What is the performer's job?

Subject: What is the performer's job?
From: michaelr
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 10:26 PM

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

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: TS
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 10:38 PM

Michael,

some good points there...personally..I get hired (sadly as it seems) by Pubs and Bars and promote and encourage their patrons to drink..well..spend their money at least. To do so however, its giving the patron an atmosphere to forget about work, life, etc., and have fun...let the hair down...relax...sing...dance...drink..get drunk....thats the norm...however...festivals, other venues, concerts, etc...I spose the purpose is to merely entertain...to prevent sound from a tin can,or even worse..force people to talk to each other..god forbid..hehe...well..thats just a thought..I however, prefer a majority of McCartney's works to Lennons any day.....Slainte!

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 11:14 PM

Yet IMO there is no reason why the two approaches should be mutually exclusive. You can educate while you are entertaining; you can cause people to stop and think even as they sing a catchy chorus. The truly great ones achieve this: Bob Dylan and Paul Simon are just two examples.

The argument that you can be one thing or the other is a false one - like should you think with the left part of the brain or the right. The answer is simple - all of it of course!

Whether the songwriter can achieve this or not is simply a matter of ability.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 11:35 PM

yep, Michael, that is exactly the question. Ronstadt's political views are very similar (not exact) to my own. I don't know the details of this whole incident, but the performer's job going in is to know what their job is. There is much discussion over there of free speech, etc. This isn't a free speech issue. It is an issue of whether or not the venue, and the customers, could be reasonably expected to have known what she would say. In other words, is the casino owner just hiding based on what happened and should have known what she would do. Otherwise it is the entertainer's job to entertain.

I have some experience with this, and just recently. A new "McPub" opened in our town. You know the joints, they look like a movie set, have an Irish name, serve Guinness, Angels on Horseback, etc. But the atmosphere is phoney as hell. It ain't really an Irish joint, it is more like an Oirish joint. They had asked my band, given it's reputation, to play for the Grand Opening which we turned down. Finally they stayed after us until we agreed to play. A significant part, but no where near a majority, of our music is Irish rebel music. About 3/4 of the way through our show, the owner came up to me and indicated he wanted no political music of any sort. A long discussion occurred at the break, but the gist of it was me telling him that he had our CD in his jukebox (he admits it is one of the most played), knew what we were about, no one chooses our music but me, we kept the patrons in the seats all night, they ate and drank, and if that wasn't satisfactory, then there is no satisfactory. But the point was, everyone knew what to expect coming in. That is decidely different than my solo gigs where I do a folk oriented show and the music is historical. I avoid political statements there because that is not what the audience came to hear. On the other hand, when I play labor gigs I am very political. The distinction is that it is my obligation to make sure that folks know what to expect. After that it is their problem.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: harpgirl
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 11:46 PM

...did you get paid promptly???

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Naemanson
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 11:48 PM

I think Michael had it pretty much nailed. There are some performers who do the robot thing, play what is expected and submerge there own identity, but it rarely works for me. It usually is easy to pick out the people who only play music because they can from those who do it because it is what they are made of and love.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Big Mick
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 11:53 PM

Yep, harpgirl, I sure did. But it seems I did point out to him at one point what the relative value of some of his props were. LOL.

This rarely happens with me, as I just won't play for less than honorable folks. It is why I declined the grand opening, as I had a suspicion.   Haven't been back, although this cheeky sot has expressed interest again.

Mick

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 20 Jul 04 - 11:56 PM

The job of an entertainer is to entertain. Anything else is icing, no matter how important the performer may think it is.

An entertainer who doesn't entertain is called "unemployed."

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 12:10 AM

Mick has nailed it. On the nose.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: TS
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 12:18 AM

Mick..well done...f*ck...thats funny...I sent that msg to my band mates...we have a similar issue...we do a handful of rebel tunes and at first..we used to express that we meant no harm and apologized if we insulted anyone and that it wasnt a view expressed by the Pub...then I thought shag it...we do twice as many Irish Nationalist tunes now and shag em if they dont like it...we sell the Guinness there, not the little girls in their thigh tight "skilts" (God bless them, none the less)...Slainte!

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Nerd
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 12:57 AM

Dick Greenhaus may be right on this one. But can you entertain and also have political message, or not? And can you entertain a lot of people and piss a few other people off, and still be doing your job? I think you can.

One of the questions no one has answered is "did Linda Ronstadt entertain folks?"

There are conflicting reports as to how many disgruntled people there really were. Some say half the audience left early--but other reports don't buy that. And it was the encore; at some venues half the audience leaves then anyway, to avoid traffic. (I don't know anything about Vegas, but at the Tweeter Center in Camden it sure does happen!) People didn't demand their money back because of the political talk, either.

The stories that people threw cocktails and tore down posters are also disputed by some papers. And by the way, in my wilder days I have myself torn down posters at a venue--because I was a huge fan and wanted the posters! So what does the fact of torn-down posters prove?

By all accounts, many of the people enjoyed themselves. LR got a standing ovation. So...she certainly entertained a lot of people. And the question is, should the yowling of a vocal minority convince the venue's owner that Ronstadt had somehow not been entertaining?

Or to put it in more other terms, should the few people that Big Mick's band pissed off get to determine if he's doing his job, or the many other people he did not piss off?

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 02:51 AM

One of the best things about being a performer is that:

you get to say things, other people wouldn't dare!

One of the worst things about being a performer is that:

you get to say things, other people wouldn't dare!



I agree with Mick about business practicess & expectations but I don't think this leaves the realm of free speach. An evening with a performer is a presentation by that performer on a stage given to him\her for that purpose. I can accept that there are economic repurcussions for pissing people off but I think Linda Ronstadt was right to speak her mind.

She was also brave (IMHO). She shouldn't whine if it costs her business but she should have some legal protection for voicing her views. The stage is also her workplace and we should all be able to hold our own views in our workplace. She is a Canary in the coal mines of democracy.

I believe its a question and a burden for every performer. Most of the time I think its not an issue but I think you have to preserve voice to preserve liberty.


To make too heavy a point, Hitler silenced Brecht. Bush could not silence Moore. To whatever extent Moore met opposition to presenting a very popular movie we have a potential danger. To whatever extent that the US enshrined Moore's right to decent I think the USA can be proud.

NB: This is not meant to create a clear association between Hitler and Bush.


Sigurd

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: C-flat
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 02:54 AM

In the 30 years I've been entertaining I've never considered it to be my role to educate people on political matters.
The pleasure I get from performing comes from their enjoyment and I would feel unhappy to alienate any group within my audience simply because they don't share my political views.
There's lot of issues I feel strongly about but there are plenty of opportunities to express my views without abusing the situation of being the only person in the room with a microphone.
C-flat.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: emjay
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 03:32 AM

Now this is a discussion I really can relate to--though I've put my two cents worth in in others that have really inerested me, and kept quiet in others because I knew I had nothing to add.
I am a graphic artist, I paint, I draw, I sketch. I have taken part in many discussions about the responsibility of the artist. I think one thing I would consider is the difference between fine art and commercial art. In fine art you need only please youorself, the artist; in commercial art you are trying to sell something. It can either be a product or the art itself. Thomas Kincade, previously mentioned, does nothing to make me proud of being an artist. Norman Rockwell, immensely commercial and very popular in his time, also painted other, far less commercial things. I am thinking of one very bleak but very powerful picture of bodies lying on the ground in Mississippi. Its impact is very similar to that of Guernica. The point here is sometimes work is commercial, sometimes it is not. Everyone has to make a living.   
One very fine artist who is a friend of mine said art should make you think, not tell you what to think. I think that can apply very well to music. When an artist decides, perhaps from frustration, to go ahead and tell viewers or listeners what to think, then the artist risks serious rejection. From what I have heard of the Ronstad incident, I agree with what she said but if I tried to put that message in a picture, I couldn't expect to sell it. Or at least only to a select audience. And if I took it to a gallery it could be turned down and so could the rest of my work.
I think that is what happened to her. Wrong audience. She must have expected the response.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 05:35 AM

Strike my first post, I had the wrong end of the stick (songwriter's angle, not performer's). Except - the performer can choose his/her material to be educational or not.

Note that I don't say "political", but "educational", for the very reason that emjay above mentions (make them think, don't tell them what to think).

But the performer's first job is indeed to entertain, if only to retain the audience's interest and ensure he/she can have another gig. Everything beyond that is a calculated risk. Does the audience want to be "made to think"? One should be sensitive enough to their audience to decide sensibly. If they get it wrong, they only have themselves to blame.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: kendall
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 06:23 AM

People go to performances to be entertained, not preached at. Being a performer doesn't make you qualified to preach politics. However, if you want to sing songs about coal miners and other laborers it's ok to slip in comments about how they were mis- treated by the robber barons.That's history, not opinion.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: el ted
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 06:29 AM

You wouldn't expect a political rant from The London Symphony Orchestra would you? Who takes their politics from a singer anyway? A musician's political opinions are no more important or informed than those of any bloke stood next to you in the pub.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Roger in Baltimore
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 08:04 AM

In Otto Rank's "Art and Artist", his thesis is that the artist is always walking a line between what his art leads him to do and what the public will accept. If singing political songs leads to no gigs, the artist has no outlet for his art. If the artist feels he dare not express his views through his art, then there is no art where that is his aim.

In Dick's concept, if people are not "entertained" there is no outlet. Early Bob Dylan and early Phil Ochs definitely entertained and expressed a political viewpoint. But it can limit your audience.

I don't sing many political songs. I believe they do have the capability to change views. Music is powerful enough for people to sing along to words they do not really believe. Many Irish songs can do that.

Just as music can change what you believe, it can change how you feel. My musical expression is to leave people feeling "better" than when they felt when they came in. It is not more or less nobler than leaving people thinking differently then when they came in. It is just another choice for the performer.

Roger in Baltimore

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 08:28 AM

venue is important as well; some lend themselves more to political or social issues; others less so.

as for "following my bliss" - there is a time and a place. But if you do not entertain while doing so - chances are, as Dick said, you will be unemployed shortly.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: GUEST,The Stage Manager
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 09:51 AM

The role of the performer?    That is something I strongly believe each 'performer' has to decide and define for themselves, there being no hard and fast rules. However, I have absolutely no doubt that it is the primary duty of all performers to seek to engage with their audience, regardless of how big or small the venue they are performing in.

After thirty odd years of working 'in the Arts '   I would say most emphatically that there is a world of difference between an 'artist' and an 'entertainer'. Putting this difference into words is not easy because it crosses forms and genres, but put a performer in front of an audience and I would argue the difference is easier to observe.   I suspect this difference stems from a performer's personal motivation for standing in front of an audience in the first place.

This discussion, I understand, stems from whether it is Linda Ronstadt's role to make political statements during her performance.   If we believe in free speech then a performer should be allowed to offer an opinion about almost anything.   The big, big question is how this should be done. Unless you know the audience very well indeed, bald political or religious statements will almost certainly alienate a good percentage of those listening, as seems to have been the case here.   To me this demonstrates the eternal wisdom of the old adage 'Show not Tell'.   As El Greko suggests, this comes down to the individual skill of the songwriter or performer.      

I also believe it is no co-incidence that the shows with the strongest political impact that I have been involved with have all been non-verbal. The 'message', if we use that term, is perceived and embraced by the audience. In this context I particularly remember performances in Gdansk, Poland some years ago, just after Solidarity had been suppressed. The effect at the time was electrifying for everyone involved, and I know from meeting people years later it was for many a life changing experience.   

From my own observations I come to the view that Entertainers reach the eyes and ears, sometimes even the heart. Artists can touch the soul.   

So the role of a performer?   The pedantic answer might be to pass on and share significant experiences and observations from lives past and present, or more simply put, I perceive the role of performer as that of storyteller. But then telling a story well is an Art.

Bill

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 11:26 AM

The people who go to see Linda Ronstadt know what they are going to see--like all the established, big name acts, she has cultivated her audience over the years--they know her music and they know here politics, which have never been a secret--When a venue books her, they are obviously trying to attract her fans, who know where she stands on things--most likely, the corporate folks told her to keep quiet about politics--and she opted not to--

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Deckman
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 12:03 PM

M.Ted,

I couldn't agree with you more. Just a couple of months ago, I was lucky enough to attend a Utah (Bruce) Phillips concert in Seattle. It was likely the same scene as you've described above: He was the headline concert of a four day Folk Festival, and the planners wanted his crowd.

We all got exactly what we expected and what we wanted: outrageous songs and humor, marvelous spellbinding story telling, and a very large dose of conscience raising on social issues. And we left with sore sides from laughing, sore hands from applauding, and sore heads from having our minds expanded.

A closing thought, can you imagine what would have happened if the conert organizers had dared to suggest to Utah that he tone down his concert in any way. He'd probably use his large guitar as an axe on their heads and then go out front and tell everyone what he'd done and why, and then sung for three hours without a guitar!!! CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 12:31 PM

Good thread! I'm glad this is a continuing and expanding discussion from the Linda Ronstadt one.

In my years as performer, I think I've been directed by where and to whom I was performing. If one isn't aware of one's audience and how they might be expected to react to what you present, you're likely to do yourself, and them a disservice.

I've performed scripts that were written to educate, and I've performed in some that were pretty much only to entertain.

I have for the most part, preferred the former to the latter, though I certainly hope the former were entertaining as well!!

I think most of us are political in ways we may not even be aware of. Just the choices we make of our material reflect that.

The hardest gig I ever had to do was performing for the Armed Forces in Japan and Korea. The entire time I was "entertaining" I thought I was betraying the pacifist that I deeply feel I am. In all honesty, I did it for the money, and for the chance to go some places I knew I couldn't otherwise afford.

But I did not for one second, think of saying something to reflect my own anti-military feelings. That would have also been a betrayal to the people I contracted with.

..xx..e

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Deckman
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 01:20 PM

Hmmmm? Some very interesting contributions here. Many years ago, I hung up my guitar (stopped performing) for three years as I was feeling like a prostitute with my music.   Bob

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: mooman
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 01:28 PM

I will now only play music that I (we) want to, whether in duo or with the band as I had a couple of dozen years "giving the venue what it wanted". That was good financially but stagnating creatively. If I get hired now, it's for people who want to actually hear our music (largely original material these days).

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: saulgoldie
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 01:28 PM

My thoughts have already been mentioned a few times. But I wanted to say that I think this is a great thread; lots of well-thought and intelligent comments. If only the bigger public discussions were this civilized...

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Deckman
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 01:39 PM

If only the bigger public were this civilized! Bob

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: harvey andrews
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 03:34 PM

To entertain. However, Shakespeare entertains some people and Big brother entertains others. The performers job primarily is to find his/her audience. Without an audience there can be no performance.
It is perfectly possible to entertain with an evening of socially aware/political songs if that is what the audience has come for.
"Serious entertainment" has its place.There should be something for everyone, and generally speaking, there is.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Jul 04 - 05:44 PM

I think it was Brownie McGhee who very approvingly told a story where Woody Guthrie upset a table full of food and walked out of a place in disgust, because separate eating arrangements had been made for the coloured artistes post gig buffet to the white ones. Some people just haven't got an inch of compromise in their nature, and they can do no other.

On the other hand I've seen pure entertainers walk into a place and have a room full of beer monsters eating out of their hands. Many pure entertainers go places and soothe savage breasts, where the committed artist types would have the vapours and give in. I think you have to respect that kind of skill, or at least you should do - its not learned in five minutes.

Bottom line is that we all work out our own salvation on the stage and in the spotlight and hopefully gain the self knowledge that helps us function best we can.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Stephen L. Rich
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 01:55 AM

We're in a different sort of position, as folkies, than most other entertainers. The folk music revival, as a whole, was founded on social activism. Rock wasn't. Jazz wasn't. While Country Music has, throughout its history, had songs of social comment such has not been one of the primary reasons for its continued perfomance.

    Taking a social or political stand from the stage and doing one's job as an entertainer need not be mutually exclusive tasks. That's what jokes are for. That's what songs are for. A well crafted song can suvive most political disagreements. Combine the two. Write a "talkin' blues". Most venue owners don't much care what you sing as long as you manage to keep people sitting still long enough to spend some money.

    This does, of course, have its limitations. it works best when your preaching to the chior. The tools you have as an entertainer need to come into play. Listen to the audience as you work. Gauge thier responses. Employ a bit of common sense. Don't, for example, sing Steve Goodman's "42nd St." in a bar full of rednecks.

      Using the skills you have to please or, at times, direct an audience, there is no reason that you can't do both.

Stephen Lee

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Bo Vandenberg
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 01:57 AM

While I like the idea of being able to seperate entertainment from education from politics I just dont think anything that clear exists. In many countries just singing about women in a professional context is highly political material. How much fun would love stories be to sing if they amounted to " I went to see her father, he did (or didn't) say I could have her.

There is another element too about the Ronstadt thing - on one level Moore is also a performer. Is it wrong for a performer to support or hype another artist on stage? What about an artist whom they think needs the audience -- Is that still politics???? Should artists not do any Bob Dylan covers because of some of his politics? Paul Robeson? Pat Boon?

How many Irish songs are inherently political?

How many performers get mileage from patriotism as part of their act. Is that politics or social consciousness.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 02:06 AM

I'm with C-Flat, Kendall and Harvey on this one.
I like to entertain, with jokes, funny songs, and participation material.
But during the course of a show, I'll do a couple of thought-provokers such as Grace, The Band Played W.M. the Sons of Molly - with appropriate commentary.
It has been my experience that both kinds of material work well in a concert/folk-club setting, but in a pub, the serious songs are a signal for the audience to tune out and start talking.

Seamus

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: IvanB
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 09:31 AM

"You wouldn't expect a political rant from The London Symphony Orchestra would you?"

No, but I might expect a gentle nudge in a given direction or some chiding about the direction I might be going. Composers of "serious" music have often been political beings, and symphony ochestras, choral groups and the like often schedule works in their concerts that carry a message pertinent to the day. And, many conductors of these groups, in their introductions to the music, have made thier opinions clear to the audiences. It may not garner the headlines that a Ronstadt does, but it happens in that milieu as well, because that's what artists do.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: GUEST,noddy
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 09:58 AM

DUH!!! to perform?????

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Stewart
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 12:12 PM

Weelittledrummer's story about Woody Guthrie reminded me of this Malvina song, inspired by a news article she read.

THE TOUR OF THE IRISH FUSILIERS -- Malvina Reynolds

Ta-rum, Ta-rum, the Irish Fusiliers,
They wear the finest uniforms
That I have seen in years,
Their marching is so beautiful
It sends me near to tears,
And they toured the USA in a bus, bus, bus, In a bus,
They toured the USA in a bus.

Their pipes they play so sweetly,
Their boots they sound so smart,
Their wheeling and their turning,
It goes right to your heart,
They marched around our country
And we're loath to see them part,
And they toured the USA in a bus...

The driver of the tour bus
Was Robert Stanley Green,
And Oh, he was a wizard
At the wheel of a machine,
He carried them all safely
Through Azusa and Moline
While they toured the USA in a bus...

They made the lad a member
Of the Royal Fusiliers,
They drank a toast to Robert
With singing and with cheers;
A friend was at the wheel
And they had no cares or fears
While they toured the USA in a bus...

They stopped in Oklahoma
For dinner and a beer;
The waiter told the Captain,
"We serve no Negroes here,
We do not care if Robert
Is a Royal Fusilier,
He'll have to eat his meal in the bus..."

The Fusiliers in number
Were one hundred and eight,
And each one had before him
His dinner on a plate,
And they all put down their knives and forks
And stood up tall and straight,
They had seen the USA from a bus...

McDooley skirled the bagpipes
And Ginnis beat the drum,
They made a smart maneuver
With a rum ta-rum tum tum,
And all marched out together
The way that they had come,
And Robert drove them off in the bus...

Cheers, S. in Seattle

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: ToulouseCruise
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 02:47 PM

For myself and my duo, we are spot on with ReelBrew's early posting. We play in pubs and small bars, and we are there to provide a fun and entertaining time... Now, that being said, I don't believe we can truly generalize as to be saying that a performer should use his/her opportunity to go out there and make some sort of statement. It truly depends on the performer, and I believe even more so on the venue.

Hmmm... I just read that and now I shall contradict myself -- every performer should make a statement, even if that statement is "Hi, I'm a light-hearted idiot who enjoys singing", which seems to apply to myself...

Brian

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: freightdawg
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 03:23 PM

Michael, I agree with your three points, and have enjoyed the posts so far. I think the point has been made before, but I'll echo it. Educating a crowd, or getting them to think about a particular issue, is not the same as insulting their belief system, or their right to hold an opposing belief. I think this is best accomplished through performing a song, or telling an appropriate joke, rather than launching into a five minute bashing of whoever you oppose. I so appreciate the comment above that art is to get people to think, not to tell them what to think.

Just prime the pump, and share with them your solution to the problem. And don't forget point #2 - leave them feeling entertained and grateful for your performance.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 05:22 PM

What is the role of the artist in society?

One answer is that you have the right and the obligation to express yourself at all times to all audiences. To do less is unethical and being a prostitute. No one tells you what to sing (or paint, or say).

But if you feel this way, you will severely limit the number of people you can get your message to. Also, you may starve, which you may cosider admirable, but it will severely limit your ability to get your message out.

Another approach is to consider each venue on a case by case basis and decide how far you can go this time at this place. If you think you can go all the way, do it. If you think performing at this venue puts some restrictions on what you can sing or say, tone it down as far as you have to. This approach allows you to continue to perform and it allows you to get as much of your message as possible to the maximum number of people. You'll be wrong some of the time and you will understate your message or, going the other way, you will not perform at that venue again like in the Linda R. case.

Some will call this approach immoral and being a prostitute but it is a very practical approach that works. We once opened for Rosalie Sorrels in a concer situation and we and she let it all hang out. On another occasion, we shard the bill with her at a facility owned and operated by the federal government and she and we toned it down considerably.

So, maybe the answer is: The role of an artist depends on the gig.
(do we sound like politicians, or what?)

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 22 Jul 04 - 11:06 PM

Kendall wrote:

"People go to performances to be entertained, not preached at. Being a performer doesn't make you qualified to preach politics."

Being entertaining, and being highly political, are not mutually exclusive. In the folk music realm, you should experience Utah Phillips, or Tom Paxton, or Si Kahn, or Pete Seeger, or Arlo Guthrie, or Joan Baez, or many others who are skilled at weaving heavy duty politics into entertainment.

Of course, listening to political music devoid of entertainment value can be very excruciating. I recently went to hear David Rovics. He sang nothing but very shallow, slogan-laden songs. It was painful to listen to.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: GUEST,The Stage Manager (Skiving at work)
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 06:20 AM

The steel helmet, and flack jacket are at hand and I'm not going to stray far from the dugout, but going through this thread again, and the one about "Last 10 songs" something occurs to me. I perceive a whole world of difference between a performer/entertainer who sings folk songs , and what I would call a "folk singer".   This thread is "The role of the performer."   I have't yet found one here on Mudcat called "The role of the folk singer."   If there is one, I'd like to catch up on that discussion, but I if there isn't one already started I'd sure as hell like to thrash this one out.

I don't know if this is a New World / Old World thing, or if it derives from how important 'The Tradition' is to individual singers.   The references to 'Duende' I have found here have been fleeting .   In discussions on this subject I've had elsewhere Duende has been used as the best example of getting at the core of what folk singing is about. The Spanish Poet Lorca wrote a superb essay on the subject.   I've recently read interviews with Galician singers who have been scathing about the 'folklorique' performers who entertain tourists to their region and purport to be part of the tradition of that area.   

I've listened to stories about songs from singers that have made the hairs on the back of my net stand on end.   I've come across people who argue that 'Sean Nos' is nothing to do with a singing style but everything to do with communicating what being from a particular part of Ireland is about.    Others mourn the debasing of the word 'ceilidh' to mean little more than a form of folk dancing.   What exactly is it that is so important about folk music that numbers of people feel moved to dedicate their lives recording and preserving songs from a particular tradition with little or no reward other than that of preserving the music itself.   What makes others, many contributors to Mudcat, want to carry this work forward.   How is it that a single unaccompanied voice, sometimes in a strange language, can unexpectedly touch something so deep inside the listener that reduces them to tears.   Some who have experienced this, describe it as a kind of ancestral call.      

Anyone give a toss?

Bill

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 09:08 AM

A performer should entertain.   There are many opportunities for political and social comentary in the songs you pick to sing or write. How many people whould pay $50 to hear Ronstat's views on politics by themselves? Not many.

That being said, every performer has every right to say whatever they want to.    When they do the public has every right to react to that statement.    The public may react by not going to the concerts or not buying the records.    That is the absolute right of the public.   The performer has to be responsible for their actions.   Many performers want the right to criticize politiicians, but don't want the audience to have the right to criticize them.

I had the honor of having Utah Phillips stay with us for 4 days and then drove him to and from a festival we were running.   He is the same off stage as he is on stage.   Spent the first night making phone calls checking on votes and movements.   He lives it.   Utah told me he would not appear on commercial tv even though he has been asked several times.   Clearly he has made his choice in live and is willng to live witht he consequences.    Even though we are 180 degrees apart politically, I have a lot of respect for him and admire his integrity.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: John P
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 10:01 AM

". . . every performer has every right to say whatever they want to. . ."

Well, within limits. If I was hired to play in the pit orchestra for a Broadway musical and decided to express my political beliefs to the audience, I would be way out of line and should expect to get fired and probably blacklisted. But in general, yes, if you invite a concert performer in for a concert, you should expect them to do their show, in whatever way they see fit.

But here's a question: What about a performer who doesn't tell the venue that they are going to do a political show, and then shows up and does one? I strongly disagree with whoever seemed to imply that we should expect some politics with our folk music when they said that the current folk music revival came out of social activism. The only songs that social activism inspired are social activism songs, which are a small drop in the barrel that is folk music. I've been playing folk music for most of my adult life, and would be considered by most to be a revivalist, and can count the political songs I've done on the fingers of one hand. And all of them are historical "war is hell" sort of songs.

I dislike most political songs, not because of their politics but because most of them are so very bad. Political art of any kind, if the political message is more important than the artistic integrity, usually stinks. I really don't care what artists think about politics, if they are telling me about it from the stage or on the wall of a gallery. I'd probably enjoy sitting with them and talking politics, but if I am trying to see art I would prefer that it exist for its own reasons, not as a vehicle for someone's social agenda. This has always struck me as a prostitution of art. If you want to talk politics, why not just talk politics? If you want to play music, why not just play music? If you like a political song for it's musical merits, sure, go ahead and do it. But if you are choosing it because you believe in its message more than its music, I'd rather not have to listen.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Nerd
Date: 23 Jul 04 - 04:00 PM

Larry, K.,

The spuriousness of your argument in the first paragraph is obvious. No one would pay $50.00 to hear Linda Ronstadt's bass player by himself either. But you wouldn't argue the bass player should be kicked out on that basis. No one would pay $50.00 just to hear the introductions to her songs, but you may reasonably expect that she WILL introduce them. We might even ask "what the hell do I care why this song is important to Linda Ronstadt," or "there are plenty of other opportunities for Linda Ronstadt to publish her opinions and reflections on the songs she sings." All true, but no one objects to her introducing her songs on stage. It's only the politics that got up people's butts. Remember, people were not forced to endure an hour of political chat with Linda Ronstadt; all she did was dedicate a song to Michael Moore. We're talking about a five second sentence.   

I agree with the rest of what you say, with a caveat: while it is true that "the audience" has every right to say what it wants as well, "the audience" in this case was equally divided between cheers and boos. So if the audience members merely expressed their own opinions, there would have been no fracas at all, and no one would be crying that Ronstadt should not have mentioned Moore, or that now that she mentioned him she should take her lumps, which seems to be your implication.

After the song, according to some sources, a few of the booers also chose to throw cocktails and vandalize the venue. Note that they do NOT have every right to do that. Thus, a small minority among the people who didn't like Michael Moore, chose to express themselves with illegal, immoral, dangerous and thuggish behavior, in order to intimidate the venue into taking some action against Ronstadt. And the venue fell right in line, blaming her for their crimes.

So while I agree with your statement that the audience has a right to speak, or to vote with their wallets, remember it does not have the right to do what these jokers did.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 03:21 AM

To summarise, accurately I hope, the words of Martin Carthy in the UK TV programme about him last night, the task of the performer (of song) is to permit the power and merit of the song to convey itself to the ears of the audience.

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 09:53 AM

yes strange that Carthy should say that. he has worked so hard and so committedly for folk music, and yet.....

his style must mystify and defeat many listeners, bound up as it is with all the beliefs of AL Lloyd - belief about English music being modal in nature, the English peasant having a wavering tone to their voice reflecting the trauma of the land enclosures, folk song singing and creation being the music of a minority etc - all the stuff in folk song in England.

this is not a criticism of martin. He is a great musician - a far more divergent thinker (even just as a guitarist) than many of his fans realise. When a man of that level of ability decides to do that with his life, you have to respect him.

yet when he said only people like me know about stuff like the lyrics of a song about Waterloo - I couldn't help thinking - couldn't this because of the way you present the song

Subject: RE: What is the performer's job?
From: open mike
Date: 24 Jul 04 - 01:38 PM

michael--thanks for getting this discussion going...
i find that some talk shows and other venues are
also exploring this topic,....but who better than
musicians to express what we see here from our Point Of View?!
I am reminded of the musicians who have banded together to
perform benefits for a "Land Mine Free World" and
a few decades ago, Jackson Browne and friends formed
a group "M.U.S.E." Musicians United for Safe Energy
and Bonnie Raitt who has sung for many issues...
saving the Redwood Trees among others...
yes, music can be a powerful tool
to be used to gather support for
political causes...
Holly Near uses it well,
and John McCutcheon and
many other singers and
song writers...mnay of
whom i would be dissappointed
in if they did not express ideas
which contain (to quote Janis)
"songs of soicial and political import"
that's Janis Joplin, although Janis Ian
is good at singing songs that matter.
and Fred Small, and Tommy Sands, and
Leon Rossellson, and most of the
performes who i admire and respect
do luse their music as a tool,,,
not just a toy...