Topic: When your musical heroes died

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

You really think that's fair on the people who got them where they are?

I don't care about "fairness." I don't want artists to have "how's this going to go down?" in the back of their minds when creating their new album or whatever. I don't even really agree that audiences "got them where they are" - downloading an album or going to a gig requires very little effort compared to actually recording an album or touring. No one is forced to buy material or gig tickets; if you choose to, caveat emptor.

[NoSleep]

...even if the band debuts their "Jazz Odyssey" that night.

[2 Light Ales Please]

Would you say the same thing about a politician? Going to vote requires little effort, but their main function is to provide us with a service, if you didn't get that service, it would be fair to voice your complaints.  Why should a band be any different?  Supporting a band and allowing them the freedom to make music for a living - for our enjoyment - means that the fans should come before indulging their taste in support acts.

As for the Chili Peppers, I bought all their albums, shelled out for the gig and travelled to London to see them trot out a bland, soulless show.  Flea's bitterness towards his audience seems, to me, misplaced considering the circumstances.

And you have to take your audience into consideration. The sort of crowd the Chili Peppers attract, for example, is not the sort of crowd that tend to go for garish, electronic lesbian bands, so it just didn't make sense to have them on the bill.  James Brown also played that day and went down a storm, probably because he was a big influence on RHCP and stylistically, isn't a million miles away.

These days, as my taste in music has broadened considerably, I'd probably be a little more enthused by Chicks on Speed.  Unfortunately, the frankly dreadful half-set they played did not endear them to me and I'm not sure I'd be able to give them a listen without being reminded of what a massive disappointment they were.

[NoSleep]

Would you say the same thing about a politician? Going to vote requires little effort, but their main function is to provide us with a service, if you didn't get that service, it would be fair to voice your complaints.  Why should a band be any different?Supporting a band and allowing them the freedom to make music for a living - for our enjoyment - means that the fans should come before indulging their taste in support acts.

As for the Chili Peppers, I bought all their albums, shelled out for the gig and travelled to London to see them trot out a bland, soulless show.  Flea's bitterness towards his audience seems, to me, misplaced considering the circumstances.

And you have to take your audience into consideration. The sort of crowd the Chili Peppers attract, for example, is not the sort of crowd that tend to go for garish, electronic lesbian bands, so it just didn't make sense to have them on the bill.  James Brown also played that day and went down a storm, probably because he was a big influence on RHCP and stylistically, isn't a million miles away.

These days, as my taste in music has broadened considerably, I'd probably be a little more enthused by Chicks on Speed.  Unfortunately, the frankly dreadful half-set they played did not endear them to me and I'm not sure I'd be able to give them a listen without being reminded of what a massive disappointment they were.

Pressure from the record company, where big bands are concerned, aside[nb]Only regarding this point, of course.[/nb], no artist should be restricted from evolving by the demands of the public; they can vote with their feet and find other bands to cater for them.

Some artists have a following because of their ability to surprise and challenge (the ones I like the best do, at least) and their public evolution is part and parcel of the show.

RHCP giving a boring show? Well, I'm not surprised. It probably was in consideration for their total audience and they miscalculated.

[2 Light Ales Please]

I completely agree, but I think you're missing my point somewhat.

My complaint has nothing to do with bands changing musically - after all, that's what the best bands do - what I do have a problem with, is bands treating their audience with contempt.  Essentially, this is about bands getting too big for their boots and while most people will probably only ever be casual fans, there will always be a core of people that truly love them and it isn't fair to alienate them.  I actually think bands shouldn't conform to what their audience expects, but they should at least respect them enough to not - literally in this case - tell them to go and fuck themselves.

[CaledonianGonzo]

But all he did was to say 'fuck you' to an audience that bottled a band they didn't like - and that might well have been there on his invitation. 

As with several others in this thread, it's about the only thing that Flea's ever done that's endeared me to him.

I'm surprised you're not singling out the mediocre gig as a reason to go off him, to be honest.

[Ignatius_S]

Would you say the same thing about a politician? Going to vote requires little effort, but their main function is to provide us with a service, if you didn't get that service, it would be fair to voice your complaints….

Well, I suppose some might say that throwing missiles at politicians is a good way of showing displeasure. Some would also say it’s okay to do it to a band, but not everyone would.

…  Why should a band be any different?..

Because being in a band or a musician isn’t the same as being as an elected political representative.

…Supporting a band and allowing them the freedom to make music for a living - for our enjoyment - means that the fans should come before indulging their taste in support acts.,..

What if the income from being a musician isn’t enough from them to make a living? Should they be more beholden to their paying fans or less?

Perhaps bands should also poll their fans who their support should be. Hell, why stop we stop there… fans could be polled to decide what the set should be… or even what musical furrows the bands should plough.

….As for the Chili Peppers, I bought all their albums, shelled out for the gig and travelled to London to see them trot out a bland, soulless show. Flea's bitterness towards his audience seems, to me, misplaced considering the circumstances.

Who could have seen that coming?

As for Flea, from what you related, it sounds like he had contempt for the way that fellow performers were treated in a disrespectful, boorish manner of contempt.

…..And you have to take your audience into consideration. The sort of crowd the Chili Peppers attract, for example, is not the sort of crowd that tend to go for garish, electronic lesbian bands…

Well, overlooking the fact that Chicks on Speed are more of an arts collective than a band in the traditional sense or that statement is stuck in a timewarp in the way that it equates feminism with lesbianism, what would their sexuality have to do with the way they were received?

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

Would you say the same thing about a politician? Going to vote requires little effort, but their main function is to provide us with a service, if you didn't get that service, it would be fair to voice your complaints.  Why should a band be any different?

A shitty gig is considerably more trivial than a shitty government.

Supporting a band and allowing them the freedom to make music for a living - for our enjoyment - means that the fans should come before indulging their taste in support acts.

You don't support bands, you consume their product.

Flea's bitterness towards his audience seems, to me, misplaced considering the circumstances.

Like other posters, this anecdote has made me like Flea more! I wish bands were more confrontational or at least honest, rather than this showbiz "You guys rock!" dull fucking deadeyed saccharine swill. One of the best bits of a recent Killing Joke gig I went to was when Jaz said "They're gonna build a dozen new nuclear power plants in the UK over the next 20 years, depressing isn't it?" and was met with silence, he sneered "The most depressing thing is that you don't have an opinion!"

And you have to take your audience into consideration. The sort of crowd the Chili Peppers attract, for example, is not the sort of crowd that tend to go for garish, electronic lesbian bands, so it just didn't make sense to have them on the bill.

Sounds like rather than being contemptuous of the audience, they actually overestimated them.

Essentially, this is about bands getting too big for their boots and while most people will probably only ever be casual fans, there will always be a core of people that truly love them and it isn't fair to alienate them.

I don't agree. Partly because what you ask is impossible - a throwaway comment or bad hair day might alienate a hardcore fan - and partly because people should be responsible for their own emotional investments. If someone allows themselves to become obsessed with a band that's their lookout, and the band is under no obligation to them (other than to try their best, perhaps).

[Gulftastic]

Whne they let Robbie Williams back in, they were testing my faith, but Barlow canvasing for the Tories was the last straw. I've always stuck up for Take That as a fantastic pop group who never failed to put on a fantastic concert. Not any more. Even my sister, who still has VHS recordings of them titting about on The Big Breakfast, is now not a fan.

[scarecrow]

the fans should come before indulging their taste in support acts.

What an odd thing to say. I'm guessing you don't go to that many shows, or else you would have grown accustomed to seeing mediocre acts open for the bands you love. It's funny how huge crowds are always more hostile in these situations, while smaller ones tend to just continue talking to each other at the bar.

[NoSleep]

I completely agree, but I think you're missing my point somewhat.

My complaint has nothing to do with bands changing musically - after all, that's what the best bands do - what I do have a problem with, is bands treating their audience with contempt.  Essentially, this is about bands getting too big for their boots and while most people will probably only ever be casual fans, there will always be a core of people that truly love them and it isn't fair to alienate them.  I actually think bands shouldn't conform to what their audience expects, but they should at least respect them enough to not - literally in this case - tell them to go and fuck themselves.

I don't think telling the audience to go fuck themselves or alienating people should be off the agenda. It's actually fair to permit both from an artistic point of view.

[Retinend]

I was at that same gig at the same age. The 'fuck you' was pretty lighthearted in context. If anything it seemed a bit defensive, as if we'd just all collectively dissed him.

[2 Light Ales Please]

What an odd thing to say. I'm guessing you don't go to that many shows, or else you would have grown accustomed to seeing mediocre acts open for the bands you love. It's funny how huge crowds are always more hostile in these situations, while smaller ones tend to just continue talking to each other at the bar.

I got to lots of gigs now, but the crushing disappointment I felt at 15, when the opening act for my favourite band was so terrible, is something I still feel quite disappointed about. In fact, Chicks on Speed were the first 'proper' band I saw live, so naturally, I was not happy.

You don't support bands, you consume their product.

And consuming their product isn't supporting a band? What everyone seems to be forgetting, is that without fans, bands would not be able to tour or record music. People buying a band's album/going to a gig is supporting them, thereby allowing them the opportunity to write and record more.  Admittedly, that means little to the sort of bands that occupy stadia, but without an audience, a band is nothing more than some penniless musicians noodling away.

I don't think telling the audience to go fuck themselves or alienating people should be off the agenda. It's actually fair to permit both from an artistic point of view.

As I said before, this isn't a matter of artistic licence. The comment was made at the end of the gig.

[Treguard of Dunshelm]

And consuming their product isn't supporting a band? What everyone seems to be forgetting, is that without fans, bands would not be able to tour or record music. People buying a band's album/going to a gig is supporting them, thereby allowing them the opportunity to write and record more.  Admittedly, that means little to the sort of bands that occupy stadia, but without an audience, a band is nothing more than some penniless musicians noodling away.

It's not just a semantic difference. Nobody would say they support Tesco's or Sainsbury or whatever supermarket they use, and feel that they were owed something because they made them.

[2 Light Ales Please]

Supermarkets are merely functional, people don't get attached to them on any emotional level.  The fact people invest so much in the bands they love, means they're at least owed the respect of the people they appreciate and they're not forced to listen to the music, they choose to, which makes the band/audience relationship even more important.  I also wouldn't say it's reductive to a band's creative diversity either, simply respecting your fans does not mean they're allowed to dictate the direction.  My favourite bands have always attempted new things, which endears them to me more.  The problem lies with record companies, who constantly seek to maximize the audience and therefore profits.  These are people that often decide what a band will do.

[confettiinmyhair]

Do RHCP get so much flack because they have (had?) three band members that are outrageously talented, but are ultimately let down by an annoying frontman?

[hummingofevil]

Mogwai now. It's not really their fault but seeing them recently at the Sage in Newcastle was fucking, fucking, fucking boring. Boring. Mogwai. Boring. I never thought being a little pisshead in the arse-end of the 90s when watching them was the most fucking Britpop-hating-loud-as-fuck-party-time-rule-breaking thing going and I fucking LOVED them (in the true love nothing else matter sense of the word LOVE) that they could ever be this boring. Boring. Mogwai are now boring. Boring. And thin. I preferred fat, fun Mogwai.

[phantom_power]

Do RHCP get so much flack because they have (had?) three band members that are outrageously talented, but are ultimately let down by an annoying frontman?

that, and the shit music

[momatt]

Do RHCP get so much flack because they have (had?) three band members that are outrageously talented, but are ultimately let down by an annoying frontman?

Perhaps by some.  I dislike them now as I consider them all to be very talented, yet they haven't made a decent record since One Hot Minute[nb]and giving up the drugs[nb]but I suppose it's been successful in keeping them alive[/nb][/nb].  They're just so MOR and desperately dull now, after being quite original and exciting before.

Just read that they've refused to let their music appear on Glee and American Idol - so I give them lots of respect for that.
Tis a shame Frusciante's left again.

[Epic Bisto]

Mogwai now. It's not really their fault but seeing them recently at the Sage in Newcastle was fucking, fucking, fucking boring. Boring. Mogwai. Boring. I never thought being a little pisshead in the arse-end of the 90s when watching them was the most fucking Britpop-hating-loud-as-fuck-party-time-rule-breaking thing going and I fucking LOVED them (in the true love nothing else matter sense of the word LOVE) that they could ever be this boring. Boring. Mogwai are now boring. Boring. And thin. I preferred fat, fun Mogwai.

I agree. Saw them many times - so good. But then they headlined the Invada one-dayer at the Colston Hall...by-the-numbers, boring twaddle. Throwing 'Batcat' in at the end didn't make up for it. Their last few albums followed the same pattern, and I can't be arsed to check out the new one.