Do politics keep you from liking certain artists?

[chrisfan]

I'm sorry! I don't know why the hell i keep on typing Ken instead of Art. I KNOW who you are! I guess I must just be 3-letter word dyslexic or something.

Anyway, why is performing a style of music some sort of contract to your fans? To me, that implies that the ONLY reason a musician gets into music is for a huge fan base. I don't think that is the case. There are certainly musicians who are happy singing in clubs, making enough money to pay the bills, because they love to express themselves through music.

As I said, I think it's the same with acting, painting, or any other artistic medium. Vince Vaughn has made some damn funny movies. He's also done a good job playing a serial killer a time or two (and sucked at being a serial killer too - just pick the movie). Does that mean that if he comes off hte success of several comedies by going back to a dramatic or quirky role, he's betraying his fans?

Honestly, if you look at it in those terms (you have to give your fans what they're looking for) then I think you'd have to say that EVERY artist of any medium is a sell out. After all, they'd then be doing what sells because it would sell rather than treating their art as a form of expression.

[ken]

Uhmm...I am Ken. What?

[ken]

Ah, the discussion on selling out.

Selling out means, specifically, changing the style of music you play simply for the sake of generating more sales. The Goo Goo Dolls come to mind whenever I think of selling out. Changing your sound to drive more sales might make the most sense from a financial standpoint, but it usually destroys your artistic credibility.

[ken]

That being said, I am all for an artist's experimentation a different sound. Bowie, Beck, Radiohead, etc, etc...these are men/artists who have chosen to deviate from their established sound, and regardless of the success they have enjoyed (or not, due to their ventures) you can't accuse them of selling out.

[Artknocker]

Apples and oranges, CF. Music and film just aren't the same thing. Vince Vaughn can alternate from comedy to drama to science fiction or anything else and back again. It's all pop (maybe you could make an argument for a veteran indie film actor crossing over to big-budget blockbusters). I don't think Vaughn is thought of as any one particular kind of actor or expected to be pigeon-holed as such. I was a fan of Jim Carrey's comedy films, but did I say "I'm through with him" just b/c he made "The Truman Show"? Of course not. In actuality, I saw it, loved the movie and appreciated his acting talents even more. Did I abandon U2 when they went from "The Joshua Tree" to "Achtung Baby" (and even "Zooropa")? No, it was still rock music to me. Now, if an act goes from pop to country, you could say they're expanding their range. And if a band defies categorizing and has never played any particular type of music consistently and can play pop, country, rock or all of the above on one album and you never know what they might be from one album to the next, that's not the same as making the grand leap to pop and saying "I'm through with country and never looking back."

[chrisfan]

Art, (notice, I got it right that time) I simply disagree completely. You seem to be basing your entire standard of music and crossover on marketing and audience expectation. To me, this buys into the entire notion of people seeking out celebrity first rather than a career as a musician/filmmaker/painter/ what have you. As an artist, they're expressing themselves. To expect them to express themselves in the same way all the time is absurd. And to ignore the aspect of expression sucks the art right out of all of it.

Maybe that's why I keep calling you Ken ... you're just sucking the art out!

FWIW - I also have no problem at all with Tony Bennet bouncing from singing to painting.

[chrisfan]

One more thing -- you mentioned pigeon-holing, and that is basically what this all comes down to. But who is it that does the pigeon-holing? The artist himself? Absolutely not! So why on earth should the artist be stuck in the genre that he's been pigeon-holed into by no fault of his own?

[rockysigman]

And also, often times the distinction made between genres is pretty arbitrary. I've heard music labeled as rock that sounded way more country than a lot of stuff that is being called country. I've heard stuff called hip hop that I would probably call disco. Some stuff is pretty clear in what genre it falls in, but often times whatever label is put on music has more to do with an artist's image than their actual sound. So changing from "country" to "pop" is a pretty meaningless distinction as far as I can tell. And changing sounds is certainly not inherently selling out, if it is done because the change is precipitated by an artist's changing tastes and changing interests rather than simply to make more money.

[chrisfan]

Great point Rocky. When you look at rock alone, and all the different types of music that influence it, it's kind of hard to keep it pure rock. Look at someone like Ryan Adams, who'd be classified as rock, but has an undoubted country influence there.

[stratman19]

rockysigman said:

And changing sounds is certainly not inherently selling out, if it is done because the change is precipitated by an artist's changing tastes and changing interests rather than simply to make more money.

I agree. Take Neil Young for an example. He's been all over the place, and I don't think anyone can excuse him of "selling out".

[shin]

chrisfan said:

Shin, most fans of ANY entertainer don't have an opportunity to speak to those entertainers on a regular basis. Therefore, just about anything we hear from any of them is second hand information. Therefore, once again you're heading down an irrelevant path.

This isn't what I said, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make. And if you hear something someone said at a concert that you attend, that's first hand. Yes? The point is this isn't Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the Pope on live TV, *intending* to make a statement everyone will hear about. This is about one statement out of an hour plus concert in a culture that is not cowboy country. The people who got angriest at them weren't there for the context.

For me, the bottom line to my thoughts on the Dixie Chicks adventure is this ... When Natalie said what she said, she knew it would get out. Just like when Brad Pitt shacks up right now, he knows that it'll be noticed and reported. When Natalie said what she said she either A) Did not really understand where her fan base's loyalties were, and what their priorities were. If that is the case, then it explains the shock and hurt that she and the rest of the group expressed over the reaction. OR B) She knew exactly what the uproar would be, understood the country audience to a T, and saw it as an opportunity to launch the group out of being big in the country world into a more mainstream popularity.

If you believe the crocodile tears to Diane Sawyer were sincere, then you've gotta go with A. If you believe that she knew exactly what she was doing, then you've got to go with B.

Either way, I'm not writing them off to some sort of vast right wing conspiracy.

Or how about this. How about the Chicks revealed personal feelings to an audience they knew would be receptive but also felt it to be a "discreet" revelation (as discreet as one can make a declaration to thousands of people), feelings that they hadn't said before in a stateside concert or anywhere else because they, in fact, knew that their core audience would not approve of such a statement, so they hadn't said it previously out of respect for their fans.

And then imagine the surprise when a few days later, after some off the cuff remark in a concert thousands of miles from home hits the wires, your CDs are being bulldozed and torched in a god damn bonfire and your families are receiving death threats. Now, imagine how upset that would make you. Crocodile tears? Right. Right.

[JACkory]

...and now for something completely different:




...carry on.

[Howenstein]

Ahh... the spiders from Mars, indeed.

[chrisfan]

shin said:

chrisfan said:

Shin, most fans of ANY entertainer don't have an opportunity to speak to those entertainers on a regular basis. Therefore, just about anything we hear from any of them is second hand information. Therefore, once again you're heading down an irrelevant path.

This isn't what I said, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make. And if you hear something someone said at a concert that you attend, that's first hand. Yes? The point is this isn't Sinead O'Connor ripping up a picture of the Pope on live TV, *intending* to make a statement everyone will hear about. This is about one statement out of an hour plus concert in a culture that is not cowboy country. The people who got angriest at them weren't there for the context.

For me, the bottom line to my thoughts on the Dixie Chicks adventure is this ... When Natalie said what she said, she knew it would get out. Just like when Brad Pitt shacks up right now, he knows that it'll be noticed and reported. When Natalie said what she said she either A) Did not really understand where her fan base's loyalties were, and what their priorities were. If that is the case, then it explains the shock and hurt that she and the rest of the group expressed over the reaction. OR B) She knew exactly what the uproar would be, understood the country audience to a T, and saw it as an opportunity to launch the group out of being big in the country world into a more mainstream popularity.

If you believe the crocodile tears to Diane Sawyer were sincere, then you've gotta go with A. If you believe that she knew exactly what she was doing, then you've got to go with B.

Either way, I'm not writing them off to some sort of vast right wing conspiracy.

Or how about this. How about the Chicks revealed personal feelings to an audience they knew would be receptive but also felt it to be a "discreet" revelation (as discreet as one can make a declaration to thousands of people), feelings that they hadn't said before in a stateside concert or anywhere else because they, in fact, knew that their core audience would not approve of such a statement, so they hadn't said it previously out of respect for their fans.

And then imagine the surprise when a few days later, after some off the cuff remark in a concert thousands of miles from home hits the wires, your CDs are being bulldozed and torched in a god damn bonfire and your families are receiving death threats. Now, imagine how upset that would make you. Crocodile tears? Right. Right.

If they gave enough thought about the statement to think "Gee, we better say this in London, because it's not cowboy country, and we want the English fans to know we don't like the president either', then it wasn't exactly off the cuff, was it?

Regardless, you're asking me to debate over a bunch of factors that we'll never know. There is absolutely no point in doing so, because neither of us will ever know the actual circumstances. So I'll let you continue to believe whatever the hell you want to believe. The world is going to hell in one great big right wing conspiracy. Better jump on board soon! Those of us who are causing it all are going to be hurt last.

[shin]

chrisfan said:

If they gave enough thought about the statement to think "Gee, we better say this in London, because it's not cowboy country, and we want the English fans to know we don't like the president either', then it wasn't exactly off the cuff, was it?

Yes, it was still exactly off the cuff. You're still trying to attribute this to some grand plan. You can stand on a stage in London, take 5 seconds to think to yourself "this isn't Texas so I guess I'm safe here" and say something and still have that be off the cuff. I have no idea why I have to point these things out anymore.

Regardless, you're asking me to debate over a bunch of factors that we'll never know. There is absolutely no point in doing so, because neither of us will ever know the actual circumstances. So I'll let you continue to believe whatever the hell you want to believe. The world is going to hell in one great big right wing conspiracy. Better jump on board soon! Those of us who are causing it all are going to be hurt last.

Where did "right wing conspiracy" come from anyway? I said nothing about a conspiracy. You're just bringing this shit up out of thin air and attributing it to me.

It's not a conspiracy to say that there was a coordinated effort to crush the Dixie Chicks career. Do CD bulldozing fests just materialize out of thin air? People planned shit on it. People got together and said "what can we do about this?" Even on an individual level, calling up the radio to demand they not be taken off the air, even if it's your own decision, is still a singular example of this.

None of the anti-DC stuff was "off the cuff", that's for sure.