33 Comments

I am a visual artist. Did I betray audiences (actual and potential ones) by producing some stuff that was not that adequate? I do not think so, I might have let myself down. Some of the work might have been more inspired by economic necessities (meaning, if I would not have done it I might not have fed myself and people depending on me). Artists are only too human, they have bad days, even weeks and months. They have times when they produce 'crap'. Even Picasso painted flowers on clay vases and got away with it. Some of his mass products are pretty appalling.Referring to your example of a band producing a bad second album;. Who says, it is bad? Music critics, music lovers or other audiences (the broad mass)? I think that a lot of bad albums are loved by a wider audience. Album number two (the bad one) might not be preferred by you, the informed listener, but by another group. You feel betrayed, music experts feel duped, but some guys in the pub are happily listening and singing along. Perhaps, the ‘bad album’ has even become a Karaoke hit.

Expand full comment

Hi All,

As a recordist, performer and music producer with 35yrs experience in the industry I disagree with much of this.

There is a hard, cold reality to the music biz that musicians, fueled by narcissism, fantasy and drugs, along with their fans (often fueled by at least 2 of the 3), wish to deny but is nonetheless true.

The "fans" an no more "betrayed" by a change in style than an OJ drinker is "betrayed" when Minute Maid alters it's formula, or a housewife when Tide changes the colour of their filler material (the little coloured pieces).

Music is not art. Say it with me brothers and sisters; Music is not art. Recorded music is "craft". Everyone in the industry knows this except, it seems, the musicians and their fans. Recordings are "product". Bands are fodder from which record execs, myself included, profit. That's why the majority of them come and go without much fanfare.

But some guys, the Gatekeepers as you call it, make a truckload of dosh from bands' efforts. Big outfits like Smashing Pumpkins etc are business people FIRST, musicians SECOND. But no fan ever, ever wants to hear that. So we don't tell you.

I guess the real point here is that bands and their product releases are not the right analogy for the betrayal of trust argument. There is no trust to get betrayed. It's all just bands paying off their HUGE loans to record companies, so art, not a chance. Much more like furniture manufacturing. They sell units or they'll be cross-collateralized into an obscurity where their paycheques from their post-contract gigs at the Qwicki Mart will be garnished. Or worse. Maybe mom and dad put their house up against a startup loan and now they're all living in a trailer park.

At any rate there's no betrayal between marketer and consumer. Products, generally speaking are lowest-bidder so as to achieve bottom-line profits. Consumers vote with their wallets. If you chose to hinge your emotions on products you are only "betrayed" by your own unrealistic expectations.

So, really, the betrayal of trust lies in the consumers/fan betraying themselves with their own shallow, materialistic self-interests and sense of entitlement.

Imagine hearing, "I really love 2D animation and the new Simpsons movie is mostly 3D with a toon-shader. I feel soooo betrayed." and you'll see what I mean.

Expand full comment

What Nick said, also that the employer has power over the hiring process (e.g. who gets hired) in a rough job market. Suppose that one of the day laborers (for example) has an ailing mother -- does the employer have a special duty to hire that worker (beyond the normal duties of beneficence that you might think exist) rather than some other worker, because the employer has power over the employee?

Expand full comment

Paul, In your employment example, I'm not sure I see where the source of the power comes from; presumably both parties to the transaction agree that the worker will be hired at the going wage.

I think he means that a worker generally loses much more from being fired than the employer loses from not having that worker anymore.

Expand full comment

Paul, In your employment example, I'm not sure I see where the source of the power comes from; presumably both parties to the transaction agree that the worker will be hired at the going wage. But you could surely come up with stories where power would be a reality in a workplace setting, and yes I would say that that would confer moral obligations as well.

Denis, You're right that the principle I've outlined in the post has practical limitations. My point is only that the principle is valid and deserves to receive weight.

Expand full comment

The usual deal seems to be that once an artist gets popular their original fans get upset that they don't have something special all to themselves. Metallica has claimed that is the source of "sell-out" accusations, but that's because they suck now.

Expand full comment

Richard Hollerith: that comment made my day :)

David: I think one of the things you might be ignoring is that the matching of the artist's work to your taste is not so much intentional, as it is coincidental. When the artist creates a new album with the intention of appealing to a wider audience, but claims that its essence has not been changed, it is hard to prove that the artist is not doing this in good faith. That which you think is the essence might not be the same thing that the artist thinks is the essence, and this in turn might not be the same thing as another fan thinks is the essence.

Just because the new album disappointed you - because it lost what you thought was the essence - does not mean that it disappointed everyone else who liked the previous album. It does not mean that the new album lost what they thought was the essential value to them of this artist's work.

You seem to be implying that the artist has some kind of total knowledge about exactly what kind of art will appeal to exactly what proportion of his fans - or even to which fans in particular.

If the artist had that kind of total knowledge, he could say: "If you liked my previous album, there is a 47% chance you will like this album more, a 17% chance that you will like it about the same, and a 36% chance that you will like it less. Specifically, if your favorite song on the previous album was track 10 or 12, your risk of disappointment increases by 96%. The error margin for these numbers is 1%."

The only way for the artist to have such knowledge would be to postpone the release of his new album in order to conduct expensive and thorough research so that he can discover the above knowledge and transfer it to his fans.

Are you saying that the cost of people's disappointment is so huge that artists should be required to "take responsibiity" for their fans' mental well-being, and conduct such research, and warn their fans of the findings, before releasing any new albums?

And if you think that such research would be economically efficient, and the artists don't do it, than why don't you try forming a company that will do this research on the fans' behalf, and see how many fans pay you for your services in order to avoid being disappointed?

Expand full comment

David, the problem with the big sister/little sister example is that there's a familial connection between the sisters that conventionally implies all sorts of unchosen obligations. But we can think of lots of power relationships where there isn't such an obvious intuitive obligation. Suppose I'm a boss hiring day laborers in a high-unemployment marketplace. Clearly, I have all the power, but we don't think that power as such gives me many moral obligations (other than the basic ones to refrain from invidious discrimination) or to respect the expectations of the potential workers.

Expand full comment

So, consumers need great art, and artists who can give it to them but will not are oppressors? Hmm. It occurs to me that I have been oppressed by beautiful women most of my adult life. Opressed for example by Nicole Kidman, Michelle Trachtenberg and Alyssa Milano, who clearly could be doing a lot more to provide me with transcendent experiences. Thank you for raising my consciousness.

Expand full comment

Robin, I guess I don't think so. We usually think of obligations as being somehow mutual, as would normally be the case where obligations are voluntarily entered into. But my whole point is that when circumstances give power to one side only, the obligation goes to one side only too. If you don't like the art example, what about the big sister/little sister example in my earlier comment?

Expand full comment

David, I think betrayal only makes sense in a relationship where obligations go both ways. If the artist owes it to the fans to keep making the same kind of art, then the fans have to owe something to the artist, don't they?

Expand full comment

Denis, My claim is that the various mechanisms by which you can look after your own interests in this regard are limited by the nature of the product. That doesn't mean that they're zero, just that they're limited. So we're left with a reality (if I'm right that it is indeed a reality) in which there is something important (art) over which other people will necessarily have power over you. And how that power should be used strikes me as being of some significance.

Robin, The case you describe strikes me as being a more conventional market interaction type of thing. Lots of producers end up doing their best, guessing the market wrong, and suffering for it. That's one of the bad things about capitalism, but I think most of us agree that there's little that can or should be done about it.

Expand full comment

What if the artist produces the same quality and style of music in the second album, but this time the fans don't want it, because they have moved on to some other style. Can the artist claim to have been betrayed by the fans?

Expand full comment

David: it seems to me that you are trying to justify a false sense of victimhood on behalf of the listener. The artist may have the "power" to produce something that brings you satisfaction (or not), but the consumers have the power to buy the artist's work (or not). Buying an album is a voluntary transaction, and so long as you are not being deceived, the result is fair and square. The artist is entitled to produce whatever kind of art they want, and the consumer is entitled to spend their time enjoying it, or not, and to pay for it, or not.

The artist is not entitled to make the consumer buy the art; and the consumer is not entitled to coerce the artist into producing a particular kind of art.

This being clear - I hope - the question is whether or not the artist is deceiving you. In the case of music, I think not; you generally have the option of previewing it before you buy, and if you forgo that option, you are responsible for your own costs.

A stronger case for deceit could possibly be made with movie sequels which are low-quality ripoffs of high-quality original features (Matrix 2&3, Pirates 2&3, Shrek 3). But even then - you have reviews, you have IMDB ratings, and you have experience which tells you what the chances are of the sequel being as good as the original. If you ignore the ratings and the reviews, well - again, you are responsible for your own costs.

I think you're peddling some suspicious "I deserve" mentality here. If a listener thinks he deserves good art, he should create it.

Expand full comment

Paul, There is no doubt that the listener must take some responsibility as well. Indeed, the listener must take most of the responsibility. But when the dust settles, there ends up being a power relationship, and it only cuts one way. I suppose one could take the position that power relationships of this type do not confer any obligations on the one with the power, but that is not something that I would sign onto.

Expand full comment

David,

Interesting... I'm not sure I can agree that artists have bad moral luck in that sense, if only because it seems arbitrary to impose the burden on one side rather than the other. Why doesn't the very nature of the situation impose a burden on the listeners to take some responsibility for their own tastes? Not every form of power implies an obligation -- some kinds of power are just power, and it just sucks to be the person who is the object of it.

Expand full comment