Music Fans' Sense of Entitlement

[Sigz]

It seems like a lot of fans feel that they deserve or are entitled to certain things from their favorite band(s). Like that said band has to tour, or has to put out a new record, and they feel that they've been slighted when a band does something different from what they were expecting.

I'm just curious what people's take on this is. Are a band's longtime, hardcore fans justified in feeling like they should have some stake or say in what the band does or not?

I don't have a terribly strong opinion one way or the other, but I feel like any support a fan offers a band through tickets, merch, albums sales, etc, is payment for what they've already done (concerts and previously released material), not an investment in their future direction.

[Marvellous G]

I think it's understandable to feel like you deserve something in return for supporting a band for a long time, but when you actually think about it they've presumably given you lots of great music and live shows in return for your support. The only time I think it's justified is when bands like Tool take 5 years to put out an album.

[73109]

Fans deserve diddly squat. the band is the band. They can do whatever they want. It is their decision. Whether that means going outside their fans' comfort zones, not wanting to tour, taking a long time to get an album out, it doesn't matter. This is not a one way street thought. If said band decides to do what I have mentioned above, a fan  has all the right to not be a fan anymore and stop spending money on the band. Which hurts them.

[Arcaeus]

I believe musicians should be artists first and entertainers second. While I do like when a musician is as appreciative of his fans as say, Portnoy, I do not believe a fan's feelings, preferences or expectations should in any way effect what a musician does in the studio and chooses to make their music sound like.

It seems like a lot of fans feel that they deserve or are entitled to certain things from their favorite band(s). Like that said band has to tour, or has to put out a new record, and they feel that they've been slighted when a band does something different from what they were expecting.

To hell with these fans -- you can't force art.

[MetalManiac666]

I completely agree with the OP.

[skydivingninja]

Sigz, you saw that post I made on SW's facebook update, didn't you?  THAT WAS A JOKE I DON'T THINK I DESERVE TO SEE TRAINS AND BUYING NEW SOUL IN ASHEVILLE BECAUSE SEEING THEM LIVE WOULD BE MORE THAN I WILL EVER DESERVE.

*ahem* yeah, artists first, always.  That doesn't mean that, as a fan, I can't express some wishful thinking.  For example, I think SC is a crap album.  I think DT should stay clear of it as much as possible and figure out why we all love them in the first place.  Whether they do or don't is not my decision to make though, its theirs.

[KevShmev]

Are a band's longtime, hardcore fans justified in feeling like they should have some stake or say in what the band does or not?

Absolutely not.

But it is something most fans, whether they admit it or not, are guilty of at one point or another, myself included.  

Hell, just look at all of the vile directed at Kevin Moore over the years for his refusal to play at several different shows with Dream Theater, as if what the fans want should really matter.  

To be fair, though, sometimes when a fan says "I wish they would have...." or "They should have done...," that can sometimes come across as a sense of entitlement when it is really just a fan saying what they would rather have seen done.  Make sense?

[Arcaeus]

Ick, Systematic Chaos. As much as it pains me to say it after hearing that album mentioned, musicians should be able to make whatever the hell they want, even if that means doing something that is the complete opposite of their previous sound (not that SC was -- I'm just saying). As long as an album sounds inspired, like the artist wanted to make it and enjoyed doing so, I can appreciate its existence, even if I don't care for the actual music. Using Pain of Salvation as an example, I don't like Scarsick or Road Salt as much as The Perfect Element, but I would rather the band have made those two albums instead of rehashing their previous sound when they didn't want to. On the opposite (but still related) side of that, the world would be a much darker place if Ulver or Radiohead had catered to their old fanbase and never moved in the direction that led them to being where they are now.

These are all things I've said before in the controversial opinions thread and perhaps elsewhere, but I believe they have a place here as well.

[King Postwhore]

I've always been of the belief that a band should make themselves happy first.  I can attest that I like it when a band tours for a new album and I'm very guilty of banging that drum.

[Ben_Jamin]

Seeing as how most places are spoiled by live concerts, fans are the worst when it comes to music. Yeah they support the band but sometimes they take things too far like Manson fans, juggalo's for example.

[Orbert]

Seems like we're all pretty much in agreement.  The band does what the band does, either because they think it's what the fans want, or just because it's what they want to do, or anything in between.  Sure, the fans may feel like after buying all the albums and paying hundreds to see them every tour, that they "deserve" something.  And to be fair, it's not unusual for bands to do things for the fans, to give something back, in appreciation for their support and all that.  That's very cool on the part of the band.

But the band still does what it chooses to do.  The fans don't literally call the shots.

[blackngold29]

Bands should do whatever they want. I can see where angry fans come from because they like band X because they sound a certain way, so when band X's second album comes out and it doesn't sound like their first one band X is no longer in the box they were sectioned off into.

Happened quite a bit when Linkin Park's Minutes to Midnight came out. I judge each album individually, so I had no problem with the fact it sounded nothing like their debut, I just enjoyed it for what it was. Other people go nuts. The problem to me is that if you do four albums that sound like your debut it's good for a while, but you eventually become Iron Maiden. Then again I can't figure out why so many people love them.


Placing bands in boxes is not a characteristic shared by many people here, who like to push themselves to find new stuff and many of who are musicians themselves. Certain bands, specifically DT, can find that balance where the music they write now can mesh with what they wrote 20 years ago, but it's also somehow new and fresh.

[Portrucci]

Pretty much what Arcaeus has said.

They are artists. They should do what they feel like. However I can't help thinking...that bands that make pretty much the same music for 20+ years (e.g. Iron Maiden) are just doing so because they know it's what the fans want and it's how they will be able to tour and make money. I'm sure they greatly enjoy the music they make...but from what little experience I have as a musician, I could not possibly stay in the same genre for more than a couple of years, let a lone my whole career. But I can't judge them as I don't know their actual feelings.

But on the topic, I remember when The Throat of Winter came out, I loved it but apparently there were tonnes of Opeth fans bitching. And Akerfeldt had to literally come out and say "We do what we want, deal with it". I was pretty shocked they he should even have to spell that out. I certainly hope bands aren't discouraged from trying new things due to a vocal minority of 'hardcore' fans who disapprove of pretty much every new endeavor.

[Orbert]

Not that anyone's saying it here, but we do have to be careful about slapping the "Sellout" label on bands who consciously try to do what fans want.  Iron Maiden has been mentioned (without the label), and AC/DC is another band I hear about all the time, how every album sounds the same.  There's nothing inherently wrong with doing the same thing over and over, if it's what the fans want and what the band like doing.  Sure, the band is aware that they're doing exactly what the fans want, but it's not necessarily because they want to keep making tons of money.  Some bands do it for the sheer joy of giving people what they want.  They know their fans love what they do, so they just keep doing it.  Are they "artists"?  Are they "sellouts"?  Maybe and maybe.

I know it's not exactly the same thing, but since I'm an old fogey, I think of bands like Chicago.  They still record albums, which sound nothing like what the original lineup created.  Then they go and tour, and they're psyched about their new album and play some of the new songs.  Except no one actually knows the new songs; they want to hear "25 or 6 to 4" and "Saturday in the Park".  Songs that are 40 years old.  So of course they play them.  Why?  Because they know it's what the fans want.

I even hear people say, cynically, "It's been a few years, they must need the money."  No way.  Those guys were millionaires a long time ago and could have retired years ago.  Some of them have.  But they go out and tour and play the same songs again, because they're musicians and that's what they do, and the fans love it and keep buying tickets, so why not?  It's a symbiotic relationship.

tl;dr version:  It's not always bad to give the fans exactly what they want, and not always wrong of the fans to expect the band to give it to them.

[orcus116]

I think it's the result of knowing what a band is capable of and then being disappointed by what they produce. A good example in favor of that is the new Dream Theater stuff. I know they have the ability to construct some amazing music but they, in my mind, seem satisfied by whatever they can produce instantly and don't ever let a riff or song marinate long enough to check whether or not it ages well. But some people dig their new stuff so who am I to say anything aside from express that displeasure?

I say this because there are bands out there that completely "turn" on a fanbase and end up creating some fantastic music. Take for example Radiohead. What they were able to create in their first three albums was progressing towards something incredible in the field of alternative rock and they might've even conquered it with OK Computer. Instead of sticking with what their fans were wanting more of they completely 180'd and did Kid A which not only changed their sound completely but accomplished what they were able to do with their earlier albums but in a new style. They were using those same abilities to their potentials but in a new way and I don't see that happening with a band like Dream Theater. It's not that I feel entitled but after investing so much time and seeing glimpses of how great a band can be in parts of newer songs I'm just not satisfied with what they're deeming as acceptable material.

[bodiesinflight]

Whilst I feel bands should focus foremost on what THEY want to do artistically I do have less respect for bands who don't tour than bands who do.

[LudwigVan]

I say this because there are bands out there that completely "turn" on a fanbase and end up creating some fantastic music.

This is an interesting thought.  The ultimate example of this idea is when the Beatles, after releasing Rubber Soul, said f*ck it we ain't going on tour anymore...we're just gonna focus on making music in the studio.  It was a huge outrage for the fans, and yet they went on to put out masterpieces like Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's, etc.

[Orbert]

The Beatles' situation was different, though.  They were so immensely popular that every concert was full of tens of thousands of fans, mostly female, literally screaming the entire time.  They couldn't hear themselves play, they couldn't hear anything, and it was pretty much a given that the audience couldn't hear anything either, except the tens of thousands of girls screaming the entire time.  I remember seeing some of the tapes.  It's nuts.

I actually respect them for saying "Fuck this, it's stupid.  We just won't tour anymore."  Yeah, fans were outraged.  But then, as you say, the real masterpieces started coming out of the studio.  Also, they still did the occassional television appearance, made some movies, and stuff.

[ariich]

Fans deserve diddly squat. the band is the band. They can do whatever they want. It is their decision. Whether that means going outside their fans' comfort zones, not wanting to tour, taking a long time to get an album out, it doesn't matter. This is not a one way street thought. If said band decides to do what I have mentioned above, a fan  has all the right to not be a fan anymore and stop spending money on the band. Which hurts them.

I've never agreed with you more than I do right now, well said. The only thing I'd add is that, while of course the fans are totally justified if they don't like a new album/direction/whatever, I do find it pretty cheeky when they make out that they've been let down in some way. It doesn't happen too much here (occasionally, but not much) but I see it a lot elsewhere.

[73109]

I've never agreed with you more than I do right now, well said.

Yay!

I do find it pretty cheeky when they make out that they've been let down in some way.

I agree. People need to know that the band wants to do what they want to do. The only time there is an exception is when a band noticably shifts there musical style to fit with what ever is popular. Then, they deserve an ass kicking. But if a band wants to take on a more mainstream feel because they want to, that's ok.

[ehra]

Fans are clingy complaining dipshits who will never ever be grateful for any concession you make. The moment you shut out their shrill, tremulous voices the happier you will be for it. Incidentally, why not buy a Zero Punctuation t-shirt?

[Sigz]

The Beatles' situation was different, though.  They were so immensely popular that every concert was full of tens of thousands of fans, mostly female, literally screaming the entire time.  They couldn't hear themselves play, they couldn't hear anything, and it was pretty much a given that the audience couldn't hear anything either, except the tens of thousands of girls screaming the entire time.  I remember seeing some of the tapes.  It's nuts.

If you've ever seen the Ed Sullivan tapes (I'm sure you have), apparently some of the audience mics in the studio actually blew out from all the screaming.

[ariich]

The only time there is an exception is when a band noticably shifts there musical style to fit with what ever is popular. Then, they deserve an ass kicking. But if a band wants to take on a more mainstream feel because they want to, that's ok.

Well, not exactly, because as long as they are making music that they LIKE and want to be making, then there is no issue and nobody as sold out. The only time it's bad is when a band or artist starts making music that they don't even like, just because they think it'll be popular. But really, I think that happens very rarely, particularly in the rock and metal world.

[Arcaeus]

That's what he said

[tri.ad]

Artists should do what they want to do and what they like to do. What their following thinks shouldn't be worth any major considerations at all, no matter how much the fans want it to be like that.