[phoenix]

Originally Posted by wellcharge

i completely agree. people make it sound like watching athletes is for idiots but watching some guy play with with his fuzz pedal is the best possible thing to do.

A lot of people find great enjoyment in listening to an awesome band, without needing to listen to or be around people who are ramped up by competitive cheering and screaming. Conflict is so far from what interests me.

Sports and music are very, very different. Yes the people involved both need a lot of dedication to their craft, and those watching/listening get a buzz.. but that's about it.

[pbradley]

I enjoy watching the Olympics with friends.

[wellcharge]

i've certainly never heard cheering or screaming at a musical performance

[Glice]

I don't know how many gigs you go to, but I very rarely go to any gigs where there isn't at least one total wanker. That wanker may also be pissed. Inevitably, the average music fan will get into an argument about some band or other.

I don't really care to defend sport except to say I think it's exceptionally patronising to suggest that an interest in following a team or a sport is moronic. I know there are plenty of passionate football fans here who probably don't go out and beat up Gooners, because it really and genuinely is only a small minority of sports fans that give whatever sport it is a bad name. In fact, it's only really football (over here) where hooliganism is a serious problem, and even that's taken a massive downturn in the last 10 years (arguably since Hillsborough)

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by wellcharge

i've certainly never heard cheering or screaming at a musical performance

completely different atmosphere though. Generally speaking, you don't go to a paying gig unless you are cheering for THAT band. There isn't often people spending $$ to go in and shout abuse at them.

Rarely yes, but mostly not.

I'd much prefer to be a in a room of 400 people who all want to see the band and are shouting because they are HAPPY, than to be in an arena full of 20,000 people half of whom are angry half the time/all the time if it's a massive win/loss.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Glice

I don't know how many gigs you go to, but I very rarely go to any gigs where there isn't at least one total wanker. That wanker may also be pissed. Inevitably, the average music fan will get into an argument about some band or other.

There are wankers at the gigs I go to, but not that many. If they are being that much of an asshole, they are usually removed within 10 mins or so. I've never seen people fighting over bands in a public place.

I don't really care to defend sport except to say I think it's exceptionally patronising to suggest that an interest in following a team or a sport is moronic. I know there are plenty of passionate football fans here who probably don't go out and beat up Gooners, because it really and genuinely is only a small minority of sports fans that give whatever sport it is a bad name. In fact, it's only really football (over here) where hooliganism is a serious problem, and even that's taken a massive downturn in the last 10 years (arguably since Hillsborough)

did someone suggest that?

[wellcharge]

Originally Posted by phoenix

There are wankers at the gigs I go to, but not that many. If they are being that much of an asshole, they are usually removed within 10 mins or so. I've never seen people fighting over bands in a public place.

you're missing out, if you haven't smacked somebody who dissed wu-tang you haven't lived

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by phoenix

To be honest, the majority of people I've met who are sonic youth fans are not really into sports. A couple are, but for there to be sports threads here, they would need to be into sonic youth, sports, AND the internet. Which is quite a niche group....

so, that's probably why.

and that would add up to just me.

I am as fanatical about american football as I am about sonic youth, and music, and science, and art, and books, and women with big butts.
it is all life, and all of it is enjoyable.

[Rob Instigator]

sports and being in a band are the same thing.

both require teamwork, and both require leadership of some sort.
both require practice, with multiple repetitions until it is all second nature.
both require creativity, in sports to defeat the opponent and in music to create something new and different
both require dedication. you cannot half ass sports participation, nor can you half ass being in a band, as anyone who has had to kick out losers from their bands would agree.
Both are performed in front of spectators.
both are entertainment
both are highly competetive. teams play against other teams, and bands face off against other bands in the eternal battle for gigs.


even the fans of these two supposedly disparate engagements are similar. both bands and sports teams/players have fanatic followers, many of who travel to see them do their thing.
both sets of fans spend much of the performance/game drinking heavily
both sets of fans have a cliquu attitude, sports for one's team and music for one's chosen genre. Like, I hate them emo fucks.

to simplify sports and athletic competition as mindless and brutal is equally mindless and brutal. brutally simplistic that is.

I love sports. I love music. however, due to the immense clique mentality, it is hard to find sports fans that love music as much as I do, or music fans that love sports as much as I do. Luckily my brother and I were raised up without such stupid prejudices.

the Olympics rule all.

Go Brazil.

[notyourfiend]

I used to ski. Sometimes I ride my bike! I'm pretty out of shape though...

[Rob Instigator]

no one is talking about a skinny hippie making music for the pleasure of himself man.

I am talking about gigging bands, bands trying to get booked to open up for a touring act, trying to get the headliner gig at a saturday show. that shit is COMPETITIVE and if you do not draw a crowd, you do not get the gig.
come on man. you know this.

[Glice]

But the thing is, on the one hand the Stooges (who I don't actually care for, but you used them) aren't competing with Ted Nugent; on the other hand, they are trying to make good garage music, which many people feel they did well. Which is to say, they didn't just want to make music, they wanted to make good music. Aesthetically competitive, if you will.

People who don't want to make good music tend to be in covers bands. They also tend to make a lot more money than, say, me.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

sport is the true opiate of the masses, since the days of Rome when arenas were built to keep the people under control to today where China builds WorldCup Stadiums in African countries to assert their influence and dominance, sport is all a lure from the system to subvert and control the masses, and dull their perception of the ills of our reality.

[notyourfiend]

Originally Posted by swa(y)

ok ok ok ok...

course i agree, rob.

but still...i dont think it SHOULD be like that. theres too much business involved in that shit most of the time.

Most artists get fucked over by record companies/copywriters (who, on average, take at least half of yr money!!!!)...god forbid if yr in a band and you wind up having to make legal contracts with yr other band members which can possibly result in you not getting credit for the shit that you wrote. As controversial as this statement will be, it makes me really mad at everybody who feels that they have a sense of entitlement that so many people have to consistently download free music from bands they like without supporting those artists in any way what so ever.

It takes way too much planning/meticulous math to be able to come out with enough money to live and support yr self (or yr family)

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by notyourfiend

It takes way too much planning/meticulous math to be able to come out with enough money to live and support yr self (or yr family)

This is true regardless of your career path. In regards to art, as an artist, i both download art and free distribute my own art as best as possible. Art should come first, then the ability to feed and clothe and supply the artists. Let the art shine above the commercialization. If the people like the art, assuredly they will inevitable contribute their money. And if they do not, just them listening to a band and promoting it will inevitably get other people to spend $$$ down the chain. Radiohead especially proved this a reality when they publically gave away In_Rainbows, and yet at the same exact time from the same exact source as the free copies, sold millions of copies! IT WAS COMPLETELY FREE! I paid NOTHING! and yet millions of people spent upwards of $70!

BESIDES, ARTISTS DON'T MAKE SHIT ON RECORD SALES, THEIR MONEY IS TOURS! SUPPORT THE SHOWS! SUPPORT THE MERCH! STEAL THE ALBUM! FUCK THE BOGUS CAPITALIST PROCESS WHICH IS DESTROYING YOUTH CULTURE with the RECORD LABELs

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by swa(y)

if anyone is creating something worth a damn...they probally hope to get paid for it...yes. but if they truely feel its worth a fuck, and they cant get paid for it...they should be willing to give it away for free.

no 15 year old punk rock kid should be denied black flag just because he/his parents cant afford it.

The worker is worthy of his wages, even Jesus agrees. But he does not get them by complaining or begging, he receives them as his due from those who feel in debt. If you believe in your art, if you love your art, if you share your art, others will share their time effort and money with you. This is the whole drama that happened to Michaelangelo with his David, which was originally a public statue, but was in his life-time brought into a private gallery for the elite, which greatly troubled the artist. Why do you think the High Renaissance paintings were mostly hung in Churchs and other public places? To share the art with the people.

[Rob Instigator]

such, you know that religion and it's myriad versions are the true opiate of the masses. don;t come here laying blame on sports.

[Rob Instigator]

high rennaissance art was PAID FOR by the churches! come ON!

[Rob Instigator]

and no one, ever, not even stupid fucks, will pay for something they can get for free.

give away yr art. the ones making money will be the original takers of the give-away, once you get "famous" for your art. It will be those fucks who took you for a sucker, who will then sell your art for much much money.

Picasso made next to nothing for his output during his most fervent periods. he never saw any of that money. the millions changed hands between the people who had originally paid near to nothing for his art.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

such, you know that religion and it's myriad versions are the true opiate of the masses. don;t come here laying blame on sports.

i disagree.. sport attracts a wider following is far more a distraction from reality than religion. Look at how many political wars have been fought over religion? Clearly religion MOTIVATES politics, not distracts, so how could it be a distracting opiate tool of the government to manipulate the masses? Sports on the other hand, bar fights and futbol riots maybe, but not hundred year civil wars and hatred of your own mother and father.

and in regards to Church art, true the church paid for the commission but where does the church get its money? God? no, the common masses who Mass for church every sunday. This is the same argument as in the Cathedrals thread, churches are by nature public domain and spheres, perhaps even more so than say a museum..