How about he was interested in giving a performance on his terms, and based on what he wanted to artistically convey, to people who could appreciate that and came for that, and not to be a performing monkey for people?
If the audience didn't knew who Lou Reed was, and what songs he likes to play in concerns and how, then they were not paying attention. Perhaps they went in thinking it's some crowd pleaser performing a meddley of their hits? That's not "bait and switch" that's more like "they bought pigs in a blanket".
>I suppose you could argue that churlishly and begrudgingly performing that which had induced the audience to pay him for recorded and live performances in the first place was part of Reed's public persona!
I'd go further and say that it was also part of his sincere preferences and character.
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/tribe-call...
And he did, after all, play them in concert, though condescendingly (and perhaps realizing that if he did not, future earnings from performances would come to reflect how well-regarded his preferred works are.) In aggregate, his behavior looks to me to be petty and entitled, rather than high-minded.
And your point is? Just because he didn't like some of his previous work anymore, or didn't appreciate the shallow focus on "past hits", he should have forfeited his publishing rights for those songs going forward?
This is some next level entitlement.
>And he did, after all, play them in concert, though condescendingly
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
He haven't signed any contract that he'd play those songs. He haven't made any promise to play those songs. He didn't feel like playing those songs. He wanted to focus on more recent and less obvious stuff than past hits parade, as if he's in some tribute band. Some in the audience still insisted on the hits.
Is it not enough that he accepted that demand and played them. Did he also have to like it or put on a fake smile?
This is some next level entitlement.
Of course not - it's a fact emphasizing his willingness to hawk those works in the marketplace.
Was. He died years ago. Show some respect and at least learn that before going on finding evidence to support your claim that "his behavior is petty and entitled". You clearly don't know who you're talking about
And perhaps he cared to not hurt them by not playing it at all, but was hurt himself and pissed that they cared for the "hits" and didn't appreciate his performance. How about that?
The thing is, it's his concert. The artist choses the songlist. Would they pull the same shit on Miles Davis, or do they think because it's rock, the singer is their performing monkey?
If you choose to enter the marketplace, you have no basis for complaining when you are judged by it.
It's also more of what a label producer would say to made-by-the-company boy bands, or can be said about market friendly "entertainer" types, and tribute bands, not something that should in any culture should apply to artists.
As it happens, I am merely a consumer, while several of my close relatives are musicians, two make a living from it, one of whom also composes and has had their work performed in professional concerts by other musicians.
Now, how about you? And let's hear from coldtea as well, especially given his remarkably condescending reply to the above post (I associate that sort of attitude largely with teenagers - which, of course, he may be.)
>Now, how about you?
Sure! I was raised in a very music-first household, picked up the violin at the age of 9, and ended up teaching myself to play the bass, the alto sax, the guitar, piano and how to DJ by the time I left high school. I've played extensively in a few jazz bands and have had mild success as a local dance music DJ. I also worked with a variety of underground concert promoters throughout my 20's, and still volunteer to set up sound or work the door at shows from time to time. My vinyl collection is also getting to be a bit too large, but c'est la vie.
What shapes my thoughts here has almost nothing to do with music per se, and is instead grounded in a concept of fairness in the implicit and customary contract between performers and their audience. Caveat emptor is not a satisfactory response here, IMHO, and the logical conclusion of that route is that the audience should demand a setlist before buying tickets, which would not be to anyone's benefit.
to be clear, I don't think Reed's behavior here was egregious; it was merely a peccadillo.