3 ms·

Without the performing part you're not really a performing artist anymore. Performing artists are free to alienate their audiences if they wish, but the conseq

• coldtea 3y ago
  >Without the performing part you're not really a performing artist anymore. Performing is not the same as entertaining. Performing just means putting up a performance, that is playing in front of an audience. It could be a "top hits meddley crowd pleaser"or it could be an expression of things you want to explore as an artist, or anything in between. >Performing artists are free to alienate their audiences if they wish, but the consequences aren't necessarily positive for anyone. That's for the artist to decide. Some artists could not give less fucks about the consequences, and if they did they'd be in boy bands.
  • rainonmoon 3y ago
    Absolutely. And I dare say the consequences for Lou were plenty positive. He was a rare example of an artist who did exactly what he wanted and had the fortune to make a lasting career out of it. You can look at his collaborator-slash-foil Iggy Pop for another example, albeit sort of on the other end of the spectrum. Dude shows up on all kinds of stuff that probably does nothing for old purists but piss them off, but he's got nothing left to prove and he's having fun doing it. If people want their artists to be jukeboxes, they're gonna love it when they catch up to the invention of the iPod in 2001.
• squeaky-clean 3y ago
  > but the consequences aren't necessarily positive for anyone Only if your only idea of a positive consequence is money.