From: Uucp@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.music.filk
Subject: Clarifications
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992
Date: 11 Nov 92  06:39:01

From  ucivax!heifetz.msen.com!dgsi!puck!markb
From: markb@puck (Mark Bernstein)
To:   filk@ofa123.fidonet.org
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 08:33:21 EST


William.Hughes@f255.n387.z1.fidonet.org wrote:
: 
: Mike.Liebmann@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org wrote:
: : They'll never learn about the new people who could make a big
: : "splash" on filking. It's their loss.

I've kept this line from Mike's original posting because it's relevant
later.  Please bear with me.

: MB: Mike, would you care to be more specific?  As in, can you *justify*
: MB: a nasty phrase like "think they're better than the rest of us"?
: 
: Certainly -- your reply to Mike, quoted herein.

I think there's been a communication failure here.  Let's see if I can
clarify things a little.

First and most important, I think we're talking about two different things.
You're addressing people who, through put-downs or other measures,
actively discourage people from performing.  I agree completely that this
is obnoxious behavior.  

What I was talking about, in response to Mike's statement above, was
the criticism of those who simply choose, for whatever reason, not to go
to the big sing.  Perhaps some believe that this in itself is a statement
that the people at the big sing aren't worth listening to, but I view that
as a false belief, certainly regarding the "name" performers I know.
: 
: Please note that the "name" performers
: are usually very nice, but the "performance" filkers (of which there are
: more than "names") have been almost uniformly snobbish. In my
: experience. 

I'm not sure I understand the distinction.  How do you tell a "name" from
a "performance filker"?  In any case, I'm sorry our experiences have been
so different.  

: (remember them? They're called 'listeners', sometimes
: 'customers') 

I can't agree with this as stated.  "Listeners", of course, but they're 
not "customers" to me unless I'm a paid guest of the con, in which case
my obligation level immediately goes way up, since their membership
money is paying my way.  If I'm at the con on my own ticket, however, I
assume those who don't sing are there because they enjoy listening, and
while I like performing for them, I don't believe they have the right to
tell me which sing to be at, or when.
: 
: Every single time. It's been my experience that, if you are not known as
: a performer (not necessarily a "name"), you may as well go look at the
: art show; the "filkers" are not interested in listening to you.
: 
Ouch.  May I ask what part of the country you're from, and what cons you
attended?  I do believe you.  I'm just curious as to where these atrocities
are taking place.

: The one time I stood up to present a 'filk' (a minor rewrite
: of an old and little known military song), I was literally booed out of
: the room. I found out later that it was because the 'quality' of my
: presentation was not up to the snobs' "standards". I have never sung in
: public since.

Good God!  Where did this happen, and when?  (I won't ask who.)  (No, I 
am *not* being sarcastic, I swear.  I find this genuinely appalling.  In
almost 18 years of filking, I have *never* heard anyone booed, except when
it was the expected response to a pun.)
: 
: MB: PERFORMERS DON'T OWE THE AUDIENCE ANYTHING.
: 
: The obvious corollary is that the audience doesn't owe the performer
: anything, either.
: 
Absolutely, 100% correct.  The way I see it, the performer gets the pleasure
of performing, and (hopefully) some applause.  The audience gets (hopefully)
the pleasure of listening to the performance.  Seems like a fair trade to
me.  Am I missing something?

: MB: The fact that someone is a "name" performer does not saddle them
: MB: with any obligation as to when, where, and what they perform, or to
: MB: hear everyone else.
: 
: "Sit down and shut up -- I don't care to listen to you".
: 
That is *not* what I said.  What's more, I have never said anything even
remotely resembling that, and never will or would.  I believe, have always
believed, and always will believe, that anyone who has the guts to perform
at an open sing should be listened to politely by the people at that sing.
At minimum, I would also say that a little applause would be polite, even
if you didn't like the performance or the song.

What I object to is anyone telling me that the big sing is the only one I
have the right to attend, or that I *must* be at that sing all night.

: MB: It could be said that they owe it to *themselves* to make the best
: MB: honest effort they can to play and sing well, but that's about it.
: 
: They can do that in front of a mirror at home. Cross-reference
: "conceit".

OK, perhaps a little clarification is in order here.  As I've said before,
I've been giving workshops in beginning voice and performance at cons for
a few years now.  What I find, every single time, is people who are afraid
to perform because they're worried about what the audience will think of
them.  My response (and I welcome opposing viewpoints, especially from
anyone who has ever performed anything) is that if you perform only to get
egoboo from the audience, you're likely to be forever frozen by that fear.
Those who perform consistently do so for the sheer pleasure of performing,
and will continue to do so whether they have an appreciative audience or
not.  If no one likes what they do, they're likely to continue singing by
themselves at home.  They perform because they love to, sometimes because
they have to or burst.  Why do you think people sing it the shower?  To
amuse the soap?

So why have an audience?  Because hearing that applause is a rush.  
Because there is genuine pleasure to be found in
knowing that you've moved a room full of people to laughter or tears.
Because when it works, *everybody* benefits and nobody loses.  Yes, the
audience is important.  The distinction I'm trying to make here is that
a performer cannot make audience reaction the primary motivation, because
then a poor audience reaction becomes too devastating.

I'll ask for clarification in return.  What do you think the performer owes
to the audience, and why?

: 
: Of course, the judgemental tone of _your_ posting is irrelevant, right?

If I've given that impression, I apologize.  Could you tell me what I
wrote that you found judgemental?  Specifically, as in quoting the
offending paragraph? 
: 
: And those of us who, for whatever reason, don't care to become
: "performers", but would rather just sing with friends are told not to
: bother -- if you don't "perform", shut up.

I'm sorry you've been told that.  I don't think anyone should be subjected
to that sort of abuse.  (*Constructive* criticism to someone who *asks* for
it is another matter entirely.)

Going back to the quote from Mike, I got the impression that he was talking
about those people who *are* interested in performing, who he felt weren't
being given a proper hearing, and that's what shaped my posting.  
(Mike, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
: 
: MB: and the one thing I stress more than
: MB: anything else is the need to practice.
: 
: "If you want to participate, you _must_ perform, and you must do so TO
: MY STANDARDS."
: 
Again, not even remotely what I said.  See above.  This was a side comment,
not really on the topic at hand, and I probably shouldn't have included it
in this particular discussion.

Mark Bernstein
markb@cimage.com


--- Squish v1.01