|
most venues that would have madonna would not care if she did that, matthew....it would be understood as a provocation. and she is something of a specialist in that regard. in a tepid kinda way. bad example.
besides, the venue would have its cash either way, so what would they care?
seriously, what would the owners of the venue care? what would the booking agent care? whose interests are really at stake here?
performers who suck are booked every bloody day.
there is no objective standard for that which sucks.
if there were, think about how many famous people would be working day gigs.
just think about it.
performers who suck still draw...no-one cares: its all about the green.
i reject the idea of conservative matyrdom---o boo hoo the right has no artists willing to speak their line----thats crap.
the extent to which that appears to be true is a function of the musical form you happen to like--and the degree to which in country music, say, you are more likely to find conservatives as performers is as much a function of marketing assumptions about the audience as it is of any committment from the artists, i would think.
i dont have a theory about why this might be the case--that country music and conservative performers tend to correlate--well ok thats a lie--i do have one, but it would take a while to write it and i dont have time at the moment. my brother is a bluegrass player, so i have thought about that strange world for many years....
i do have a more extensive one about why most artists work in opposition to the existing order, however. if i have a bit of time later and this thread has not collapsed into acrimony and so on and so on, maybe i'll run it out.
nothing you said actually speaks to the main argument i made, matthew. i simply refer you back to the other parts of it, the ones you did not talk about.
when i used the term bourgeois nimrods, i was not referring specifically to anyone---the idea that you as a performer cant offend anyone is repellent. it is the most basic kind of censorship, and the easiest way to assure that your audio enviornment will be even less interesting than it is now. not to mention your visual environment. sometimes, you want people to think differently. often it does not work. fuck you is not an unreasonable response in that case. i dont see any need to censor that. besides, tolerance of that kind of thing gives a political regime the appearance of largesse, no matter what they do in other sectors. it's win win. where's the problem?
and for the record, i really dont care about michael moore.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|