jff

My favorites are I'm With Stupid and Bachelor No. 2.

That, or a slight variation, is the technique by which most jury trials are won. Make your opponent say something the slightest bit questionable, and you've made him into the biggest liar in the universe.

I don't think the label letting her do her thing is the way it normally happens. I think, most of the time, the artist has a string of huge successes, gets a better agent and lawyer, and demands her contract be re-written more in her favor, or she walks and does what she wants with another label, or independently. I'll throw Aimee Mann out there as someone who might be an interesting case study for this topic.

You're probably right. I wasn't using that as the benchmark. That'd be tougher to find an example for, but it surely happens.

I thought I removed that before posting. weird. Maryanne Faithful was a minor pop star doing lightweight fluff music in the '60s. Later (and currently) she does more serious music, and is respected as an artist (ask Nels). She's not a huge star or anything, but when she was last here she filled a theater. She's an example that you can go from empty pop princess to respected artist. Maybe not as a million seller, but it can be done. Beach Boys might be a good example.

Stay on topic.

So, Jandek welcomes smartphones at his gigs? That's interesting to know.

It'll be interesting to ask this question again in 15 years. Surely someone will eventually emerge from pop tart status and put out some more respected work.

Wrong again. I said I did like the idea of mystery man, but I don't like his music. If I didn't like the idea of mystery man OR his music, why would I have posted in this thread?

Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to changing my image for no reason other than the fact that my style of dress, even in my own opinion, is pretty slobby. If a guaranteed comfortable lifetime income playing music was part of the bargain, well, fax me the papers and I'll sign right now.

Not a bad strategy for a lawyer: Claim your opponent said or did something, when in fact, they said or did the exact opposite. Hammer them from as many angles as possible to muddle the argument, causing your opponent to say something slightly inconsistent with what they originally said or did.

Anthony Keidis deserves to be repeatedly punched in the face and balls for that photo of sniffing his own armpit.

You have to adjust your image if you work in an office or most restaurants and retail stores. I'd be willing to adjust my image somewhat if it meant I could make a living for the rest of my life playing music. I would rather not have to, but why are people so willing to compromise in order to do something they probably hate, but aren't willing to compromise in order to do something they love? I don't think I'd be willing to play music I hate, though. That'd defeat the whole purpose.

I don't get it.

I'd post a lot in a thread with that title.

Drive By Truckers The Roots

"Catalog name" works. No, I never said anything like that. In keeping with the topic of this thread, I said (or clearly implied) that I like the idea of the mystery*, but I don't like the music. *Or if you prefer, over the top reluctance to share basic information about himself, contrary to common practice among those who release their work to the world.

His obfuscation neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, so I don't find it annoying.

OK, I can't resist... How is Jandek a "stage name" if he didn't appear on stage until 30 +/- years after giving himself that name?

You obviously care WAY more about this than I do.

He doesn't annoy me. Where are you getting that idea? Granted, I have not heard all of his music, so it's quite possible there is something in his catalog that I'd enjoy. No further effort will be made on my part, however, to find out.

Right. That film about how mysterious he is does not exist. I'm just making things up.

Yeah, he's just like Cher. In my opinion, if you get offered a gig, and you respond by saying "I will send a representative from Corwood Industries to perform", rather than "Sure, I'll play the gig", you are guilty of obfuscation. Now, shall we engage in a tedius pontification about how obfuscation and mystique are, or are not, the same thing.

That would seem to be your problem, actually. I edited my previous post to give one example of how he aggressively promotes his own mystique. I don't think the name Jandek is mysterious in the least.

The "idea of" (see thread title) Jandek, at least post-documentary, is his mystique, and not his music. He has certainly played up the mystique angle very aggressively (such as referring to himself as a "representative from Corwood Industries" when accepting a gig). Probably more than any other musician who has ever lived. You said that was my first problem. What was my second problem?