3 ms·

Unless he had made this clear beforehand - and apparently he had not - then the audience can justifiably feel that there had been an element of bait-and-switch

Unless he had made this clear beforehand - and apparently he had not - then the audience can justifiably feel that there had been an element of bait-and-switch to the performance. (I suppose you could argue that churlishly and begrudgingly performing that which had induced the audience to pay him for recorded and live performances in the first place was part of Reed's public persona!)

coldtea 3y ago
>Unless he had made this clear beforehand - and apparently he had not - then the audience can justifiably feel that there had been an element of bait-and-switch to the performance If the audience didn't knew who Lou Reed was, and what songs he likes to play in concerns and how, then they were not paying attention. Perhaps they went in thinking it's some crowd pleaser performing a meddley of their hits? That's not "bait and switch" that's more like "they bought pigs in a blanket". >I suppose you could argue that churlishly and begrudgingly performing that which had induced the audience to pay him for recorded and live performances in the first place was part of Reed's public persona! I'd go further and say that it was also part of his sincere preferences and character.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  Apparently he is unstinting in collecting royalties on the works in question: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tribe-called-quest-lou-reed-got-all-the-money-for-can-i-kick-it-71760/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tribe-call... And he did, after all, play them in concert, though condescendingly (and perhaps realizing that if he did not, future earnings from performances would come to reflect how well-regarded his preferred works are.) In aggregate, his behavior looks to me to be petty and entitled, rather than high-minded.
  - penneallagricia 3y ago
    > he is Was. He died years ago. Show some respect and at least learn that before going on finding evidence to support your claim that "his behavior is petty and entitled". You clearly don't know who you're talking about
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      That was, indeed, a careless mistake on my part, but it does not alter the facts behind this discussion.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        "facts"
        mannykannot 3y ago
        The facts are his behavior, in performance and in relation to royalties.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >Apparently he is unstinting in collecting royalties on the works in question And your point is? Just because he didn't like some of his previous work anymore, or didn't appreciate the shallow focus on "past hits", he should have forfeited his publishing rights for those songs going forward? This is some next level entitlement. >And he did, after all, play them in concert, though condescendingly Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He haven't signed any contract that he'd play those songs. He haven't made any promise to play those songs. He didn't feel like playing those songs. He wanted to focus on more recent and less obvious stuff than past hits parade, as if he's in some tribute band. Some in the audience still insisted on the hits. Is it not enough that he accepted that demand and played them. Did he also have to like it or put on a fake smile? This is some next level entitlement.
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      > He should have forfeited his publishing rights for those songs going forward? Of course not - it's a fact emphasizing his willingness to hawk those works in the marketplace.

coldtea 3y ago

>Unless he had made this clear beforehand - and apparently he had not - then the audience can justifiably feel that there had been an element of bait-and-switch to the performance If the audience didn't knew who Lou Reed was, and what songs he likes to play in concerns and how, then they were not paying attention. Perhaps they went in thinking it's some crowd pleaser performing a meddley of their hits? That's not "bait and switch" that's more like "they bought pigs in a blanket". >I suppose you could argue that churlishly and begrudgingly performing that which had induced the audience to pay him for recorded and live performances in the first place was part of Reed's public persona! I'd go further and say that it was also part of his sincere preferences and character.

mannykannot 3y ago
Apparently he is unstinting in collecting royalties on the works in question: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tribe-called-quest-lou-reed-got-all-the-money-for-can-i-kick-it-71760/ https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tribe-call... And he did, after all, play them in concert, though condescendingly (and perhaps realizing that if he did not, future earnings from performances would come to reflect how well-regarded his preferred works are.) In aggregate, his behavior looks to me to be petty and entitled, rather than high-minded.
- penneallagricia 3y ago
  > he is Was. He died years ago. Show some respect and at least learn that before going on finding evidence to support your claim that "his behavior is petty and entitled". You clearly don't know who you're talking about
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    That was, indeed, a careless mistake on my part, but it does not alter the facts behind this discussion.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      "facts"
      - mannykannot 3y ago
        The facts are his behavior, in performance and in relation to royalties.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Apparently he is unstinting in collecting royalties on the works in question And your point is? Just because he didn't like some of his previous work anymore, or didn't appreciate the shallow focus on "past hits", he should have forfeited his publishing rights for those songs going forward? This is some next level entitlement. >And he did, after all, play them in concert, though condescendingly Damned if you do, damned if you don't. He haven't signed any contract that he'd play those songs. He haven't made any promise to play those songs. He didn't feel like playing those songs. He wanted to focus on more recent and less obvious stuff than past hits parade, as if he's in some tribute band. Some in the audience still insisted on the hits. Is it not enough that he accepted that demand and played them. Did he also have to like it or put on a fake smile? This is some next level entitlement.
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    > He should have forfeited his publishing rights for those songs going forward? Of course not - it's a fact emphasizing his willingness to hawk those works in the marketplace.