What Does an Artist OWE His Audience?

zabdart · #1 06-27-2016, 09:49 AM

There's a thread that was recently closed down about Bruce Springsteen cancelling some concerts in North Carolina for political reasons. Politics aside, this raised the interesting question of "What does an artist OWE his audience?" I'm not just talking about standards of professionalism here. Consider the case of Bob Dylan, who was roundly booed by the folk audiences of the 1960s when he plugged in and went electric, or Miles Davis, when he turned his back on his traditional jazz fans and introduced rock and street rhythms into his music. Does an artist OWE his audience a set which will please them without shaking them up or does he owe them his own artistic growth? I haven't always been pleased with some of the turns Joni Mitchell took with her music, either, but in the end, I've found myself pleased with her overall growth as an artist.
Any thoughts (no politics, please)?

Tone Gopher · #2 06-27-2016, 09:54 AM

Show up sober, give your best.

fingerguy · #3 06-27-2016, 10:00 AM

I am not a big fan of telling/expecting people to do things. However....since "artists aka musicians" get paid a lot for what they do, and we pay our hard-earned money to come out to see them, the very least they can do it come out on time.

A lot of bands/musicians for the most part do this (especially Zac Brown Band) but there are those that do not. Now even though I am not a fan Madonna is notorious being 3hrs late for a show. Axl Rose is the reason I refuse to buy GNR tickets, and so on.

blue · #4 06-27-2016, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tone Gopher

Show up sober, give your best.

I don't drink at all, or use drugs. But sober sounds a bit restrictive, like not even a beer.

I'd just say but on a great show, which I understand Mr. Springsteen does each and every time. By definition that means not being sloppy on alcohol or drugs. But I'm not going to tell a guy with a high tolerance he can't have four or five beers on hot festival day.

Bluepoet · #5 06-27-2016, 10:11 AM

The only obligation an artist has, for his/her audience, is to express/create the art. Everything else is expectation, money exchanges, and hype.

For performing artists, they have to go a step further--they must show up to the concert, on time, and with their best game face. It goes with the territory...they don't have to cater to their audience, as far as material, but it would be wise to do so, if they wish to be successful. That's the business side of the art. It is not that they owe anyone.

Ultimately, though, the artist only owes the price that the muse demands...

ewalling · #6 06-27-2016, 10:20 AM

Morally, I think artists owe their "fans" nothing. These fans do not buy the records and attend the concerts out of the goodness of their hearts; they do it because they get an emotional buzz from the music. If the buzz didn't happen, they'd drop the artist like a lead brick. Now as to whether the artist considers they'll gain more favor by playing the old classics or whether they have some contractual obligation to a promoter, that's a different matter. But morally, as I say, I think there's no debt of gratitude to be paid.

fingerguy · #7 06-27-2016, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewalling

Morally, I think artists owe their "fans" nothing. These fans do not buy the records and attend the concerts out of the goodness of their hearts; they do it because they get an emotional buzz from the music. If the buzz didn't happen, they'd drop the artist like a lead brick. Now as to whether the artist considers they'll gain more favor by playing the old classics or whether they have some contractual obligation to a promoter, that's a different matter. But morally, as I say, I think there's no debt of gratitude to be paid.

I agree to a point, BUT as once said in a movie and this is true for ALL famous people that have fans: FANS PAY YOUR BILLS! Baseball, Football, Music, Acting, and so on.

Glennwillow · #8 06-27-2016, 10:37 AM

It's such a strange chemistry that exists between musician and listener. I think in the end that the musician has to to make the music that he likes and wants to make. The musician hopes that enough of his listeners will like his new music that they will buy it.

In terms of the business side of the music, I very much agree with Ewalling, above. If people like your stuff, they will buy it and hopefully come to your live performances. If they don't, they won't. A musician that wants to survive has to continue making money or their music career is over.

For this reason a lot of successful entertainers end up doing the same song for decades at every one of their concerts. It takes discipline for James Taylor to continue playing "Fire & Rain" or "You've Got a Friend" at every concert for 45 years, but he does it and pulls it off quite well because he knows that's part of what his audience expects from him. If he didn't do it, he would lose some of his audience. And that is a business decision, not really an artistic decision.

- Glenn

wcap · #9 06-27-2016, 10:40 AM

I rarely go to concerts, though over the years I guess I have heard a number of big name people perform.

For me buying a ticket for something like this is a big deal, and spending a bunch of money on something like this would be based on wanting to hear some of the sorts of music that the performer is known for. If I got to a concert like this and it turned out the performer had radically and abruptly changed his or her style, and if all or most of the concert was this new different style, and if this was not known in advance, I might feel that I had been cheated out of some money... kind of like buying something off the menu at a restaurant and being brought something completely different.

So, as in other dealings involving sellers and buyers, where a seller should be clear about what the buyer will be getting, it seems ethical business practices would require a well-known performer (especially one with big ticket prices) to deliver a fair bit of what the audiences might be expecting. This is not to say that doing some new radically different stuff wouldn't be fine, but if the whole concert was like that I'd think that would be a problem. (If a performer is going to transition totally to a new style it seems it should somehow be made clear one way or another before tickets are sold.)

ewalling · #10 06-27-2016, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fingerguy

I agree to a point, BUT as once said in a movie and this is true for ALL famous people that have fans: FANS PAY YOUR BILLS! Baseball, Football, Music, Acting, and so on.

But that equals a business arrangement. Let's leave fancy words like 'loyalty' out of the equation.

Rondoraymundo · #11 06-27-2016, 10:43 AM

I said it in the last thread and it bears repeating: an artist without a conscience is a prostitute.

Most of this thread will probably be devoted to listing entertainers and not artists. I do not expect an artist to entertain me, although they might. I expect them to reveal something about the human condition that they deem important, and hopefully something that I never considered myself.

I do not listen to Beethoven to be entertained, although I might be. I listen because his music challenges me to consider how one may logically construct a piece of music that may express the pathos of human existence.

Entertainers entertain and that's it. Nothing wrong with that, but a conscience is hardly required.

fingerguy · #12 06-27-2016, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

It's such a strange chemistry that exists between musician and listener. I think in the end that the musician has to to make the music that he likes and wants to make. The musician hopes that enough of his listeners will like his new music that they will buy it.

In terms of the business side of the music, I very much agree with Ewalling, above. If people like your stuff, they will buy it and hopefully come to your live performances. If they don't, they won't. A musician that wants to survive has to continue making money or their music career is over.

For this reason a lot of successful entertainers end up doing the same song for decades at every one of their concerts. It takes discipline for James Taylor to continue playing "Fire & Rain" or "You've Got a Friend" at every concert for 45 years, but he does it and pulls it off quite well because he knows that's part of what his audience expects from him. If he didn't do it, he would lose some of his audience. And that is a business decision, not really an artistic decision.

- Glenn

Very good point. For instance I seen Transiberian Orchestra live twice now, and these 2 songs are a staple of theirs that so far has been played at both shows I seen (2 different seasons/years) and I am confident they play at each and every single show.

fazool · #13 06-27-2016, 11:06 AM

I have mixed feelings about it. For example, I get annoyed by artists who complain about playing the same old song over and over again and I do understand that but it might be the one huge single that made you who you are and is solely responsible for your success so quit complaining.

I've heard other artists asked if they get sick of playing a song and they said "no, its so much fun every time, especially to see how much the audience loves it".

What I think is that an artist "owes" the audience is that type of attitude, more than anything.

The danger of performances is that its a one-way purchase. If an artist has just had enough and given up, they can charge $100 for 15,000 seats and pull in $1.5M in one night. After running the show, they might walk away with a couple hundred grand for one night's work. If they decide they don't care anymore, the audience can't get their money back.

Sure word will get around and eventually people will stop buying tickets but the "artist" will have scooped up a couple million bucks by then and they can lock their doors and no one has any recourse.

So, I think there is some obligations.

YeOldRocker · #14 06-27-2016, 11:14 AM

Creative artists are ****ed-if-they-do/****ed-if-they-don't; no one wants their favorite band/musician to change, but fans also drift off, eventually, bored if they don't. Something new and different it is always a risk, but the difference between an artist and a hack is the former's ability to take a risk, let new things inspire, and move forward. If the fans are true fans, they'll give the new direction/material a chance and that will (maybe) add to their appreciation of the artist they went to see. Or they won't. It's a commercial risk, but that's what being a true artist is; no guarantees.

So, IMO, while an artist doesn't owe his audience anything, really, many will still gratify their fans, year after year, with at least some of the old favorites that made them stars. This, in turn, helps keeps them solvent in order to try out new things and promote new albums (are they still called albums these days?). And they may actually like the old songs still, while appreciating the warm reception the songs continue to receive.

Dirk Hofman · #15 06-27-2016, 11:25 AM

The only time fans complain about an artist's politics is when that artist's views challenge their own. Otherwise they eat it up. Non-issue, if you don't like the artist's views, stop supporting them.

Other than that, I think the comments above of show up on time and give your best pretty much cover it. That's what they owe a paying customer, and that's all.