The people formerly known as fans

[Poker99]

 

I've watched fan behavior shift at shows. In many cases fans are now on their cellphones texting and taking photos more than actually paying attention to the music, so I take that as a sign that they are more interested in letting friends know they are at the show than in being at the show as listening fans.

 

 

http://brandsplusmusic.blogspot.com/2009/09/people-formerly-known-as-fans.html

[paulz]

I think one of the things is people misuse "fan" to mean their audience.

A fan is a FANatic, it's that subset of the audience that isn't going to be distracted by other things because...they are fanatical.

 

I don't mean this as "mere semantics", I think that the word and the expectation OF THE PERFORMER can get skewed.

The performer may LIKE the idea of total, rapt, attention but fanaticism is outlier behavior (yup, even in modern classical music I've seen people text and nap and pass notes and take pulls from hip flasks)

 

In general, i think we've got a kind of skewed view on classical music (esp for those not into it). We forget, for instance, historically there were all kinds...like chamber music, music for chambers, like salons where people are just hanging out (even the instruments like the clavichord and gamba don't have the projection we think about with, say, a piano or modern strings.

 

the modern symphonic concert isn't the full story (even today). What we tend to see now is a very rarefied listening environment with a highly self-selecting audience (closer to an audience of fans...but not exclusively) and the "casual" audience just doesn't show up that much -- and one practical upshot is that these symphonies aren't really viable as a self-supporting market entity (they are supplemented by both public and private charitable donation, etc)

 

In "this is your brain on music", Levintin recounts traveling to other, tribal cultures, where he was asked to join in the singing. when he responded "I dont sing", the people did not understand. The culture did not have a performer/audience distinction.

 

Some of this performer/audience line WE have in current industrial culture may very well be a blip and have more to do with the industrialization and a reliance on recorded music.

In the aforementioned chamber music example, it wasn't generally a group of highly trained professionals separate from the audience, much like the "house piano" or "parlor guitar" (to be played in the parlor) of 19th early 20th century America.

Pub singing, the Hootenanny, etc are parts of the culture that have decreased in popularity

but may be having a resurgence (as opposed to a new behavior)

[chevybusa]

Reminds me of what I saw personally in the hardcore "scene" in my area when I was in high school...that excerpt describes it TO A TEE.

 

I went to an underground show that had a ton of unknown bands there at the time (God Forbid was there, this was the mid 90's, they had just released their first EP and nobody knew who the hell they were). Anyways there were a few kids that I went to school with that not six months earlier had been wearing Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Primus, Live, Bush and NIN shirts who now all of the sudden were wearing all these obscure hardcore band shirts and of course the quintessential patches pinned on with safety pins.

 

I had first heard Earthcrisis' "Firestorm" in middle school and being a shredder at the time hated it, I of course loathed the fact that the entire song was pretty much a palm muted E5 played in a rythym that sounded like a five year old had just picked up the guitar and that killed any interest I had into getting more into hardcore. I actually ended up at that show by accident.

 

The point is though that it was all about image and "being seen" there for I'd ssay 95% of the kids there...I swear to you when I tell you that I was the ONLY ONE THERE that had any interaction with the bands after they played OR bought any CDs, the rest of the kids just bought shirts and patches. Same went for the kids I went to school with that claimed to be all into the hardcore scene, it was all about the image and nothing about the music. When I'd talk to them about some of the actual MUSIC they claimed to love so much they'd either have no clue what the hell I was talking about or would get that deer in the headlights kind of look.

 

A few years after we graduated I was working in a gas station in my hometown and a kid came in wearing a Shai Hulud hoodie. Coincidentally I had them playing on the CD player, AND HE DIDN"T EVEN KNOW IT WAS THEM!!!!! (It's funny cuz like I said I'm really not a fan of hardcore but Shai Hulud is one of my all time favorite bands...go figure!)

 

Anyways yeah I definitely realized early on that for whatever reason a lot of young kids use a particular genre or type/style of music as a fashion statement and for social reasons rather than being actually into the music itself for what it really is.

[danosongs]

lol, that's why you want "users".

 

Forget fans and audience, developer a user base.

 

Social media sites are the new rock stars.

 

Even rock stars need facebook to keep up.

 

Give people their 15 minutes.

 

Why not?

[Matximus]

Two Words: Whine. ERR.

 

Egads. You work for the fans douchebag. If you're upset about, you know, losing the interest of your audience: step up your game.

 

Christ. Whiney artists are ten times more annoying than disrepectful fans.

[3shiftgtr]

Ambitious bands all want to create a scene that is based around their music and performances. An audience leads to a following which leads to a scene is the prevailing logic.

 

But the reality is that the majority of humans just aren't into music as active listeners. Music is background. But it is within that population that 'popularity' and 'success' is cultivated.

 

I remember as a kid, with three other pals who were non musicians, going to a show with Krokus, Cheap Trick, and Rainbow in the 70's. 10th row. One guy fell asleep during Trick, woke up and left. Said he was bored. The other guy just kept floating around the arena. In between bands he'd holler at us from some part of the stadium. He got a kick out of that. The other guy made it thru the first two, and passed out during Rainbow. It was the 70's...the two joints we smuggled in were not THAT powerful, knowhatimsayin'?

 

And at school that Monday, they were all saying "Dude...Blackmore was AWESOME! And that nerdy guy from Trick WAILED!"

 

I swore I'd never go to a show without a musician friend. And in my life, there have been very few exceptions to that oath. Most do not want to spend the concentration it takes to actually LISTEN. Even at a arena concert with flashbombs, giant lightshows, massive volume, and musos running around ape{censored}. Listening is BORING to them.

 

But they are the ones that will make you or break you if you are looking for "success". Learn how to make these folks want to show up at your shows, irregardless of the reason.

[Kramerguy]

I agree that there's definitely been a shift in the average "fan" (not fanatic, but patron, or whatever you want to call ppl who go to your shows) attention spans.

 

The OP cites a brilliant point - 20 years ago, people in the audience had only three things to distract them from the music:

1) their friends

2) rolling / smoking doobies

3) bathroom breaks

 

Now, they have social networking,

it's not just a cellphone that is distracting, it's also taking pics, taking videos, checking facebook, myspace, twitter, email.... posting, commenting on friends' posts, replying back to friends on fbook, etc.. it's not just a one-time pull out the phone and done deal.. it's a constant stream of attention-melting garbage.

 

I don't think today's teens will be able to function if sat down and told to "listen" to a band, it's beyond them.

 

It's not a whining bs situation, but merely a fact of life today. Technology has outpaced most social concepts of entertainment. We're 10 years behind and still unable to catch up-

[daddymack]

Welcome to short attention span theater.

In order to appeal to the masses in the new millenium, hit songs will be 45 seconds in duration. Television programs will be five minutes. Spelling and grammar are no longer valued. Intelligence will be measured in multitasking capabilities. The already atrophying pinky finger will be removed at birth in future generations, and replaced with a second thumb to enable faster texting.

 

Stop me now...please...it only gets worse...

[Kramerguy]

Actually I see things more like they explain in "Idiocracy" - intelligence is becoming something the mass idiots make fun of...

 

Ow, my balls! is as far as attention gets eventually.

[Nijyo]

Welcome to short attention span theater. In order to appeal to the masses in the new millenium, hit songs will be 45 seconds in duration. Television programs will be five minutes. Spelling and grammar are no longer valued. Intelligence will be measured in multitasking capabilities. The already atrophying pinky finger will be removed at birth in future generations, and replaced with a second thumb to enable faster texting. Stop me now...please...it only gets worse...

 

While I agree with you somewhat, go back and watch a 1970's TV show some time. Say, "The Rockford Files" or "Quincy".

 

The writing/story pace in that decade of writing was excessively slow. Sometimes speeding things up is better. I don't mind a 5-minute TV show (i.e. "The Guild" web series) so long as its a great 5 minutes.

[3shiftgtr]

 

Actually I see things more like they explain in "Idiocracy" - intelligence is becoming something the mass idiots make fun of... Ow, my balls! is as far as attention gets eventually.

 

 

I've told this story around here before, but I was watching that show with my son and the ADHD and OCD kid from down the block. Nice kid, but a tough homelife. The kid thought that the version of the future portrayed in Idiocracy was an ideal.

 

The porn star and former pro 'rasslin president? "Hell yeah, I'd vote for him!"

 

Ow, my balls? "That would be an AWESOME show."

 

And he was dead serious....the jokes was lost on him. At one point he actually said, AFTER the movie explained why "Ya know, you'd think that sports drinks would make 'em grow better, right?"

 

So sad....

[kool98769]

I'm going to have to blame that on boring leadmen. You noticed when people go on their phones? Pauses. everyone goes on their phone during pauses. Either that, or if you're just concentrating on singing perfectly standing behind the mic stand. I know we all like perfection, but i'd rather see you mess up because you ran out of breath working your ass off than sing perfect pitch but just standing there. If you don't get the crowd into it, they're gonna be on their phones. I don't give a {censored} how well you play in a studio. Show me what you have live, show me that you actually have PASSION about the music. I wanna see some emotion pouring out of you. Give me some {censored}ing goosebumps. So what if I don't know the words to your song, tell me a great {censored}ing story. Show me that you actually want me to buy your EP that you just put out. I'll tell my friends. I'll drag them out to your next show. Make me proud to wear your band t-shirt.

[Tony_Tucker]

I noticed too that when the artist/s are performing the fans are just taking video's or pictures of the artist/s. They don't listen to their song anymore. Then those videos and pictures they have during that day will be posting in their facebook account or other social networking accounts they have. This is to show that they are in that place when the artist/s performed. And for the artists it is very important now for them to have accounts in social networking sites so they can easily follow by their fans.

[Opus Antics]

Ok, well here's a question. Isn't it possible to listen and snap a photo at the same time? I've been listening rapturously while clicking photos when the band member walked up right near where my section was.

[Nijyo]

 

Ok, well here's a question. Isn't it possible to listen and snap a photo at the same time? I've been listening rapturously while clicking photos when the band member walked up right near where my section was.

 

 

Yeah. I'm not really on-board with the "just because they're taking videos they're not listening" line of thought, myself.

[Opus Antics]

 

Yeah. I'm not really on-board with the "just because they're taking videos they're not listening" line of thought, myself.

 

 

Yes. As I see it, what's happening in this thread is someone sees people taking and posting videos and pictures at shows. Then assumes that that act means that they are not actually listening while doing that, and then assumes that because they aren't listening (his assumption), they are more concerned with the image of being at the show than the show itself. His conclusion is based on a string of assumptions.

 

What's more likely is people are digging the show, and want to capture a moment from it, and share it online. I go back and look at my Collective Soul concert pictures all the time. Awesome show, but the blogger who saw me there would have assumed all I cared about was telling people I was there, which is completely false.

[JohnMCA72]

They may not be sitting there, "listening" attentively, completely enraptured by everything you say, sing, or do. What they are doing, though, is participating & that's a good thing!

 

"Music" is about a lot more than just music. It's a multi-dimensional event & the band is there to be the facilitators of it. It's certainly not all "about" you; it's not even about the music! It's all about them, the audience. I'd rather see a bunch of people taking photos & other evidence of having a good time than just sitting/standing around like they're ready to go to sleep.

[BuildingCastles]

I think people in the US have become spoiled. They take music for granted. When you can steal your entire collection and choose from thousands of live bands of your choice, you are bound to have people that just don't give a {censored} anymore. Of course, cell phones and such haven't helped. I swear I never see any kid walking or riding a bike down the street without having a cell attached to his/her face. Have fun with the brain cancer, kids.

[richardmac]

 

I think people in the US have become spoiled. They take music for granted. When you can steal your entire collection and choose from thousands of live bands of your choice, you are bound to have people that just don't give a {censored} anymore.

 

 

TRUE. Very true. Supply and demand. When you owned 30 records, a band coming to town was a big deal. When you have the equivalent of a record STORE's worth of stolen music on your computer, well...

 

But people still like to play instruments, so that's a good sign.

[BlueStrat]

Hate to be a wet blanket, but it's ALWAYS been this way.

 

My dad was in WW2. He went to USO shows with guys like Benny Goodman and Harry James and Artie Shaw, and guess what? There would be 1000 people at these things, and just a few stage mics to pick up vocals and horn solos, and people did what they always do- talk, drink, fight, try to get laid....the music was just background noise to their lives, much as it is now. It doesn't mean they didn't like it or didn't listen to the songs when they were on the radio or records. But most people aren't into music the same way musicians are, and to expect everyone to sit in rapt attention when you're performing is unrealistic. I've been to classical concerts where I saw this, but not too many rock, country or blues shows.

 

I just did an outdoor concert last Wednesday. About 300 or so people showed up. I saw lots of familiar faces, lots of people I didn't know, and all of them were at one point or another chatting, going to the concessions, heading for the lav, chasing kids, texting or talking on the cell....no biggie to me.

[Nijyo]

 

TRUE. Very true. Supply and demand. When you owned 30 records, a band coming to town was a big deal. When you have the equivalent of a record STORE's worth of stolen music on your computer, well... But people still like to play instruments, so that's a good sign.

 

 

Yeah but school music programs keep getting whittled down, which sucks.

 

I'm all for people playing instruments and taking the impetus to learn on their own, but I think music education should remain a robust part of primary/secondary education (even if its an option in secondary).

 

Well never have a shortage of kids at GC playing riffs as fast as they can, but we can do better as a society, I think.

[richardmac]

Agree. Definitely. And I think music education is extremely important.

 

It's also extremely BROKEN and has been for decades. In fact, it hasn't changed much in decades. We've had this discussion before. Most schools offer symphonic band, marching band, and if you're lucky, jazz band. What are the two most popular instruments in the world? Guitar and piano, in that order. What are the two instruments that don't appear in symphonic or marching bands? Guitar and piano. They do have one of each in a jazz band, so a high school with 200 guitar players, well, one of them will get to play in the jazz band.

 

Some high schools are doing really innovative things with rock ensembles, some schools have after school guitar clubs, and I hugely applaud their efforts. I'm not saying dump symphonic music, but rather a program should meet the needs of our students, not the needs of the program itself.

 

I think it's asinine that we can accommodate a kid who wants to play freaking tuba, but not guitar. Music education has changed little in 50 years. It sucks. We need to applaud and support the innovators out there.

[Nijyo]

 

Agree. Definitely. And I think music education is extremely important. It's also extremely BROKEN and has been for decades. In fact, it hasn't changed much in decades. We've had this discussion before. Most schools offer symphonic band, marching band, and if you're lucky, jazz band. What are the two most popular instruments in the world? Guitar and piano, in that order. What are the two instruments that don't appear in symphonic or marching bands? Guitar and piano. They do have one of each in a jazz band, so a high school with 200 guitar players, well, one of them will get to play in the jazz band. Some high schools are doing really innovative things with rock ensembles, some schools have after school guitar clubs, and I hugely applaud their efforts. I'm not saying dump symphonic music, but rather a program should meet the needs of our students, not the needs of the program itself. I think it's asinine that we can accommodate a kid who wants to play freaking tuba, but not guitar. Music education has changed little in 50 years. It sucks. We need to applaud and support the innovators out there.

 

 

I don't agree. Honestly, I consider guitar to be the hardest intro instrument for learning theory and learning to play in a group. I consider myself a better musician because I came to play guitar, bass, and drums after I had a classical training.

 

You can really tell the folks who didn't have that classical training, as well, in my experience.

[paulz]

 

I don't agree. Honestly, I consider guitar to be the hardest intro instrument for learning theory and learning to play in a group.

 

 

I don't have a considered opinion on if the current music programs in high school need to be updated (I'm not even sure what's currently going on these days so I just don't feel qualified to comment).

 

I don't, however, agree that guitar is the hardest instrument for learning theory or learning to play in ensemble [FWIW my classical training and guitar happened concurrently). I think the guitar has some advantages in that respect.

While it is a transposing instrument it's octave transposing so the pitch class doesn't change, The instrument can be played either mono- or poly-phonically, transposition can be relatively linear, etc.

 

I think guitar sometimes gets a bad rep for not being amenable to that, but I believe that has more to do with it's popularity so you get sort of a regression to the mean with how people approach it, not the capability of the instrument itself. This isn't unlike the gamba in days past.

[JohnMCA72]

I don't think it has to be an either/or situation at all between classical & modern music. Each is valuable. I learned a heck of a lot, at an early age, with classical training that I use every day. I think schools should expand musical education to cover more of what kids are interested in. Keep the symphonic/concert band, marching band, & jazz band but update it to add stuff that's more relevant today & include more kids. When I was in high school there were a heck of a lot more kids flailing away on guitars, drums, & keyboards with no training or guidance at all than there were in the formal music programs. Even back then, the program should have been expanded. Like my Mom said, when she caught me teaching myself a song on the family piano at about age 6: "If you're going to bang on that thing, you're going to learn how to do it right!" & I was signed up for lessons shortly afterward.