The discussion ensuing in the Linda Ronstadt thread got me thinking about this question:

What is the role of the artist in society?

(I'll sidestep the issue whether we as performing musicians are indeed "artists" in the sense of "creators"… that could be another thread.)

Some have said that as paid performers, our duty is to entertain the audience, and nothing more; and that our social consciences should remain in the dressing room. Others feel that by doing so, we shortchange both ourselves and the people who attend our performances and expect more than just note-perfect renditions of the songs on our latest CD.

Paul McCartney famously retorted to John Lennon's accusation that he did nothing but "fill the world with silly love songs" (while Lennon's songwriting had a sociopolitical agenda): "What's wrong with that, I'd like to know?" Well, nothing I suppose, if you're content to be the Danielle Steele of songwriting, instead of the Hemingway, or Thomas Pynchon, or Arthur Miller.

Are we really just supposed to be animated jukeboxes onstage, with our purpose to provide a feel-good experience? This is not something that's expected from painters, poets or playwrights, is it? People don't go to the theater for an evening of mindless entertainment, nor to a museum or poetry reading. (That's what network TV is for.)

Take for example the painter Thomas Kincade   -- a feel-good visual entertainer if ever there was one. I would liken his work to muzak. On the other hand, there's nothing entertaining or feel-good about the paintings of Goya, or Picasso's "Guernica". These are deeply felt works of anguish and anger, and are meant to shake up the viewer and make him think.

And that, to me, is the most important public service an artist can provide: to shake up preconceptions, to stimulate thought, to offer a different point of view from the predominant paradigm.

In my view, there are three parts to my work as a performing musician:

-- Expressing my self, following my bliss, doing what I love doing to please myself and publicize my views. If this also pleases my audience, great… if not, great. It's what I do.

-- Entertaining the audience so they'll leave at the end of the evening having had a good time. This means presenting my music as professionally as I can. It does not mean leaving out part of who I am for fear of offending someone.

-- Stimulating thought and discourse, furthering causes and ideals that I believe in through artistic expression, addressing the wrongs of our world, and speaking truth as I see it. The stage is a "bully pulpit" (terrible term but useful) and should be used that way. For example, I resolved to sing Richard Thompson's "Time to Ring Some Changes" at every gig this year up to the elections.

In summation, my feeling is that if folks are looking for mindless entertainment that allows them not to think or be aware of what's going on in their society, they should stay home and watch "Friends" reruns. I believe that most concertgoers set their sights a bit higher and expect more than that. And if a performer doesn't give them more than that, then they really should get their money back.

Cheers,
Michael