plenty of money. Just shut up and be happy for your fortune."
- coldtea 3y ago
  That's why Billy Joel is much shallower.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    Maybe so, maybe far more 'populist'. But he also has a point. How much do you get to play the tortured artist feigning disdain for popular appeal when you signed with first small, but then multiple increasingly large record labels? I mean, don't sign with RCA and Warner and act like popular appeal isn't putting food in your mouth, by your own choice. And this is said as someone who loves much of Reed's catalog.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Artisty, being brooding, merely having standards and not wanting to be a song-and-dance man, is orthogonal to being on a record label, large or not. Getting on label is just a deal to package your output and sell it. Doesn't have to come with compromises, especially if you don't do avant guard music but something that does have a livable audience anyway. You dont owe them to "sell even more". In other words, the middleman pressing your records and distributing it, doesn't have to be your artistic advisor, on how you write or what songs you perform. Sure, if you want to put some water in your artistic wine, you can always do it. And if they don't like you, they can always drop you. >I mean, don't sign with RCA and Warner and act like popular appeal isn't putting food in your mouth, by your own choice. Sales of your music is what is "putting food in your mouth". You don't owe them money, you MAKE them money. Not to mention most artists in the 60s and up to the 80s with those big companies got horrible record deals and revenue sharing percentages anyway. They made the company $50 million (after expenses) and maybe they saw 5 of those, if they were lucky. So your choice is merely going to a company with more reach, to sell what you write to more people, not to tell you to change what you write so that it sells more. They didn't sign a songwriter-for-hire, but a specific songwriter with specific tastes.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
Then he shouldn't have signed a record deal to sell his music to consumers if he felt that way about it. Its the definition of the job he chose.

jjulius 3y ago

Respectfully, it's this take that is poor. Musicians don't owe people anything and aren't obligated to smile any time anyone asks them to perform something. Some musicians will enjoy playing the same song a million times, while others have a different relationship with that music that may necessitate them feeling the need to "move on" from it. Music will always mean different things to different people.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
If anything its showing disrespect towards his fans who pay for his life. Ok, maybe he felt one way or another about the song or the time it was written or who knows. That being said you should be mature enough to set that aside and understand the value this song has brought to your fans. He’s a professional musician after all and should probably not pout about it at this point. Its not like this is some new concept with the job of professional musician on tour, its part and parcel.
- jjulius 3y ago
  >If anything its showing disrespect towards his fans who pay for his life. If anything, fans who don't know that Lou Reed wouldn't be too keen on mining his past aren't the strongest fans and the attitude they demonstrate can also be deemed disrespectful. >Its not like this is some new concept with the job of professional musician on tour, its part and parcel. A professional musician's job is to make music that they want to make, full stop. What you're describing - bucking up, putting on a smile and doing as your fans demand - crosses into entertainer/star territory. Lou was a musician first, and an entertainer/star last. That, too, is not a new concept. I have to fault the audience for showing up expecting someone to be something that they clearly are not and never were.

stcroixx 3y ago

I agree, but of course Lou would not have. He chose to be miserable most of his life. There’s no way his life could have turned out that he would have been satisfied with.