Interesting debate regarding art, performance, and audience expectatio

[colinmce]

The Minnesota band Low sparked a bit of a controversy recently regarding a set they played at a local festival. For those not familiar with them, they are, in my opinion, one of the very great American bands period. Their music is quiet, slow and melodic, but can also be very loud and noisy. The short of it is that their set consisted of one of their signature songs played for 27 minutes, most of it improvised drones and noise. At the end of the performance singer Alan Sparhawk said "Drone, not drones" and that was it. Many people were very upset as a result and felt that they were shafted having paid to see the band perform their songs.

Now, obviously, coming at this as an afficianado of avant, abstract, improvised music I see no problem here. Improvised sound sculpting is a thing, and a fair bit of the music I listen to consists of just this. But beyond that, I support their decision on the level of art. I am a firm believer in the auteur perspective, which is to say that I will follow the artists I trust and admire absolutely anywhere they want to go. It's up to ME to make meaning out of what THEY decide to create. I can like it or not, but I cannot judge it based on my preconceived notion of what they "should" do. And so when I go to see them play, I come at it from the same perspective. Now of course, doing something like being an impudent asshole and not putting anything into the performance is one thing. That's not what Low did at all. Had I been there, I would have been enthralled, personally. I paid not to hear the songs I know, but to see them in the act of creating art. This is the faith I have in them as creators. But it is interesting to see this debate play out in the independent rock world.

Thoughts?

Links:

http://blog.thecurrent.org/2013/06/the-audacity-of-low-what-does-a-band-owe-us-when-we-pay-to-see-them-perform/

http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/blogs/211809701.html

[ejp626]

I'm not nearly as big a supporter of the auteur perspective. I think of musicians as entertainers first and artists second. Anyway, I think artists do have a responsibility to not mislead their fans. If they had been known for doing this -- or were clearly an avante-garde group -- then fine. But if this was the first time they pulled such a stunt, and normally had played traditional shows with, you know, songs off a setlist, then I think the fans do have a right to be upset. I certainly would have been.

Edited June 18, 2013 by ejp626

[clifford_thornton]

Man, I saw Low in like '96 or so do a stunning performance of "Do You Know How To Waltz?" (this droning tune) along with a few other tunes from their first couple of records. It was stunning and though I'm not sure if it was 27 minutes (20 is believable, as is 15), it ruled. To me everything since Songs for a Dead Pilot has paled. So this is not unprecedented by any means but it's been a while... glad to see they've still got that 'edge.'

Edited June 19, 2013 by clifford_thornton