Anyone have problems with actors using their fame

[Dante]

Pitt was hysterical in Snatch. The dude has talent.

724657[/snapback]

Even though you could barely understand a word he was saying it was still great.

[Kelly the Dog]

Even though you could barely understand a word he was saying it was still great.

724658[/snapback]

Hardly understand a word anyone was saying.

[KD in CA]

Ummmm... Hotel California is his political views.  Better hope he doesn't play "The Last Resort" you may have to leave the show.

724656[/snapback]

 

 

But I thought he was just singing about some girl from Providence.....

 

 

[Hollywood Donahoe]

Two, how could you not know the politics or political leanings of an artist you enjoy?

Easy, if said artist(s) doesn't air political beliefs.

[IDBillzFan]

BTW imho Pitts best flicks, at least in terms of his acting ability, are "Kalifornia" and "Snatch".

724646[/snapback]

I was on the "he's just a prettyboy crappy actor" team until I watched "Sleepers" and "Twelve Monkeys."

[Johnny Coli]

I paid my money to see him perform Hotel California, not to have to hear his political views, thats what I have a problem with.

 

That ticket i purchased was not for a political rally, it was for a concert to hear them play their music. Why do they feel that I should have to hear how they don't support x or Y or they dislike this political leader. Just shut up and do what your paid to do and play your music.

 

Just because your a celebrity, it doesn't mean that I care about your political views or want to know exactly what you believe in when I have payed my hard earned money to see you play your music.

724634[/snapback]

"Shut up and do your art" is not a valid position to take, as it is censorship.

[Dan Gross]

I paid my money to see him perform Hotel California, not to have to hear his political views, thats what I have a problem with.

 

That ticket i purchased was not for a political rally, it was for a concert to hear them play their music. Why do they feel that I should have to hear how they don't support x or Y or they dislike this political leader. Just shut up and do what your paid to do and play your music.

 

Just because your a celebrity, it doesn't mean that I care about your political views or want to know exactly what you believe in when I have payed my hard earned money to see you play your music.

724634[/snapback]

 

The thing about Henley, as a good example, is that their world-view is evident in their song-writing. Are you saying you paid $50 for him to sing "Heart of the Matter" and "Not Enough Love In the World," and only if he won't sing "Dirty Laundry," "Building the Perfect Beast," "Johnny Can't Read," "Little Tin God," etc...?

[IDBillzFan]

The thing about Henley, as a good example, is that their world-view is evident in their song-writing.  Are you saying you paid $50 for him to sing "Heart of the Matter" and "Not Enough Love In the World," and only if he won't sing "Dirty Laundry," "Building the Perfect Beast," "Johnny Can't Read," "Little Tin God," etc...?

724677[/snapback]

I believe "Get Over It" is one of the great opening tracks on an album. Not so much a political song, but they really opened that album up right.

[RuntheDamnBall]

The thing about Henley, as a good example, is that their world-view is evident in their song-writing.  Are you saying you paid $50 for him to sing "Heart of the Matter" and "Not Enough Love In the World," and only if he won't sing "Dirty Laundry," "Building the Perfect Beast," "Johnny Can't Read," "Little Tin God," etc...?

724677[/snapback]

Could I pay $50 to be guaranteed never to hear any of those songs again?

[apuszczalowski]

Well seeing as I don't care about Don Henley and the Eagles, I could care less about it having political undertones. I only used him as an example

 

If the song has political undertones, thats fine with me, I just am not paying my money to then hear him go on after he plays the song to state his views and try to pass it on to others, I came to the show to hear you play your music, not to hear you spout off about the government or whatever you believe in.

 

Another example I will use would be Pearl Jam (I didn't actually see the show because I hate Pearl Jam). I believe it was last year when they came to Toronto and fans were pissed because he spent part of the concert whining and complaining about Bush and bitching about the government. I neither support or am against Bush, but when I go to see a concert, I don't want to have to listen to the band whine and complain about political issues, I want to hear them play their music, that is it.

[Dante]

I was on the "he's just a prettyboy crappy actor" team until I watched "Sleepers" and "Twelve Monkeys."

724674[/snapback]

Really, he has to be one of the most underated actors out there. People focus on the pretty boy idol thing and his private tabloid life. Tends to overshadow the guys talent. Most overated, again in my uneducated personal opinion, Al Pacino. Likes to overact. jmho

[Taro T]

"Shut up and do your art" is not a valid position to take, as it is censorship.

724675[/snapback]

So someone that is paying money to someone else to perform a service can't expect the provider to perform that service in a non-annoying manner? Telling someone that I will take your money but do whatever I darn well please and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it, isn't what I would consider a more valid position.

 

As long as the service provider is up-front about what they will be providing (saying / doing), then yeah, the performer should be able to go on their little rant. If they aren't though, then the CUSTOMER should have a course to redress their grievance.

 

Don Henley was a poor example, because his political views are well known and he can be expected to go off on a rant on occasion on stage. The people buying tickets to see his show are aware of this (or should be, if they are interested enough in him to actually want to see him perform live). The same could be said for Babs, Lee Greenwood, and a host of others. You know what you are getting for your money. If it is still worth the price, go see the "artist", otherwise, stay home and save your money.

 

The Dixie Chicks was a whole different issue, in my book. The people that went to see them more or less got broadsided with the "I'm so embarrassed that the President is from Texas, etc., etc., etc.". They had a right and reason to be ticked, as they paid money expecting to see the girls "sing" and received something totally different. I'd expect an audience of the NAACP to be ticked, and would agree that they should be ticked, if a performer stopped in the middle of a performance unannounced and said "that David Duke is a swell guy and y'all just misunderstand him".

 

I do not agree with you that paying someone to do one thing and then having them do something totally different is "censorship". The government has no business censoring "artists" or others. We are in agreement on that count. However, if an individual wants to avoid paying someone to do something they don't want them to do, they should have that right.

 

If I don't like someone's views or actions enough that I don't want to pay to see them perform, I have the right to keep my money.

 

Also, if I think I am paying someone to perform something, whether it be a concert, a play, a recital, or whatever because that is what they have advertised; then I should be able to see that and not have a bait and switch pulled. If I go to a Gallagher show and get splashed with watermelon, it's my own darn fault. If I go to see the London Philharmonic, I'm going to be peeved if I get splashed with watermelon. It's not something they are known for doing, nor have they advertised that they would be doing something like that.

 

The "artists" spouting off about whatever, have their right in this country to do it if they so please. But they don't have the "right" to force me to listen to it. Especially not if I have paid money for the "priviledge" of hearing their idiotic rant and their was no indication when the transaction was made that they would be going off on an annoying idiotic rant.

[ajzepp]

I was on the "he's just a prettyboy crappy actor" team until I watched "Sleepers" and "Twelve Monkeys."

724674[/snapback]

 

Wow, I totally forgot about 12 Monkeys.....Pitt was amazing in that. I really liked him in Fight Club too, although I hated the ending.

[Johnny Coli]

So someone that is paying money to someone else to perform a service can't expect the provider to perform that service in a non-annoying manner?  Telling someone that I will take your money but do whatever I darn well please and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it, isn't what I would consider a more valid position.

This isn't "service." You are paying to see the artist. That you expect one thing, but see something else doesn't mean you didn't get to see the artist peform. What if the artist came out onto the stage and read his/her lyrics into the mike? What if they didn't play the song you came to see? The artist isn't required to conform to what you want. Forcing him/her to shut up and play only their material is censorship. If you only want to hear the songs, don't go.

 

As long as the service provider is up-front about what they will be providing (saying / doing), then yeah, the performer should be able to go on their little rant.  If they aren't though, then the CUSTOMER should have a course to redress their grievance.

Show me any musical artist that tells the fans before the show, on the ticket, etc. exactly what songs they are going to perform (clearly a classical performance or a known play falls in this category, but the posters in this thread are arguing about musical groups). I'm sure there are exceptions, but it's certainly not the norm. What types of changes should they be allowed to make? Is there some acceptable level of leeway that you would be okay with, before they crossed your line as to what is acceptable?

 

Don Henley was a poor example, because his political views are well known and he can be expected to go off on a rant on occasion on stage.  The people buying tickets to see his show are aware of this (or should be, if they are interested enough in him to actually want to see him perform live).  The same could be said for Babs, Lee Greenwood, and a host of others.  You know what you are getting for your money.  If it is still worth the price, go see the "artist", otherwise, stay home and save your money.

So it's okay for some artists but not others. At what point in an artists carreer is it okay to cross your imaginary line of acceptability...the line where they don't have to do what you want? We are talking free speech right? At what point do they earn the right to deviate from your expectations?

 

The Dixie Chicks was a whole different issue, in my book.  The people that went to see them more or less got broadsided with the "I'm so embarrassed that the President is from Texas, etc., etc., etc.".  They had a right and reason to be ticked, as they paid money expecting to see the girls "sing" and received something totally different.  I'd expect an audience of the NAACP to be ticked, and would agree that they should be ticked, if a performer stopped in the middle of a performance unannounced and said "that David Duke is a swell guy and y'all just misunderstand him".

I believe they made that statement at a show in London. The outrage was from people who weren't even at the show. So, according to your rules, an artist isn't allowed to excercize free speech even when you aren't even there.

 

I do not agree with you that paying someone to do one thing and then having them do something totally different is "censorship".  The government has no business censoring "artists" or others.  We are in agreement on that count.  However, if an individual wants to avoid paying someone to do something they don't want them to do, they should have that right.

They have the right to speak their mind, and you have the right not to go see it.

 

If I don't like someone's views or actions enough that I don't want to pay to see them perform, I have the right to keep my money.

Bingo.

 

Also, if I think I am paying someone to perform something, whether it be a concert, a play, a recital, or whatever because that is what they have advertised; then I should be able to see that and not have a bait and switch pulled.  If I go to a Gallagher show and get splashed with watermelon, it's my own darn fault.  If I go to see the London Philharmonic, I'm going to be peeved if I get splashed with watermelon.  It's not something they are known for doing, nor have they advertised that they would be doing something like that.

We're talking about a sentence or two between songs.

 

The "artists" spouting off about whatever, have their right in this country to do it if they so please.  But they don't have the "right" to force me to listen to it.  Especially not if I have paid money for the "priviledge" of hearing their idiotic rant and their was no indication when the transaction was made that they would be going off on an annoying idiotic rant.

724815[/snapback]

They absolutely have the right to say whatever they want from the stage as long as what they are saying isn't against the law. It's free speech. The fact that you paid money to see them doesn't eliminate that right. It also doesn't give you the power to tell them what they can or can't do, or what will be acceptable to you. It's political free seech. The fact that you find it uncomfortable, or don't want to hear it doesn't mean they can't open their mouths between songs. Stipulating what an artist can and can't say during a performance is censorship.

[Dan Gross]

The "artists" spouting off about whatever, have their right in this country to do it if they so please.  But they don't have the "right" to force me to listen to it.  Especially not if I have paid money for the "priviledge" of hearing their idiotic rant and their was no indication when the transaction was made that they would be going off on an annoying idiotic rant.

724815[/snapback]

 

"Dance little monkey dance."

 

Where is the line in the fine print on the ticket that says "performer is guaranteed not to say anything you don't like...."? Who is the person to judge what it is that a performer is allowed or not allowed to say on stage, and under what circumstances they are allowed or not allowed to say it? Is it you? Is it the person standing next to you? Is a male performer not allowed to say "I love you all" because you're male and a homophobe?

 

Did the Dixie Chicks not sing during their performance, instead spending their two hours on stage making a political protest? Did I miss the part where no one allowed to boo or walk out during their "idiotic rant?"

 

That you seem to say that words have the same lasting power as watermelon stains on your best clothes says a lot...

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

They absolutely have the right to say whatever they want from the stage as long as what they are saying isn't against the law.  It's free speech.  The fact that you paid money to see them doesn't eliminate that right.  It also doesn't give you the power to tell them what they can or can't do, or what will be acceptable to you.  It's political free seech.  The fact that you find it uncomfortable, or don't want to hear it doesn't mean they can't open their mouths between songs.  Stipulating what an artist can and can't say during a performance is censorship.

724855[/snapback]

 

But - and this is a key point here - choosing not to go is NOT censorship.

 

But even so...honestly, if I'd paid for a concert and got a fifteen-minute PSA for the Republican Party, I'd feel pretty ripped off.

[RuntheDamnBall]

But - and this is a key point here - choosing not to go is NOT censorship. 

 

But even so...honestly, if I'd paid for a concert and got a fifteen-minute PSA for the Republican Party, I'd feel pretty ripped off.

724864[/snapback]

But it would be censorship if, for example, a pre-approved list of songs and topics from the record company was handed down to the artist.

 

As for your example, you probably wouldn't go again, and they wouldn't get any more of your money.

 

The "Dance, Monkey, Dance," line is pretty right on in terms of the opinion of those angry about onstage politics. In our day and age, the performer can do as he/she wishes, and if the audience doesn't like it, they can refuse to support the artist any longer. I also think that with a lot of groups, politics or social agendas inform a lot of what they write, even if it is not transparent -- and usually it is better and reaches more people if it isn't, if it's poetic. R.E.M. especially comes to mind here, but Flaming Lips, a lot of other bands use poetry, allegory, veil the topic in goofiness etc. to make larger points about the world around them, even if it doesn't appear to be the case from a literal reading.

[Kelly the Dog]

But - and this is a key point here - choosing not to go is NOT censorship. 

 

But even so...honestly, if I'd paid for a concert and got a fifteen-minute PSA for the Republican Party, I'd feel pretty ripped off.

724864[/snapback]

This is just such a stupid argument I cannot believe it is going on (not from you, from anyone). Would people be outraged on here, or anywhere, if the Dixie Chicks said, "We're from Texas and we love our President and we hate the French just like you people!" and then played their next song? No. It's only a problem because some people didn't like that one specific political view from one outspoken bandmember, and that's it.

[ajzepp]

But - and this is a key point here - choosing not to go is NOT censorship. 

 

But even so...honestly, if I'd paid for a concert and got a fifteen-minute PSA for the Republican Party, I'd feel pretty ripped off.

724864[/snapback]

 

Exactly....and that's why it bothers me, too. While I don't subscribe to the idea that actors, musicians, or athletes OWE their success to the fans, I do think showing respect for your audience is a good thing. If I go to a concert, I have the most important thing in common with just about everyone else at the show - we all enjoy that particular performer. If you start using the performace as a platform for your political agenda, you run the risk of alienating a percentage of your fan base. Sure it's their right....it's just not cool, IMO.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

In our day and age, the performer can do as he/she wishes, and if the audience doesn't like it, they can refuse to support the artist any longer. 

724871[/snapback]

 

Except that in our day and age, that's not how it is. Audiences think and act like they own a performer, and that rather than having the right to vote with their feet and avoid opinions, they have the right to dicate what they do and do not want to hear.