Chris Cornell self confirmed

[kaosmark2]

SOE is right, it's about providing a service as much as anything.

If Cornell wants to be artistic, he can 'do what he wants' in his Mums basement. If he's charging people for tickets, then he's got to either play what they want/expect, or expect criticism. It's as simple as that. And if he isn't aware of that already, he's going to find out pretty damn quickly when he plays Download.

[kaosmark2]

Were Soundgarden realy all that great???

[worm]

SOE is right, it's about providing a service as much as anything.

Edited March 18, 2009 by worm

[Salt_On_Everything]

its hardly the 'death of art'. jesus, how dramatic. i should have guessed from your signature tho, lighten up! people have their tastes in art, and shouldn't be expected to accept any old bollocks because the creator thinks its 'art'. if you're PAYING for art, you're paying for art you like, no? like i say, artists are free to do as they will to pursue their art - but when they expect people to pay for it then surely they have to give the paying customers something they like and enjoy?

edit: but i guess from your signature, Chris Cornell could walk on stage, drop trou, lay a thick nutty cable on the mic, take a bow and walk off, and you'd love his 'art'

Edited March 18, 2009 by Salt_On_Everything

[worm]

its hardly the 'death of art'. jesus, how dramatic. i should have guessed from your signature tho, lighten up! people have their tastes in art, and shouldn't be expected to accept any old bollocks because the creator thinks its 'art'. if you're PAYING for art, you're paying for art you like, no? like i say, artists are free to do as they will to pursue their art - but when they expect people to pay for it then surely they have to give the paying customers something they like and enjoy?

Edited March 18, 2009 by worm

[Salt_On_Everything]

no, i'm not agreeing with you, feeling a bit like banging my head against the wall here, but when people pay good hard earned money to see an act, they want to be ENTERTAINED, not 'educated on fine art' or whatever. thats my experience anyways.

when i saw Lamb Of God last month, they played a blinding set, great mix from all the albums, and everyone loved it. if they had decided to do an impromptu mellow jam because they were 'trying a new direction with their art', i'm sure it would have gone down VERY BADLY. why is this so hard to understand?

i'm more concerned about entertainment than art. i listen to music in order to be entertained BY the art, not just to accept whatever 'art' they choose to give me because they have the right to do so.

what the f**k has Phil Collins got to do with it?!

[worm]

no, i'm not agreeing with you, feeling a bit like banging my head against the wall here, but when people pay good hard earned money to see an act, they want to be ENTERTAINED, not 'educated on fine art' or whatever. thats my experience anyways.

Edited March 19, 2009 by worm

[worm]

why is this so hard to understand?

[Salt_On_Everything]

i don't understand. you seem to think that 'artists' and 'entertainers' can't be the same thing. it's either Godspeed My Black Emperor and Aphex Twin, or Steps and Lemar to you seemingly. the black and white, ART or ENTERTAINMENT.

saying 'They didn't do it to entertain. They did it because they had something artistic to say.' about the Download bill is absolute BULLSHIT. what, cos none of the artists on the bill ever does anything to entertain the fans? its all a purely selfish pursuit? they play and don't give a f**k what we think because they're 'doing it for the art'?

so when the bands at Download play their massive hits, and i bet a fair few bands at Download will play some BIG CROWD PLEASER HITS(!), they're all gonne be hating it and secretly crying inside going 'Oh GOD! Look... My, my beautiful art has become ENTERTAINMENT! For thousands...! they all... LOVE it so much! what have i done?!? smite theee god, for i have waylaid from the path of art to the dark side of... making people happy! I must write a solo-concept-instrumental-panpipe-harpsicord album and forever cleanse myself of this dreaded fanbase!'

or maybe they sometimes think 'Wow, we've made so many people happy by writing really great popular songs that they love, and we loved doing it, i'm glad we've done something thats made us and them both so happy'

edit: and yes, i love Tool, seen them twice and have a couple of albums. why can't they entertain me AND be artistic? they do both pretty well. your comment just sounds like you're trying to be pretentious to be honest.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Salt_On_Everything

[deadrobot]

I gotta agree with salt, you're just coming off as a pretentious w@nker.

Phil Collins here we come.

[kaosmark2]

It's not hard to understand. You have no artistic appreciation and demand entertainment over art. That's pretty much what I said. No problem from me. It's you that's trying to have it both ways marra.

[Axl]

The mainstream music business is a service industry. Of course it is.

The original point was about how when gigs are advertised as 'Chris Cornell', people have certain expectations of what they are going to see, and that it's arrogant of him to think that they all want to hear his new album in it's entirety.

How this got on to me and Salty wanting every band to be Phil Collins, i've no idea. You've totally lost me on that one. No-one is saying bands can't experiment. Shit, no-one is saying Cornell shouldn't have been allowed to make an R&B album with Timbaland. All people are saying, is that bands shouldn't be experimenting, dicking around or not playing the hits when people have already paid upfront for tickets, expecting to a certain thing.

Is that a hard concept to grasp? Chris Cornell sells tickets on the premise that he's the ex-frontman of Soundgarden and Audioslave, and that he's going to belt out some of the hits. That's the only reason he can sell out the venues he does. If he was billing himself as 'Chris Cornell - R&B sensation', and told people beforehand that he was playing the new album all the way through, people wouldn't go. So not only is it arrogant of him, it's dishonest aswell. He's selling the concert to people on a false premise.

If Chris Cornell only plays the new stuff at Download, he'll get booed off stage. If Journey don't play 'Don't Stop Believin'', they'll get booed off stage. No-one wants these bands to invent a new style of music, mid-gig. They simply want to get what they originally paid for.

(Just to say, i'm not meaning to endlessly bash Chris Cornell, i quite like the guy and he's not the only musician to do this, loads do. He's just an example)

[worm]

i don't understand. you seem to think that 'artists' and 'entertainers' can't be the same thing. it's either Godspeed My Black Emperor and Aphex Twin, or Steps and Lemar to you seemingly. the black and white, ART or ENTERTAINMENT.

Edited March 19, 2009 by worm

[worm]

You can have it both ways, as long as you're asking to be entertained by their art rather than asking for their art to be tempered to your entertainment.

[worm]

If Chris Cornell only plays the new stuff at Download, he'll get booed off stage.

[worm]

I gotta agree with salt, you're just coming off as a pretentious w@nker.

Edited March 19, 2009 by worm

[Salt_On_Everything]

seeing as you think that your points are not that hard to understand, is it hard to understand that people pay £175 to go to Download to be entertained, not as a gesture of charity to finance somebody's art project?

[worm]

seeing as you think that your points are not that hard to understand, is it hard to understand that people pay £175 to go to Download to be entertained, not as a gesture of charity to finance somebody's art project?

[Salt_On_Everything]

i'll do exactly the same. but it doesn't mean that all the bands are their to work on their 'art', i'm sure a few of them might have a slight interest in entertaining their fans too...

[worm]

i'll do exactly the same. but it doesn't mean that all the bands are their to work on their 'art', i'm sure a few of them might have a slight interest in entertaining their fans too...

[-pogo-]

What would Cornell play though?

[Bad Girl]

What would Cornell play though?

[-pogo-]

a guitar probably

[Bad Girl]

lol Obv! I was meaning electric or accoustic!

[kaosmark2]

The mainstream music business is a service industry. Of course it is.