STEWART COPELAND

http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2009/12/ ... iders.html

Really worth reading and thinking about.

Very interesting...

Hmmm....It *is* interesting. But I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion: 'catering to one's hardcore fans' and 'making good music' are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Artists aren't necessarily going to shut out new listeners by appealing to older ones.

I can think of a couple of shining examples, Bruce Springsteen being the foremost.

Divemistress of the Dark wrote:Hmmm....It *is* interesting. But I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion: 'catering to one's hardcore fans' and 'making good music' are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Artists aren't necessarily going to shut out new listeners by appealing to older ones.

I can think of a couple of shining examples, Bruce Springsteen being the foremost.

I mostly was interested in the article for the way it talked about how fandoms develop their own language/codes/dresscodes/etc that can be wonderful for the "true fans" (gong I still hate that term) but alienating/seperatory for the new or less devoted. In good and bad ways, I think we're certainly guilty as charged here at sc.net of that as much as any larger-sized fandom.

But the issue of catering to an audience is always a tricky one. I know I face it constantly as an artist and have heard it debated time and time again in various creative communities: Do you create whatever you want, damn the audience, and go on the instinct that if the work is truly "good", it will be recognized no matter what? Or do you listen to your audience and tailor your output to what you know will "sell"? Sometimes it depends on the luxury you're granted. An artist who doesn't need to make money any longer - someone like Sting, for example - can put out album after album of lute and obscure old music just because it's what he fucking wants to do. For a starving artist who can barely pay his or her bills? Sometimes you don't have that luxury. But are you "selling out"?

I don't know. I don't think it's an issue that has an easy answer.

Is there a category for [i]illiterate[/i] 'true fan'? I REALLY like Stewart's music, but have never learned any code words, well, except for The Flag/Flaggy/Green Monster, etc......
The article was interesting, but it seems as tho' some folks would put fan-dom into an almost religeo-tribal connotation, and I already got a Faith! Sometimes its great to share the love of a group's music w/ other's who unashamedly 'get it'. So, this writer did seem too serious, at least for my perspective...

[Please forgive any skips in logic in this post: wine has been imbibed.]

Thanks again for this link, sock.

63falcon wrote:Is there a category for illiterate 'true fan'? I REALLY like Stewart's music, but have never learned any code words, well, except for The Flag/Flaggy/Green Monster, etc......
The article was interesting, but it seems as tho' some folks would put fan-dom into an almost religeo-tribal connotation, and I already got a Faith! Sometimes its great to share the love of a group's music w/ other's who unashamedly 'get it'. So, this writer did seem too serious, at least for my perspective...

Ah, but see, "other's who unashamedly 'get it'": that is a group that, by its definition, is in contrast to those who don't get it. Knowledge of the flag: again, a group in contrast to those who don't have knowledge of the flag. The religion talk is a rhetorical tool that, in addition to suggesting a level of importance or zealousness, shows parallels in group identity regardless of what it is that defines that identity. Whether it's a band, a culture, a political candidate, a savior, a love or hatred for Marmite: whatever it is that brings people together also separates them from/separates those that don't adhere to or fit within whatever requirements define the group identity.

"True" or "real" fan: those terms drive me batty as a judgment of authenticity and value that I don't think holds water. But independent of linguistic issues, any coming together of some people inherently separates them from everyone else -- and while the coming-together (insert phaty joke here) can be for a positive, fabulous, fun reason, its flip-side can be exclusive, insular, arrogant, judgmental, even hateful. It's a weird and uncomfortable thing to think about, but (I apologize that I'm about to quote myself) while an Us doesn’t always have a Them, its very existence creates a Not-Us.* It's not necessarily intended, yet it still is.

sockii wrote:An artist who doesn't need to make money any longer - someone like Sting, for example - can put out album after album of lute and obscure old music just because it's what he fucking wants to do. For a starving artist who can barely pay his or her bills? Sometimes you don't have that luxury. But are you "selling out"?

An article that might interest folks along similar lines: "Selling Out to Survive,", talking to musicians whose music has been used in advertisements: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/11 ... o-survive/



*If I say "Other," my inner academic will need to include footnotes and a Works Cited page, so I'm sticking with Not-Us.

I don't agree with some of what the journalist wrote about but the article did bring up some points I had not considered before. It was a very thought provoking article.

63falcon wrote:Is there a category for illiterate 'true fan'? I REALLY like Stewart's music, but have never learned any code words, well, except for The Flag/Flaggy/Green Monster, etc......

63falcon here are the code words, this message will self destruct in 15 seconds


The Koplandik Dictionary

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8560

[quote="animal
The Koplandik Dictionary

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8560[/quote]

animal, I appreciate the link! Can you think of any other "must haves" buried in the archives that a "newbie" [when do we become just regular nutters?] should read? Should someone compile a buried vault of classic posts??? DM provided the quintessential Kollection. Anyway, the Dictionary was very helpful.

Merry, happy, LT

Glad to see the Ol'Dic didn't go to waste...