NIN quitting?

[worm]

If that was the case, surely Reznor's the sellout for turning up and taking the fat paycheque?

[beLIEveR]

Then you subscribe to the notion that the artist cannot take money for their product.

Edited August 4, 2009 by beLIEveR

[worm]

I do, however, subscribe to the notion that it's better to eat less, than to bite or spit on the hand which feeds you pudding.

Edited August 4, 2009 by worm

[saltybugger]

I want to make clear at the beginning of this that I'm a NIN fan (recently converted so not knowing their material inside out) and enjoyed their performance.

But if Trent seriously chose to play that kind of set to alienate a large part of the audience, that is not something to be applauded. Lots of people were at the Apollo stage mainly to get a good position for Metallica but there was plenty of goodwill towards NIN going round.

The argument that they've been playing a subdued set list all tour doesn't work either. Yes it hasn't just been a greatest hits collection but there have been plenty of faster/heavier songs. A couple more of those and the set would've come across a lot better in all likelihood.

Also, playing a shortened set and barely interacting with the audience is hardly the best way to wave goodbye to your fans in a country. If they didn't really want to play at Sonisphere, they should never have agreed to it in the first place.

Despite all this it was a good performance, just not the great one it could've been.

Also, Metallica are gods and consistently put in great performances, simple as that.

[worm]

But if Trent seriously chose to play that kind of set to alienate a large part of the audience, that is not something to be applauded.

Edited August 4, 2009 by worm

[beLIEveR]

I'm with worm about Metallica. They're a decent metal act, but barring the occasional new song they've played the exact same set for the last ten years. They certainly weren't as good as Anthrax.

I would debate Trent Reznor further, but the statement "he's too far up his own arse for my liking, but undeniably one of the best composers around" sums up my opinion of him. The fact that NIN are awesome doesn't make him any less of an elitist c**t.

[saltybugger]

I disagree. It's called dissonance and is what rock music and art is all about. More importantly, it's what Reznor has always been about. That is, to challenge conceptions.

But everyone who even has a passing knowledge of NIN realises that they have a very introspective, "soft" (for lack of a better term) side. Equally they have several other sides. As far as I'm concerned what is supposed to be their final performance in a country should reflect that. It isn't the time for trying to annoy the audience - that's not art, it's immaturity.

Ironically, not applauding it is exactly what he'd be after. It's great that you feel you can speak for him like this But there you go; people expect their brand of rock, which according to Hetfield 'Metallica cater for'. Oh joy! Brand Metallica - 'studies reveal that 8/10 rockers prefer Metallica to other rock bands'.

Suggesting that people only like Metallica because of their image is ridiculous - Some Kind Of Monster alone is enough to destroy the image of Metallica as simple red-blooded male metal, yet Metallica continue to be hugely popular (notably with a wide demographic) BECAUSE OF THE MUSIC. If it can be claimed that Metallica are nothing more than a brand who callously create a certain image the same could be said about Trent Reznor, which is an idea I'm sure we both disagree with.

[kipper64]

I'm with worm about Metallica. They're a decent metal act, but barring the occasional new song they've played the exact same set for the last ten years. They certainly weren't as good as Anthrax.

I would debate Trent Reznor further, but the statement "he's too far up his own arse for my liking, but undeniably one of the best composers around" sums up my opinion of him. The fact that NIN are awesome doesn't make him any less of an elitist c**t.

[saltybugger]

I'm with worm about Metallica. They're a decent metal act, but barring the occasional new song they've played the exact same set for the last ten years.

[worm]

''It's great that you feel you can speak for him like this''

I said 'exactly what he'd be after'. 'He would' implies a context. The context was given hypthotically as 'challenging conceptions', which was said as a conclusion in the former paragraph. I'd suggest a better understanding of English convention for future reference.

In my whole hearted opinion, Reznor was entirely indifferent/ambivelant. Being a genuine artist rather than two-bit band, he will understand that you can't be connosant or dissonant in relation to your consumers, only ambivalent. This isn't a problem for corporate whores. You just establish a brand and appeal to the audience and its expectations. In other words, suck satans cock.

There is no comparison between Metallica and NIN. None whatsoever. Due to the above. Reznor, perhaps inadvertendly, made that clear on Sunday evening.

Edited August 4, 2009 by worm

[worm]

I'm with worm about Metallica. They're a decent metal act, but barring the occasional new song they've played the exact same set for the last ten years. They certainly weren't as good as Anthrax.

Edited August 4, 2009 by worm

[saltybugger]

''It's great that you feel you can speak for him like this''

I said 'exactly what he'd be after'. 'He would' implies a context. The context was given hypthotically as 'challenging conceptions', which was said as a conclusion in the former paragraph. I'd suggest a better understanding of English convention for future reference. You know exactly what I meant - the cultic nature of NIN may give them a great, devoted fan base but it also seems to lead to some frankly disturbing pseudo-religious nonsense with Trent as some kind of deity. Which seems strange for a person who wrote Heresy.

In my whole hearted opinion, Reznor was entirely indifferent/ambivelant. Being a genuine artist rather than two-bit band, he will understand that you can't be connosant or dissonant in relation to your consumers, only ambivalent Despite your earlier comment that "it's called dissonance"? Also, the correct term is fans not consumers - on the surface the decision to use the former term may sound like some desperate appeal to something higher - but then again much great music is created which when dissected into it's constituent parts could be called formulaic yet most people accept that there is something which takes it to a different level - equally there is something higher about "consuming" music. This isn't a problem for corporate whores. You just establish a brand and appeal to the audience and its expectations. And it is arguable that Trent has done this himself - I mean there are plenty of familiar themes in their albums. I don't agree, but it is an argument that could be made. Is it so hard to accept that Metallica have generally made the music they wanted to over the years? I still don't get what's wrong with trying to please your fans either, provided an artist/band doesn't do it at the expense of their integrity.

There is no comparison between Metallica and NIN. None whatsoever. Due to the above. Except that they have both made great music and are both great live bands.

[worm]

'You know exactly what I meant - the cultic nature of NIN may give them a great, devoted fan base but it also seems to lead to some frankly disturbing pseudo-religious nonsense with Trent as some kind of deity. Which seems strange for a person who wrote Heresy.'

Edited August 4, 2009 by worm

[saltybugger]

No I don't know what you meant. I only know what you said. And I know nothing of any 'cultic nature' or 'disturbing pseudo-religious nonsense' associated with a 'devoted' NIN 'fan'. It just sounds like a load of unnecessary and dismissive stereotypical bollocks to me. being "cultic" itself is not a bad thing - but it can bring such things on. It is generally accepted that NIN have a particularly devoted fan base - I am arguing that an abnormally high proportion of this fan base will not accept bad things being said about them and see Trent as an unquestionable authority. Hence why I don't go near the NIN forums. I accept that on this I may very well be wrong but I cannot entirely deny the impressions I have formed.

Yes. It's called dissonance. And yes, despite my earlier comment. You may set out to be dissonant, but you will result in consonance. This means that you must be eternally ambivalent or indifferent if you are to hold dear any sense of dissonance. This is a vacuous argument (see below). Besides, if Trent was truly ambivalent he would have no followers. He certainly wouldn't have brought Gary Numan on stage with him.

No, the term is consumer as fanatic is simply a response to the consumption of something. Consumer incorporates rational people as well as the over-exuberant. The rest of what you say is indiscernable.

No more (in my opinion less - I may have been somewhat ambiguous but at least I didn't introduce a logical absurdity) indiscernible than saying that to be dissonant you must be ambivalent - ambivalence and dissonance are fundamentally different. Neutrality is not the same as disagreement and is actually far further apart from it than agreement.

Removing the negative associations the word consumer has I would accept that it is a reasonable term to use in this context, but unfortunately these make it a poor term to choose.

It's not an argument I'd be interested in as I'd find it laughable.

As I said it's not something that I agree with. But logically it is an argument that uses a similar line of reasoning.

I disagree. Well there isn't much I can say about this.

[r0w]

more importantly...where the f**k has Trent Reznor's neck gone? He looks like a bulldog nowadays, when did this happen?

[beLIEveR]

When an artist gives in to the demand of the consumer he no longer produces art.

And if we are to call art pretentiousness then I'm not boarding the train.

[edgar]

more importantly...where the f**k has Trent Reznor's neck gone? He looks like a bulldog nowadays, when did this happen?

[worm]

I'm not calling the music pretentious, simply the man.

[worm]

being "cultic" itself is not a bad thing - but it can bring such things on. It is generally accepted that NIN have a particularly devoted fan base - I am arguing that an abnormally high proportion of this fan base will not accept bad things being said about them and see Trent as an unquestionable authority. Hence why I don't go near the NIN forums. I accept that on this I may very well be wrong but I cannot entirely deny the impressions I have formed.

[saltybugger]

Ambilvelant (in relation to the above) - to want to achieve something and realise you can't in the same action

[worm]

Personally I wouldn't use that definition of ambivalence. If anything, ambivalence would require both consonance and disonance in this context - what you define it as is closer to accepting defeat in an endevour. Ambivalence is emotional, not observational, and yet to realise you can't do something is observational in itself, even though there are always likely to be emotions (often conflicting, and therefore ambivalent) that stem from this. Therefore, in this instance, ambivalence would be an emotional response to what you define it as, not the thing itself. It is therefore distinct and your definition is, at best, tenuous.

Edited August 5, 2009 by worm

[saltybugger]

That's seeing the artist as a producer and not a consumer. The artist also consumes so that he/she may produce. The artist must be ambivalent towards what they see (i.e. hate consonant culture, yet realise they are part of it) and ambivalent towards how they present something. Ambivalence has at its very core a goal that can never be fulfilled.

As to your interpretation, how can you have an emotion without the observation of stimuli?

[beLIEveR]

What is a festival set? A set that pleases the majority of a festival crowd?

[worm]

''What is a festival set? A set that pleases the majority of a festival crowd?''

Yes.

But regardless of people's interpretations of it, it wasn't a festival set.

[worm]

You can't (well arguably you could due to the lack of stimuli) but that doesn't mean that the emotion and the observation are the same.

Edited August 5, 2009 by worm