3 ms·

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 work

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.
    - mannykannot 3y ago
      It'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 ago
    You'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 ago
There 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.

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.
  - mannykannot 3y ago
    It'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 ago
  You'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 ago

There 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.