 sj |
||
|
||
Communication vs Self-Indulgence.
|
|
|
Subject: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: The Shambles Date: 20 May 00 - 07:50 AM In a musical sense, when, why and how does a musician, communicating emotions, ideas and thoughts, with the mastery of their instrument, cease to communicate and become purely self-indulgent? In a non-musical sense and more in an 'Net' context. When does communication on the 'Net', become self-indulgence, or is it that every time you post? |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Mrrzy Date: 20 May 00 - 12:25 PM There was a thread on this a while back, with some folks claiming that if you post to a thread without reading every word already posted to that thread, it's self indulgence, whereas if you read first so that your reply answers questions raised but not those already answered, it's communication. Seemed a bit oversimplified to me but it made sense... About musicians, since I'm not one but rather an audience, I find that when a band/DJ whatever keeps their metaphorical finger on the pulse of the audience, it's communication, whereas those that ignore audience reaction and don't recalibrate their offerings to them, are being self-indulgent. Case in point: The Blues Brothers at that redneck cafe, tried their music, didn't work, switched to Rawhide - now that is not self-indulgence (though the beer, maybe, was!). Have you ever seen a dance floor clear in under 6 seconds when a DJ/band started something particular? The guy who fades it out fast and puts something more like what was being enjoyed, even if they LOVE LOVE LOVE the song that's clearing out their audience, is communicating. All this, of course, prefaced with the usual IMHO disclaimer. |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Mark Clark Date: 20 May 00 - 01:12 PM Long ago when my wife and I were still courting I took her to Chicago's famed Quiet Knight to see Dory Previn (her choice). Ms. Previn was very popular at the time so they turned the house over between sets but, since I was a friend of the manager and staff, they invited us to sit through for the second show. We were amazed to find that the second set was to be identical---word for word---to the first. Each story, joke, apology, and gesture was identical to the first show. Too polite to leave during a performance, we stayed. Half way through the second show, tragedy struck. She had launched into a rather long rap (5-7 minutes) leading into a song I no longer remember when, several minutes into the rap, she became confused and lost her place. There was a moment of obvious confusion and and finally, she started over from the top! It was evidently the only way she could find her way into the next number. I concluded that any communication taking place was merely in the imagination of the audience and her whole trip was merely self-indulgence. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Mrrzy Date: 20 May 00 - 10:26 PM Aah, but had you left after Set I, how would you have felt? |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Mark Clark Date: 21 May 00 - 12:49 AM Sober. *BG* |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Billy the Bus Date: 21 May 00 - 07:54 AM Shambles, I do anything up to five 1½ hour "one-man shows" a day, for close to 350 days a year. My music comes from my voice. Maximum audience is 19 pax - and I drive while I'm talking/singing. "Communication" is the name of the game - but to know if you have it needs "Feedback" - a grin you see in the rearview mirror, a laugh, or best, a comment that puts your entire repertoire onto another tack... The best "communication" comes from the feedback the "audience" gives to the "performer" (IMHO). Actually, right now, I'm a bit sour and cynical about it. After a "long hard summer" I've just had two "sour" days - just a few (like 6) people on the bus. Five are talking about their "indulgences" in all parts of the world. One is listening to my "communication" (ie Yarns). About every 5 minutes an "indulger" would break into the current story with a question I'd answered 15 minutes before while they were "indulging in Botswana". Ummm....
Not sure if I'm adding anything to this thread
Shambles
I'll try to paraphrase my answer....
1. If the audience give feedback - keep going
2. If there's no audience left - you're |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Kelida Date: 21 May 00 - 09:15 AM Communication is not just if the audience gives back. There has to be some sort of interaction with the audience--it's not just one-soded here. Even if the audience loves the music you play, if you don't give them anything else, then it isn't communication--it's like a bunch of people at a party listening to a CD. They can cheer and shout and dance and sing along or whatever, but there isn't any interaction--which is what's great about concerts. The performer's job is to entertain as much as possible, but they should definitely interact. One thing that I (personally) hate is a concert where the music is just fanastic, but the musician/band doesn't talk to the audience at all. That is self-indulgence, too. Just as much as if someone plays just to please themself. Peace--Keli (IMHO) |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Spider Tom Date: 22 May 00 - 08:48 AM What is communication? If I look to an audience and see, a face smiling at me, If you look into an audience and see a tear stained cheek, Is that not communication? But even deeper still, how will you feel the fastbeating heart, that you reached in some way with your song? Sometimes it might be a month before someone walks up to you to say that you touched them in some way. And does the eye not communicate? I like to think it does, or am I just self indulgent. Spider Tom(communicateing on a thread) |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: GUEST,JulieF Date: 22 May 00 - 08:59 AM I feel at the moment that when I perform its not about communication. This is because I am so nervous a soloist with our chorus that I am not sure that the audience is benefiting from my wavering voice. There again I'm not sure if it is self-indulgence and my need to get over this block in my life or it is a need to support the chorus and pull my weight. Sometimes I believe my nerves are self indulgent. - my stage fright is worse than your stage fright. As for the web. I tend to worry about posting when people evidently know more than I do and quite often will leave a thread for an afternoon to see if anyone will make the point that I would make better than I can. Julie |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Whistle Stop Date: 22 May 00 - 09:29 AM Julie, you are probably more hesitant than you need to be. We're all just people, with varying levels of skills in different areas of our lives (including musical technique). Go ahead and chime in whenever you want -- most of us won't judge you for it. Regarding this thread, I don't necessarily equate "giving the audience what they want" with communication. I often play for audiences that want me to do old pop tunes that they've heard a zillion times before, and the closer I can get to how it sounds on the record, the better. I often wonder what they need me for -- why not just listen to the radio? When I give them what they want, I'm really not communicating a thing. I also think a little self-indulgence in a performer is a good thing. I would rather hear a performer reach deep into his or her own soul, than play it safe on the assumption that this is really what I (the audience) want. If the performer fails to connect, so be it -- at least he/she tried to give me something I couldn't get elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: GUEST Date: 22 May 00 - 11:09 AM One of many benefits to posting anonymously is that the reader has nothing else to consider but the sole content of the message. This puts the emphasis on what is being said, not who said it - no contextual persona which might otherwise add to or detract from the meaning of the words alone. The process, initially begun through the inherent limits of electronically written communication, is complete: the weight of the words is the only criterion by which the reader can judge the validity or value of the thought expressed. It could be argued that attaching a moniker, concomitant with the preconceived or historical notions about the associated character, is a form of self-indulgence. |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: MMario Date: 22 May 00 - 11:16 AM and it could be argued that posting anonymously is the ultimate in NON-communication and self-indulgance. The anonymous poster is in essence saying "These are my views - and BTW don't bother trying to answer me, I'm not listening" |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 22 May 00 - 11:32 AM MMario you beat me to it. Fear of retribution Guest? There can be no consequences for those who post anonymously. I give much more attention to signed work, than anonymous postings; even though I may not share the same opinion or view as the writer. The act of identifying yourself makes others more comfortable responding to you. fellow human beings and members of this community, should correspond openly with one another. To open lines of communication is the ultimate aim is it not? Several Guest postings have actually repressed the spirit and intent of the Mudcat, by acts of cowardice and malicious messages. Yours, Aye. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Whistle Stop Date: 22 May 00 - 01:02 PM Ah, come on, let's be nice to each other. There really are no consequences to posting -- anonymously or not -- except for those you choose to accept. This is the internet, and most of us are pretty anonymous when you come right down to it. If I say something stupid (which I do, on a regular basis), and somebody tells me I said something stupid, that's just one anonymous individual to another; I can get upset, or accept it as legitimate (if tactlessly expressed) criticism, or disregard it altogether. I post a lot in this forum, but always as "Whistle Stop" (which is not my real name, you know). If we can stay away from bashing each other for our own views of internet etiquette, and get back to the music, I think this could prove to be a very interesting thread. For instance, I thought Keli had an interesting perspective on performers who don't talk to the audience; not an opinion I share, necessarily, but I'm open to revising my views based on thought-provoking comments like that. Any other thoughts out there that people want to share? |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: MMario Date: 22 May 00 - 01:13 PM I have been to concerts where the performers don't even acknowledge that there is an audience. I think that's the main thing...I've seen other concerts where they don't "talk" to the audience, but there's been plenty of non-verbal communication going on. For communication truly to take place there has to be a two-way flow of information. |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Gary T Date: 22 May 00 - 01:37 PM I don't see communication and self-indulgence as being opposites or mutually exclusive. It's possible to have either, both, or neither. I sense that some responders have a particular form of communication in mind. For one example, Keli's point about being talked to. Some musical performers are shy or uncomfortable about speaking, they want to communicate through their music. Their not talking may be disappointing to some, but it's not necessarily self-indulgence. For another Mario's definition of communication having to be two-way. There's plenty of valid one-way communication, from traffic signs to magazine articles to songs heard on the radio. I do agree that a performer who shows no sign of interacting with the audience leaves a fair amount to be desired, but that doesn't preclude his communicating to them nor prove that he's being self-indulgent. |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: wysiwyg Date: 22 May 00 - 02:05 PM |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Little Neophyte Date: 22 May 00 - 02:12 PM MMario makes a good point about the non-verbal communication. People can connect to others within a interactive silence. It is an unspoken kind of connecting that is felt. Have you ever noticed there are some people you just feel comfortable around although you have never shared a conversation with them? It is kind of like that. Little Neo |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Jim the Bart Date: 22 May 00 - 02:13 PM There is, I think, a tendency to use the term "self indulgent" in a strictly pejorative sense and to place it in opposition to "communication", which is thought to be rewarding only when there is give and take involved. Personally, I think there is a place for self-indulgence, just as there is a place for communication. Often when I go to see a performer, I am not going there to be entertained, in the sense of that word that conjures up images of the guy who used to spin plates on the Ed Sullivan show. Sometimes I want more. I want to hear something that I haven't heard before. I want the performer to take some chances; to possibly push the limits of their ability and artistry. That rarely happens when the artist sets her/his goal at "entertaining". "Entertaining" usually gets you one more version of "Sweet Home Chicago" or some other least common denominator tune that the whole family can enjoy. Some of my favorite live performance experiences came when an artist who had a unique point of view set out to present it to as many audience members as were willing to allow that much self-indulgence. I'm thinking right now of Tim Buckley, who was not about to settle for another version of Morning Glory or Buzzing Fly when he had so much more to say. He was tough on the unsuspecting audience member who came out to be entertained rather than challenged, I will grant that. But, man alive, he was worth it. Artistry like that is like whole wheat bread - it stays with you and sustains you long after the experience is gone. I'm not saying that is the only way to perform, or that entertaining isn't a worthy goal in and of itself (My own performances tend to be entertainments). And everybody wants a PBJ on white bread once in a while. But I begin to think that the audience today feels that they are more important than the artist - that their needs should be tended to first. And that's where I tend to disagree. I don't care at all if the audience member in the third row wants to hear FREE BIRD, either when I'm performing or listening. I want to know what the performers favorite song is. Maybe figuring out what really turns on the performer in her/his life will give me a little insight into my own. I'm very self-indulgent that way. Nice thread - peace to you all. |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Grab Date: 22 May 00 - 02:15 PM Not talking to the audience? Have you been to see an orchestra where they ever really talked to the audience? Occasionally in small orchestras the conductor may introduce the piece. But go to a big-name pro orchestra, and communication like that is few and far between. Simply put, you don't go there to talk to them, you go there to listen to them. That's the deal - for a performance where you pay to get in, you're paying to listen to the performers. If the performers are crap, then they may notice that everyone's buggered off, and sort it out for the next time. But if the performers are good, where's the need to communicate? Watching a _really_ good musician, the only thought on my mind is generally "bloody hell, he's good", not "well he's a top guitarist/fiddler/whatever, but he's not talking to us much". If you're in a craic in a small pub then this doesn't hold true - in this case, everyone's come to have a sing/play as much as to listen, and the general atmosphere and having fun is what matters. But going to see a pro - that's what you came for, right? And as far as "playing for themselves" goes, who else do you play for? I don't play for other people, I play bcos I'd feel like there was something missing if I didn't. Doesn't have to be in public, although that puts the pressure on you to get it right, but just playing. And as for self-indulgent, I'd certainly consider this note to be that. :-) Gratuitous posting, whether anyone's interested or not. Mostly not, probably, but anyway... Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: northfolk/al cholger Date: 22 May 00 - 02:31 PM After seeing an old mudcatter, B'Seed, add his real identity to his nickname, I did the same. The internet is democratic to a fault, and I want to communicate my message, without the accusation of cowardice, that may accompany those who post anonymously, or under pseudonym. To all my cat comrades, I'm not accusing anyone...you all have id'd yourselves through photo and signature...this is what works for me. I don't read every part of every post, ferchrisake, I work away from this elctronic playground, sometimes for weeks on end. Some of my posts are simply to make myself feel better...self indulgent? Some are to reply to a query, about some topic that I think I have something to say about...communication, or self indulgence? Sometimes I enter into the "converstion" for the camaraderie of a bunch of folks that I feel a common kinship with...self indulgence? Occasionaly I toss out some attempt at humor because when I grow up I want to be like Art!!! |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Whistle Stop Date: 22 May 00 - 03:03 PM Nicely said, Bartholemew -- what I was trying to get at, but more effectively. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: catspaw49 Date: 22 May 00 - 03:49 PM Very wonderful thread and good thoughts from all---being self indulgent here. Hey Bonnie.......I think Praise is graphically depicting Mario's point. Connecting through silence might be a new tack. Then again, I think her 'puter's crapped out. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Little Neophyte Date: 22 May 00 - 03:58 PM |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: catspaw49 Date: 22 May 00 - 04:05 PM |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: Allan C. Date: 22 May 00 - 04:20 PM Because of all of the multiple posts this afternoon, many of today's threads got pushed off the main forum page. Praise, bless her heart, was just trying to bring the "lost" ones back to the top. |
|
Subject: RE: Communication vs Self-Indulgence. From: catspaw49 Date: 22 May 00 - 04:29 PM Yeah I know Allan....I've just been having a good time ribbing her on the various threads she refreshed. Spaw |
| Share Thread: |