5 ms·

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.
        jjulius 3y ago
        Reducing an artist to being "about" one or two of their biggest hits when they have a massive catalogue that has clearly demonstrated an effort to branch out is an act of ignorance, to my mind.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      How about he was interested in giving a performance on his terms, and based on what he wanted to artistically convey, to people who could appreciate that and came for that, and not to be a performing monkey for people?
      - kjkjadksj 3y ago
        Then he could have just not played the song instead of getting an attitude about it.
        coldtea 3y ago
        You'd still be complaining in that case that "he got an attitude and refused to play the song". And perhaps he cared to not hurt them by not playing it at all, but was hurt himself and pissed that they cared for the "hits" and didn't appreciate his performance. How about that? The thing is, it's his concert. The artist choses the songlist. Would they pull the same shit on Miles Davis, or do they think because it's rock, the singer is their performing monkey?
        mannykannot 3y ago
        I think your proposal - that he was pissed and that he was acting out on account of it - is quite probably correct, and that's just self-important entitlement, whether its Lou Reed or Miles Davis doing it, and particularly in conjunction with his vigorous pursuit of royalties on his most popular works. If you choose to enter the marketplace, you have no basis for complaining when you are judged by it.
        coldtea 3y ago
        Sorry, but the idea that the musician should be a "song-and-dance" man, pleasing the audience, or else they should forfeit their "vigorous pursuit of royalties", is some next level entitlement. It's also more of what a label producer would say to made-by-the-company boy bands, or can be said about market friendly "entertainer" types, and tribute bands, not something that should in any culture should apply to artists.
  - 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.

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.
        jjulius 3y ago
        Reducing an artist to being "about" one or two of their biggest hits when they have a massive catalogue that has clearly demonstrated an effort to branch out is an act of ignorance, to my mind.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    How about he was interested in giving a performance on his terms, and based on what he wanted to artistically convey, to people who could appreciate that and came for that, and not to be a performing monkey for people?
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      Then he could have just not played the song instead of getting an attitude about it.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        You'd still be complaining in that case that "he got an attitude and refused to play the song". And perhaps he cared to not hurt them by not playing it at all, but was hurt himself and pissed that they cared for the "hits" and didn't appreciate his performance. How about that? The thing is, it's his concert. The artist choses the songlist. Would they pull the same shit on Miles Davis, or do they think because it's rock, the singer is their performing monkey?
        mannykannot 3y ago
        I think your proposal - that he was pissed and that he was acting out on account of it - is quite probably correct, and that's just self-important entitlement, whether its Lou Reed or Miles Davis doing it, and particularly in conjunction with his vigorous pursuit of royalties on his most popular works. If you choose to enter the marketplace, you have no basis for complaining when you are judged by it.
        coldtea 3y ago
        Sorry, but the idea that the musician should be a "song-and-dance" man, pleasing the audience, or else they should forfeit their "vigorous pursuit of royalties", is some next level entitlement. It's also more of what a label producer would say to made-by-the-company boy bands, or can be said about market friendly "entertainer" types, and tribute bands, not something that should in any culture should apply to artists.
- 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.