# The b!tchiness of fans and groupies. . .



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thinking of this thread, and all the animosity on it -
http://www.talkclassical.com/21051-your-vote-mozart-vs.html

Do you think that 'fans' and 'groupies' of all kinds can be more sectarian and eager to fight than the creative artists themselves? I'm talking not only about fans of classical composers, but also of anything from a particular novelist or director, or rock group, etc.

Some people see these things like some political ideology or a religion. Its like you have to conform to some dogma, build a shrine, tow some party line, and if you don't do that, you're out in the cold.

Many of these discussions online - not only of music, but of the most trivial things on eg. facebook - can turn ugly. People, even with (maybe especially with) high level of education, can descend to the level of a pack of dogs.

& about a side issue, the oft-mentioned 'objectivity.' Well, do you think that fans, who are maybe too close for comfort, too involved with their 'idol,' do you think they can be objective as they claim? I mean, would you trust a historian who is of a certain political party to write a 'balanced' book about a politician of the same party? Is it going to aim for some 'objectivity' or will it be public relations spin and a hagiography? What about whitewash and putting things under the carpet? The 'Elephant in the Room' syndrome? I see that often around this forum, I can tell you (as well as in the writing of 'bad' history - well, falsified history, corrupted by hidden agendas).

Then there's the good ol' http://www.talkclassical.com/21077-idealization-denigration-dynamic.html!

Just seeking an open discussion, not only about music, re these issues. . .


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*At the risk of being a little over-glib...*



Sid James said:


> *The b!tchiness of fans and groupies. . .*


I'd assert that there's plenty of "b!tchiness" on the part of anti-fans and haters. . .

I understand that there's a "chicken or egg" dilemma in working out the genesis- but we have to understand that _it goes both ways_.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Yawn. 

*circles around, curls up into a tight ball, and falls asleep*


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

Is there a group for hating groupies? I want to be in that one.


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Hey what why?!?!?!


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Do you think that 'fans' and 'groupies' of all kinds can be more sectarian and eager to fight than the creative artists themselves? I'm talking not only about fans of classical composers, but also of anything from a particular novelist or director, or rock group, etc.


Beyond doubt.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

Now for a serious response to the main question:



> Do you think that 'fans' and 'groupies' of all kinds can be more sectarian and eager to fight than the creative artists themselves?


I would say that it's not necessarily that fans are more eager to fight, but that they fight in different ways. If you have a little think about the lives of artists, you shouldn't find it too hard to think of some spats - two that come immediately to my mind are a bitter exchange between Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer on television, and a written exchange between Salman Rushdie and John le Carré with commentary by Christopher Hitchens. These wouldn't exactly have abided by the Talk Classical forum rules either; Mailer essentially insulted everyone's intelligence, and Rushdie called Carré a pompous *** while Hitchens added "John le Carré's conduct ... is like nothing so much as that of a man who, having relieved himself in his own hat, makes haste to clamp the brimming chapeau on his head." I'm sure there are plenty of examples in music history as well (the so-called war of the romantics is one), those just aren't as fresh in my memory.

That kind of blatant (if stylised) _ad hominem_ doesn't separate such artists from the behaviour of fans by much, but I think there are still distinctions to be made. The major one I would suggest is that the fan's rabid ravings tend to be founded on an emotional attachment to the work in question while the artist's may be more of an intellectual and philosophical defence of the work's purpose ("I love the sound of the Tristan chord" versus "Music should be about the extension of tonality"). The line isn't clear and the distinction not clear-cut - of course there are many art-fans who advocate particular artworks because of their philosophical underpinnings (although I would venture that this variety of art consumer is less likely to get involved in obviously sectarian mud-slinging) - but it would help explain why so many arguments go nowhere and eventually devolve into insults: rather than being about the actual purpose and influence of an artwork, fans and groupies more often use a thin veneer of rationalisation to simply demand that the world _loves_ just as they love, but love is inexplicable and cannot be forced.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I'd assert that there's plenty of "b!tchiness" on the part of anti-fans and haters. . .
> 
> I understand that there's a "chicken or egg" dilemma in working out the genesis- but we have to understand that _it goes both ways_.


Yep, when I came to this forum, I don't remember hating some things that I've learnt to hate now. & its sad. It speaks to how it does go both ways. But basically, since with online discussions we get 'the good the bad and the ugly,' well we get exposed to things that maybe we'd be better off not getting exposed to. Its not an academic journal. Its 'real' people with 'real' opinions. Some more balanced, some not, some doing extreme 'groupie' things like I mentioned. So with me, reading these people's opinions (not only here but ocassionally other places), its not some intellectual construct, so you engage with it. Sometimes, go in too deep. And s*** hits the fan.



Couchie said:


> Yawn.
> 
> *circles around, curls up into a tight ball, and falls asleep*


Well the point is that you'd do a hagiography of Wagner (or with that emphasis). I'd do a muck racking book on him. So neither of us would be good for that. Too emotionally involved, too passionately for or against. Too much information and not enough. Two extremes in other words.



Mephistopheles said:


> ...The line isn't clear and the distinction not clear-cut - of course there are many art-fans who advocate particular artworks because of their philosophical underpinnings (although I would venture that this variety of art consumer is less likely to get involved in obviously sectarian mud-slinging) - ...


Yes, obviously if one is an expert (eg. musicologist) on a certain composer or era, you will be passionate about that area. Objectivity though is perhaps not attainable, but an ideal. The way I see it is that you lay your bias on the table. If there is a consensus, you say its there. You can go against it, but a good writer will openly admit that. Eg. admit the limitations of their own viewpoint. & maybe just leave the reader to decide what they think.

But to give an example, Tchaikovsky's first biographer was his brother Modeste. So when studying Modeste's writings on his brother, one has to take it in with a grain of salt, so to speak.



> ...but it would help explain why so many arguments go nowhere and eventually devolve into insults: rather than being about the actual purpose and influence of an artwork, fans and groupies more often use a thin veneer of rationalisation to simply demand that the world _loves_ just as they love, but love is inexplicable and cannot be forced.


Yes, I think its sometimes not necessary to kind of 'box' everything into some rational explanation. Or ideology. Some things have no explanation, or have different explanations. Esp. in subjective areas like the arts. So often I just speak about my emotions, I think that's okay. But I think that being 'too close for comfort' to something can kind of let 'smoke get in your eyes' to coin the titles of two old songs.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Hating on forums about sports is much worse than on those about music (of any kind), movies or the arts. I guess that's mainly because music, movies, literature, etc are not exact sciences. If I say that Y is a better composer than Z people may think I'm an idiot, but they can't prove I'm wrong. It's all a matter of opinion - some better informed and/or more valid than others, but nevertheless just opinion. But on sports forums people tend to be more frustrated because they basically haven't got a leg to stand on if someone they hate happens to win. Nobody can argue against the greatness of, say, Tiger, Federer, Messi or Mayweather. They can only not like them and be frustrated whenever they beat up on their faves, and that usually leads to lots of namecalling, insults and trash talk.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^What you're saying about sports, the passion of some fans there, makes me relate it to music. I mean we all know the riots caused by _The Rite of Spring_ or works by the Viennese atonalists (100 years ago, just about!). It seems that that sort of passion regarding music - well, classical music - its vanished. I'm not attaching anything to that, its just a thought. Other than maybe the passion that caused those riots at premieres - i mean 30 broken arms/limbs at the premiere of _Le Sacre _- its maybe been transferred to the internet. So you don't get noses out of joint or broken bones literally, but you can get a hell of a lot of vitriol and anger (trolling, etc.) online. & with an invisible opponent, cloaked in anonymity, you get people saying things they'd think twice about in real life situations.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

I'm going to start a thread: "The b!tchiness of the lukewarm at fans and groupies.."


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

That's not what I do, is it, 'Dre? It is, after all, common knowledge that Glenn has no equal, isn't it?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> I'm going to start a thread: "The b!tchiness of the lukewarm at fans and groupies.."


Then do it. Or better still, set up a forum where 'non' lukewarm people can nicely and intelligently tear eachother apart.

What a fun place that would be.

Not.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Then do it. Or better still, set up a forum where 'non' lukewarm people can nicely and intelligently tear eachother apart.
> 
> What a fun place that would be.
> 
> Not.


May I suggest who should be in it? And could we film it?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

kv466 said:


> That's not what I do, is it, 'Dre? It is, after all, common knowledge that Glenn has no equal, isn't it?


Well,I've certainly never heard anything like him!!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

moody said:


> May I suggest who should be in it?...


Probably not in public. Only by PM.



> ...And could we film it?


A reality tv show about TC? Might actually work...since they're making the damned things about virtually everything under the sun.

Who should be TC's 'Big Brother?' The guy who keeps saying something straight out of Orwell's '1984' maybe? "All opinions are equal, except some opinions..." Fill in the rest. Totalitarianism 101.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Where is the snoooo_oooooo_ze button?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

......................


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

..........................................


----------



## Mephistopheles (Sep 3, 2012)

.....................................................................


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

......................--------.......-----..........
......................--------.......-----........
......000000......--------..................
......000000......--------..............
......000000......--------.......----......
......................--------.......-----........
......................--------.......-----..........


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

jani said:


> ......................--------.......-----..........
> ......................--------.......-----........
> ......000000......--------..................
> ......000000......--------..............
> ...


7 string guitar tab, or an abstract picture of a moose feeding its young?


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> 7 string guitar tab, or an abstract picture of a moose feeding its young?


The second one.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

jani said:


> The second one.


I suspected as much.


----------

