4 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt 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 agoSure, 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 agoIf 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 agoUnless 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 agoReducing 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.
- mannykannot 3y agoIt's not like the audience expects a performer to perform just one or two hits, and no artist is entitled to demand his audience values his other work as highly as he does: acclaim has to be earned. Being condescending to the audience just looks even more entitled.
- jjulius 3y ago> ... no artist is entitled to demand his audience values his other work as highly as he does: acclaim has to be earned. Totally true, listeners are under no obligation to enjoy a certain body of the artist's work over the hit(s) they love. But art being art, listeners aren't in a position to dictate what the artist is doing. If the artist starts doing something else, that's their prerogative - they're exercising their artistic freedom and staying true to themselves. If the listener isn't onboard, that's totally fine, but it's time for the listener to walk away at that point, rather than attempt to continue to impose their will upon the artist. I've obsessed over numerous musicians only to end up moving on after their style changed. I might be bummed, but they're the artist, it's their work and their right to move wherever they see fit. I'm just along for the ride, if I so choose to be - so is the rest of the audience.
- Optimal_Persona 3y agoYou're absolutely correct! But in this case - part of what Lou Reed sold to the public since the very beginning of the Velvet Underground was a palpable contempt for mainstream notions of what was "acceptable" whether in terms of sonics (his solo "Metal Machine Music" album), lyrical content ("Heroin", "I'm Waiting for My Man", "Sister Ray") or attitude. So I'm genuinely surprised that long term fans of Lou's would be surprised that he'd play the hits with a begrudging sneer.
- whstl 3y agoThere is absolutely no obligation, especially if you're specifically touring to showcase new work. And two can play this game: it is not-so-tacit, but very "well-understood" that some artists don't enjoy playing old hits. Insisting on it on the grounds of ignorance (by reducing an artists to one or two of their biggest hits, as another poster said) or in the grounds of "but I wanted to hear it" is more disrespectful than what you're complaining of.
- coldtea 3y agoHow 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 agoThen he could have just not played the song instead of getting an attitude about it.
- coldtea 3y agoYou'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 agoI 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 agoSorry, 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.