What Does An Artist Owe His Fans?

**Yves** · 11-04-2016

Inspired by comments made about Neil Peart and his attitude towards his fans, and his decision to retire...

I totally get Neil's stance because, in his shoes, I'd be the same... Here is my music, here I am in your city playing live, aside from that I will pick and choose if I want to associate with you the fan, or not. I don't owe you meet and greets, etc... If, after a 40 year career, I want to retire, who are you to tell me that I still owe you or my band mates anything more?

So what does the artist owe the fan? What demands, if any, can a fan make of an artist?

**miamiscot** · 11-04-2016

Everything. And nothing.

**Yves** · 11-04-2016

You're half right.

**Lopez** · 11-04-2016

I don't think the artist owes the fan anything. Stephen King showed the extreme to which a fan can go in demanding from the artist in the book Misery. If the fan doesn't like what the artist is now doing or not doing, well, then move on to another artist that is doing something similar. Eventually, the artist has to quit or die, then what does the fan get? Memories are better than nada.

**zravkapt** · 11-04-2016

'Owe' is a strong word. They should appreciate that they have fans at all.

**mozo-pg** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by zravkapt

'Owe' is a strong word. They should appreciate that they have fans at all.

I agree - if owe, nothing. If appreciate, totally.

What's your position Yves?

**Scott Bails** · 11-04-2016

The artist creates, and the fan is their audience. If the fan deems their work worthy, they'll pay to experience it. That's pretty much it, IMO.

However, if the artist makes a promise (like, say Jon Anderson or Eddie Jobson), they are obligated to fulfill that promise.

Expectations are created between artist and fan sometimes through no fault of anyone - some artists are just more fan-friendly than others. But in the case if Neil Peart, he's always communicated his views and attitude about this very clearly. So, if you profess to be a fan of his and still go all fangirl over him when you see him in a diner, you get what you deserve.

**Spiral** · 11-04-2016

Owe? The best art the artist can make, as long as s/he feels like making it.

**Facelift** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Yves

Inspired by comments made about Neil Peart and his attitude towards his fans, and his decision to retire...

What comments in particular are you talking about? Was there a thread in here about this, or was it an article?

**Yves** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by mozo-pg

I agree - if owe, nothing. If appreciate, totally.

What's your position Yves?

I stated in my opening post that I agree with Neil. I would be the same way. The artist creates and the fan appreciates. That is the extent of the relationship as far as I am concerned. Anything beyond that is a bonus, but not to be expected or "owed". You bought a CD and a T-shirt, you didn't buy an artist's time. If he/she gives it freely than great, but don't expect it just because...

**Yves** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Facelift

What comments in particular are you talking about? Was there a thread in here about this, or was it an article?

It has come up now and again, more recently in the thread about the new documentary. Certain people commented that they just wouldn't like Neil, if they ever did meet him, for his stance vis-a-vis his fans , and his bandmates.

**Sturgeon's Lawyer** · 11-04-2016

Yves, you are smack on the money. (I haven't seen Peart's comments.) The artist owes nothing to hir fans except what se contractually offers them - a CD, a concert, a teeshirt, whatever. What the artist *really* owes is a debt to whatever muse inspires hir, and that debt is to do the Work with whatever power and grace they can muster.

**klothos** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Sturgeon's Lawyer

What the artist *really* owes is a debt to whatever muse inspires hir, and that debt is to do the Work with whatever power and grace they can muster.

+1 ...and thats it

**Yves** · 11-04-2016

If there is such a consensus here why do people get bent out of shape because 1/3 of a band wants to retire , 2/5 of a band refuse to do a reunion tour, or a band as a whole decides to change their musical direction?

**Facelift** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Yves

It has come up now and again, more recently in the thread about the new documentary. Certain people commented that they just wouldn't like Neil, if they ever did meet him, for his stance vis-a-vis his fans , and his bandmates.

I think this issue is very case-specific.

The other thread you referenced mentioned his disinterest in playing the UK and Europe before he hangs it up. I don't have any problem with that - I think you get to retire from a job whenever you want to retire. In the case of a musician, I'd say retiring mid-tour would be in quite bad form, but that's definitely not what Peart did.
And considering how inauthentic some "farewell" tours can be (how many did The Who have?) I think just leaving when one wants and not making a big deal about it is the best way to go.

As far as meet and greets - I don't know much about these because I would never in a million years do one, but I would think that basic rules of doing business should apply: if someone is paying for a meet and greet - or, more to the point, if a band is taking money from their fans to do a meet and greet - the band should present themselves with a fair amount of engagement and positivity with the people in question, and all band-members should be there. If these basic conditions can't be met, then I would hope that the band would not take fans' money for this experience.

**klothos** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Yves

If there is such a consensus here why do people get bent out of shape because 1/3 of a band wants to retire , 2/5 of a band refuse to do a reunion tour, or a band as a whole decides to change their musical direction?

mostly to bitch about it....I think some people bitch as a hobby or for an internal dopamine release or both

**Poisoned Youth** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Yves

If there is such a consensus here why do people get bent out of shape because 1/3 of a band wants to retire , 2/5 of a band refuse to do a reunion tour, or a band as a whole decides to change their musical direction?

Consider the source.

**mozo-pg** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Yves

I stated in my opening post that I agree with Neil. I would be the same way. The artist creates and the fan appreciates. That is the extent of the relationship as far as I am concerned. Anything beyond that is a bonus, but not to be expected or "owed". You bought a CD and a T-shirt, you didn't buy an artist's time. If he/she gives it freely than great, but don't expect it just because...

This makes sense. I'm often surprised when several people chastise Gabriel because he is not making new music. I can understand that you really want new music but it's Gabriel who is the artist. Moreover, he's active in human rights causes, tours, releases things that interest him. It's a facepalm when people rail that Genesis should reform when the individual members all have musical directions they chose to pursue. Don't get me wrong - I would go but it's simply never going to happen. It's the same thing with Collins, he chose a new musical direction - you don't have to listen.

**Yves** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Poisoned Youth

Consider the source.

Oh I know... Every now and then you have to rub people's noses in it though...

PS: Thanks for the sig!

**Poisoned Youth** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Yves

Oh I know... Every now and then you have to rub people's noses in it though...

PS: Thanks for the sig!

Ha, my pleasure. I got a nice chuckle out of that.

Seriously though, I think the answer is rooted in the concept that once someone finds something they like, they are typically resistant to change. There's an overall tone/vibe on this site especially in that regard.

**Steve F.** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Poisoned Youth

There's an overall tone/vibe on this site especially in that regard.

The sense of entitlement on this site by a number of posters (not only this site, but this site is particularly guilty of it, imo) is oppressive and pervasive.

**Valen** · 11-04-2016

Originally Posted by Yves

It has come up now and again, more recently in the thread about the new documentary. Certain people commented that they just wouldn't like Neil, if they ever did meet him, for his stance vis-a-vis his fans , and his bandmates.

I posted the comment in the Rush docco thread about not being enamoured of Peart, but I need to clarify here that my feelings are based on reading his journals and his attitudes therein towards people in general, not specifically fans or bandmates. It's a personal opinion, and not meant to start a Peart-attack.

My other comments in relation to his bandmates are more in the way of well-documented observations, and the apparent gap between how Alex and Ged approach things and how Neil chooses a different approach.

Personally, I was disappointed at no UK sign-off dates, but I don't feel the band owe me or any crap like that.

**progeezer** · 11-04-2016

Disappointment, and perhaps even misplaced anger may be acceptable, but a mindset of entitlement is dangerous, and pretty much guarantees that your life will be full of disappointment & anger.