RE: Responding to "gig spam"

["Liebig, Steuart A." <Steuart.Liebig@maritz.com>]

Title: RE: Responding to "gig spam"

andre was saying:

1) People who are publicly performing or releasing work should certainly
be prepared to face negative criticism.  Whether or not it's informed or
reasonable criticism is another matter entirely, of course, but that's
the way it goes.

** which brings up the interesting thing about being supportive just because people are getting up there - - like or dislike! if they ask what i thought i try to give specifics about what worked for me, or what didn't . . .

You can't go through life worrying about whether or not a bad comment is
going to adversely affect someone's career.  All of the important and
enduring musicians I can think of shouldered plenty of criticism and
opposition in their time.  As an old school teacher of mine used to say,
"If you go through life without offending anyone, you probably aren't a
very dynamic or interesting person."

** yep!

In Steuart's case, the guy is basically an institution in the LA new
music scene, and it's going to take a lot more than one irate post on an
email list for him to start worrying about his professional future.

** don't you mean "basically institutionalized"? (thanks)

"In other words, the artist's musical objectives don't enter into my
opinion as to whether or not the CD is a good listen."

** so it was all about HIM? that is damn bizarre. but i suppose that when it comes down to it, that could said for many of us at one time or another. this is one thing that drives me crazy about crits in major papers, they send someone who hates heavy metal to do a review of a hm show!!! why? the guy doesn't even undersatnd the context. send someone who likes the style and understands what works and doesn't.  i saw the dave e. thought that this was a fair statement: i have to say that critics tend to go in with their own objectives/biases, they're not clean slates. they have their own agendas and often they have NOTHING to do with the music (film, etc.) at hand. here's one, leonard feather writing about a gig i did with les mccann back in the '70s (late teens/early 20s), all by way of an intended put-down: "guitarists miroslaw kudikowski and and steuart liebig, both closer to clapton than kessel . . . " of course, he thought that was a put down - - it's not jazz (woe!). a friend said to me, "i'd much rather sound like clapton instead of kessel any day of the week"! to each his own. if i go expecting something and get disappointed by getting another, is that the artist's problem or mine? would i have a different experience if i went without expectations or agendas?

If you're not going to judge something on the basis of the intentions
behind its having been made, and the context in which it was done, then
what on earth are you going to contribute by making a criticism in the
first place? 

** yep!