Is Paul right?

[ShoeManiac]

I saw one of Cream's reunion concerts in 2005, and I would have been happy to hear them play nothing they'd ever played before. I was fascinated by simply hearing them create together.
When I went to an Aretha concert in 2014, I went with no specific songs in mind. I just wanted to hear that voice and be in the same room.

Maybe that's more of a jazz musician/jazz lover mindset.

I went to one of the Cream gigs at Madison Square Garden in 2005. They were fantastic! And I think they played one blues tune that wasn't part of their recorded work from the 60's. But all told, Cream released what, 4 albums in the space of 3 years? And 2 of those are split between live and studio recordings. That limited catalog narrowed the field of what to expect Cream to play at those shows.

I think if you know and follow Bob Dylan in the current day, then you are probably familiar with how he performs live, and the never-ending tour. His discography has around 40 studio albums, 20 live albums and his bootleg series has over 15 releases. He's written numerous songs that were hits for other artists. There was one epic album of around 20 songs that were recorded by a murderer's row of artists that were just working from lyrics Dylan had written, but had never composed the music or recorded them - I highly recommend this, btw - the group was called The New Basement Tapes, and the album is called Lost On The River. And then consider that Dylan's Greatest Hits compilations have 3 volumes. IT'S A LOT. He's been nothing, if not prolific over the past 60 years.

Taking all of that into account, I think people are bound to be disappointed if Dylan doesn't perform their favorite song. And I think that can be simply due to the volume of his output. Would I be disappointed if I went to his gig and he didn't play "A simple twist of fate", "Stuck inside of Mobile", "Ballad of a thin man", or "Tangled up in blue"? Sure. But Dylan has such a monumental catalog that he's probably going to play a lot of songs people know and love. But there's also this - these days Dylan seems to be playing for himself. He's an artist who has continued to try to evolve. I can't blame him for trying to do that. He's not a jukebox / cd player / streaming service. He's a living, breathing performer with an epically large catalog of amazing songs.

Can he structure a set to please the audience while still presenting a show that's different from his recorded work? Sure. But Bob is notoriously mercurial. He does what he wants. And I think that's probably why there's been some turmoil with his live band recently which has led to significant turnover with his guitarists. I know he's changed the arrangements for a lot of songs, and has taken to playing piano for much of his live shows. I think he might be more comfortable sitting for a show, and considering he's 85 years old? I get it.

I think Paul McCartney and Bob Dylan are BOTH right. They're both entertainers AND artists. Their fans want the hits, but they also appreciate the artistry of these performers and their epic careers.

 

[RichardW]

If people are paying to see you, you should give them what they want. If you are an artiste who insists on the purity of your artistic expression and only playing what you want - go ahead, but if it’s that important to you, you should be willing to do it for free.

I saw Dylan last summer and it was hands-down the worst live performance by a major rock star I’ve ever seen. Unintelligible mumbling through unrecognizable songs, no stage lights, Dylan sitting behind an upright piano behind the drum kit. Not even a “hello” or “thanks.” I wouldn’t cross the street to see him in a free show.

 

[pabloramone]

Nope, nonsense.
a) you pay you decide, art or entertainment.
b) for Dylan, we know for years. no surprise here. you pay. you decide. you should have known.

Where in the world art means free ???
Where in the world artist means purity ???

 

[buldog5151bass]

Really simply - I enjoy the creation of music, not its performance. If someone else enjoys what I do, that's a wonderful thing, but I'll still make it regardless. I have never enjoyed live performance and it's not why I make music. I honestly don't care if I ever play live again. I hated the club scene, the hurry-up-and-wait of sound checks, load in/out, and never felt at home in any 'scene' that a band I was in was part of. It's different strokes, ya know? I just did a recording session at a lovely studio here in Seattle and thoroughly enjoyed the process and the experience. Writing and documenting, that's what I love. The band I was helping played a backyard party the week prior and I hated every second doing that performance.

If you are being paid and/or asked to perform, your role/job is to entertain them, not yourself.

 

[pabloramone]

If you are an artist , you being paid doing your art.

Are Picasso's painting free ? Let me know if YES !!!

So the question is Dylan : wants to express is art, or is asked to perform ? I think I have the answer , hence the explanation.

 

[pabloramone]

If you are an artist , you being paid doing your art.

Are Picasso's painting free ? Let me know if YES !!!

So the question is Dylan : wants to express is art, or is asked to perform. I think I have the answer , hence the explanation.

I also think it is a huge difference between US and Europe. I can't tell for other parts of the world unfortunatly.

 

[Plectrum72]

I think it's weird that some folks view this as a dichotomy. You can only please yourself as an artist or the audience as an entertainer. My expectation for a PAID concert is a bit of both. Play your new material to please yourself, but throw the audience a bone and play a few of your biggest hits as well.

 

[pabloramone]

agree. just a way to make understand Bob Dylan point of view. Where probably his balance is.

 

[pabloramone]

But it has nothing to do with paid or not.

 

[buldog5151bass]

It depends on the situation.

There is a club near me that regularly does nights of totally originals acts, 30 minute sets. 95% of the audience is the performers (or their friends). I play this a couple of times a year, and do what I want, because nothing is expected.

I play in a jazz band. Most of the time, the players want to play what THEY want to play (fantastic players). So we play mostly play in the drummer's home. When we play an occasional live gigs, we adjust the set list.

The rock band I play with is 80% covers. We have a decent following, and they know our originals (and ask for them), so we sprinkle in some originals, although the clubs we play are mostly cover places.

 

[WG Plum]

If you are being paid and/or asked to perform, your role/job is to entertain them, not yourself.

I completely disagree, generally, but the context matters. If I'm in a cover/tribute act at a casino, I would agree - you're 100% entertainment in that context - that is a job. I'm not a jobber.

 

[WG Plum]

If you are an artist , you being paid doing your art.

Are Picasso's painting free ? Let me know if YES !!!

So the question is Dylan : wants to express is art, or is asked to perform ? I think I have the answer , hence the explanation.

Ask Van Gogh. He was a pauper. Was he not an artist?

Being an artist has nothing to do with making money. It's the process, the work. If you end up making money, then you're a profitable artist.

 

[fdeck]

I saw one of Cream's reunion concerts in 2005, and I would have been happy to hear them play nothing they'd ever played before. I was fascinated by simply hearing them create together.
When I went to an Aretha concert in 2014, I went with no specific songs in mind. I just wanted to hear that voice and be in the same room.

Maybe that's more of a jazz musician/jazz lover mindset.

Maybe the jazz world is less authoritarian.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Playing in a local pub is NOT the same as Bob Dylan. People bought tickets specifically to go and see him. You are being paid by the venue owner to entertain their customers.

 

[HolmeBass]

Back around 2015 I went to see Ginger Baker's Jazz Confusion, his jazz trio project. Maybe his final tour?

Anyway, I knew going in that A. This was not Cream, it was a jazz band, and B. This is Ginger Baker.

So, when during the set he gave the audience a bit of a hard time for expecting Cream using rather colorful language, I was actually quite happy, since for me getting that dose of mean old Ginger was part of the show. (And I actually was there for the jazz drumming performance anyway.)

Anyway, I guess it depends on who you're going to see. Some artists you absolutely expect them to play the hits; others you expect them to be all prickly and moody about it like a 75-year-old teenager that still thinks he's too cool to "pander" as someone above put it, and maybe that's the fun of it.

I agree with this - you have to temper your expectations based on who the artist is. If it is Bob Dylan, don’t expect him to be happy that you are singing along.

He will change the melody on you.

On the other hand, I have seen artists, I remember this in particular from an Eric Clapton concert, where the show lost a lot of momentum and energy during and after trudging through some hits people absolutely wanted to hear. The less well known stuff at the top of the first set was crackling!

 

[WG Plum]

Playing in a local pub is NOT the same as Bob Dylan. People bought tickets specifically to go and see him. You are being paid by the venue owner to entertain their customers.

Heh, yeah. Given that bar owners do practically no marketing of their own anymore, they hire you to entertain your fans, not their customers. They more often expect you to bring an audience, not entertain the duffers at the bar who are there regardless. And that's assuming you don't have to 'sell tickets'.

 

[HolmeBass]

I completely disagree, generally, but the context matters. If I'm in a cover/tribute act at a casino, I would agree - you're 100% entertainment in that context - that is a job. I'm not a jobber.

Yes, I could see where Bob Dylan could rightfully claim he is an artist; he got paid so he should create art live onstage. Art does not require nor preclude hit songs - just artistic intent and execution.

But context matters a lot!

 

[S-Bigbottom]

Zara Larsson had a "hit" years ago. Toured off that song and in the years after has made music long after and has a decent catalog and has had a decent turn out to her shows after the "hit" cooled off. But she was no longer hot.

Her old "Hit" was brought back to the main stream recently and now her shows are much bigger than a few years ago because people are coming based on that old "Hit".

She knows that old "Hit" has brought her back into the spotlight, more people are showing up based on that "Hit".

When Zara does that "Hit" she will bring a fan (possibly a new fan) on stage to dance with her to that "Hit".

Yes, Zara has many other songs and "True Fans" know more than the "hit" but it is that "hit" that brought new people to her shows recently and she is now bigger than she has been in years.


Embrace your "hits", that is what your paying audience sings in the car and is there for, then win them over more with the rest of your catalog.

 

[S-Bigbottom]

That is the question. Entertainment or Art.

If your art does not entertain, you have no audience.

Music or a painting, there is a feeling that makes someone willing to be a fan of yours and willing to pay for your art.
That feeling entertains them.

See my above post.

 

[WG Plum]

Art does not always entertain. Sometimes it enrages, it disgusts. As mentioned earlier, art can entertain, but it can also, and, imho, should also, challenge. Perhaps that's a possible point of distinction between art and entertainment. Fun discussion, and one where there is no right or wrong answer. Like beauty, it's in the eye (ears) of the beholder.

As for Bob Dylan, dudeberry is in his 80s, so as far as I'm concerned he's earned the right do whatever the hell he wants.