Some questions about music fandom.
February 4th, 2008 by ArielI know a lot of people have been sort of tossing around the topic of Beatles fandom for a while without us ever really addressing it, and I just watched Across the Universe this weekend, so the topic’s been on my mind. It seems to me that music fandom can take two slightly different shapes: fan activity centering on the musical artists and fan activity centering on the music itself. The former is like any kind of celebrity culture: you can engage with singers the same way you can engage with actors, mostly (in my opinion, anyway). But engaging with music is totally different from engaging with movies or TV. Covers and remixes, for example, are clearly fannish activities.
But what about the Beatles, specifically? How would we classify Across the Universe, a musical with all Beatles songs (similar to Mamma Mia and…that one with Billy Joel songs, only far more awesome)? What about Love, a Cirque du Soleil show with an entirely Beatles soundtrack? If we’re looking at fandom as a subculture (as suggested, perhaps, by the Hebdige article), how do we deal with the fact that the Beatles are so universally canonized (in both the canon/fanon sense and the made-a-saint sense)? As far as I know, it’s often seen as weird to *not* like the Beatles, which is a little counterintuitive as far as fandom goes. I think this also ties in very closely with the distinction between fandom and…inspiration or influence. We can’t say that everyone who’s been influenced by Orson Welles or Francis Ford Coppola is necessarily a fan of theirs. So what of all the people who started bands because of the Beatles (or REM, or Nirvana, or Pearl Jam, or Green Day, or whoever)? If you’re writing an original song in the style of the Beatles, is it fannish or just inspired-by? Or both? Rufus Wainwright did a concert a few months ago that was all Judy Garland songs, because he idolizes her so much, but that was called a tribute concert, not a fan concert. Is there a difference?
There’s also the question of concerts — personally, I’ve had some of the most communal experiences of my life at concerts, and if an integral part of fandom is community then that definitely counts as fandom. I’d posit that music festivals are in some sense analogous to conventions, but having never been to one, it’s hard to say.
Posted in Musings, music | 7 Comments »
I think that films like Across the Universe are examples of industry’s awareness of fans and their willingness to buy into anything they are fans of. (Sorry for the tone, but I happened to walk out of Across the Universe and was bored to tears by Mamma Mia) The making of these objects FOR fans makes it, in my opinion, different from products of a particular fandom.
However, I do think that in terms of music fandom, a form of fan practice that was missed is the Cover Band. This practice is most interesting in the way that it acknowledges how music performances can be recreated with new characters, but still retain a band’s essence (or not, depending on the coverer’s talents.) It also represent a distinct way in which a fan can take ownership of the object of their fandom by restaging it.
In terms of music festivals, I think that while lots of the attendees are serious fans of music, there are also those who are fans of the festivals themselves. This is why many who have gone to a music festival plan on going to or have been to others. Having never been to a convention, I can’t really refute the possible similarity other than I’m pretty sure for most conventions goers, the object (HP or LoTR) trumps the convention itself.
To me, music festivals are indeed mostly about the festival itself. I went to Bonnaroo two years ago not because the lineup was better than most years (although it was phenomenal) but because it makes a gathering based around music into a much larger spectacle.
I for one am a huge fan of cover bands and love finding a great cover of a song I love. I remember when I found Pearl Jam’s cover of ‘I Won’t Back Down’ from an old concert I absolutely flipped and suffice it to say that I listen to it at least once a week.
An interesting topic I have had quite a few debates regarding is when a cover becomes something altogether different and sort of reinvents the original. Two common examples I bring up would be Johnny Cash’s cover of NIN’s ‘Hurt’ versus The Ataris cover of ‘The Boys of Summer’ by Don Henley. NIN fans have almost across the board accepted Cash’s cover as a brilliant reinterpretation while Henley fans, as well as most alternative/pop punk fans, tend to deride The Ataris cover.
I had a few quick comments about the questions you posed.
1. I saw Across the Universe twice in a row (very long plane ride over winter break), and firstly, I thought it was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen.
But I think part of why it was so bad was the way it treated a supposed “sub-culture”, the hippies. It took a sub-culture and its associated music (The Beatles) and represented it using only the most generalized stereotypes and iconic storylines: drugs, girls, kids living in crowded apartments, sedated racial tension, and “band troubles”. Perhaps this was intentional, but none of it came off as authentic. It was an extreme of merely signifiers: references to this time period without any actual plot [for a better surreal film taking place in the sixties, see I'm Not There]. But none of the icons or myths presented any insight into the time period (as if it were targeted at a 12-year-old child’s understanding of the sixties).
2. I like your questions about the nature of influence and fandom. I believe Prof. Rehak said in Intro Film that often artists influential to you are people/works you dislike. Plenty of art is jarring — not fun to experience, “hard”. Sometimes there are certain movies, books, or music you just have to “get through” to see the limits of the art form. Recently I saw Beyond of the Valley of the Dolls and that seemed to be in that category. I was influenced by it, but I wasn’t particularly a “fan” of it.
If you want to be part of the culture of an art form, you have to grapple/converse with the “big” artists in the field. If you’re going to write poetry, you can’t not read T.S. Eliot, for example. You have to take into account his form and his topics to some extent. This draws from our discussions of canon and sub-culture (or amateur) art.
The idea of Across the Universe, which is an indie movie featuring a lot of unknown actors and a director who has two other feature film credits, being a product of “the industry” is, I think, a good distillation of one of the essential questions we’ve come up with so far: can something be fan-produced if it’s created and distributed through “official” channels? I tend to think it can; Sin City, for example, is *clearly* the result of Robert Rodriguez being a fan of the graphic novels, and Grindhouse is the product of Rodriguez and Tarantino being fans of B-movie horror films. But it’s open to debate.
The interest of conventions is sometimes the convention and sometimes the object of the convention. For huge cons like Comic-Con or E3, I’m pretty sure the convention itself trumps any of the individual fandoms represented, and I’ve known people who go to HP cons for the con experience and not because of their undying love for the books.
Covers are an interesting question, you’re right. I think the canonical one (haha) has to be Sinead O’Connor singing Nothing Compares 2 U — I had no idea that was originally a Prince song until years later. So how much of that sort of thing is due to fans and how much is due to critics or “the establishment”? I like to think that we-the-unwashed-masses, as it were, get to decide what a worthy cover is, especially since so many amazing covers are only available as bootlegs and ergo aren’t subject to the critical eye, officially.
…and this has no real merit as an examination of fan culture, but come on, seriously, Across the Universe was a *musical*. Okay, I’ll admit that it had no depth into anything and raised a lot of issues that it utterly failed to examine, but the cinematography was *amazing* — the Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite scene? That was like a cross between Dave McKean and…someone who’s actually happy ever. And the I Want You (She’s So Heavy) scene was really impressive, especially the choreography. Plus, some of the covers were really fantastic. Although, not Bono’s, oddly. Across the Universe was definitely better than a lot of movie musicals I’ve seen *as a musical*, and it was several orders of magnitude better than the Billy Joel one that dealt with the same time period and a lot of the same issues. And the only reasons I’m going to see Mamma Mia are Colin Firth and Dominic Cooper, I’m pretty resigned to that being terrible.
I think an interesting area of cover songs (or cover material) that we haven’t addressed is covers as anti-fandom. I honestly know 100% nothing about music, but I’m assuming that sometimes bands will remake songs because they think that they can do better than the original artist–that they can truly realize the vision of whatever this song was “supposed” to be. A non-musical example of this would be Ocean’s 11–widely regarded as one of the worst films the rat pack ever made, it obviously did a lot better, both critically and commercially, the second time around. I think fandom and anti-fandom intersect in perhaps more points than people realize. In his post below on Friday Night Lights, Noah talks about how he wouldn’t consider doing fanfiction on the show because he loves it too much the way it is. While I would not characterize all fanfiction this way, I definitely think there is a strain in fanfiction of trying to improve upon the original. This can be as direct as saying “Wow, I hated the plotting of that episode, here’s a better plot” or somewhat more subtle, like turning Hermione into more of a feminist character (if you’re the type of person who thinks she’s anti-feminist in the first place). Yet, we still call these people “fans.” Would anti-fan be more appropriate? Can you have a community based around anti-fandom. There are certainly things people love to hate (Plan 9 from Outer Space).
Also, agreed that Across the Universe was pretty, disliked it on every other level, and rather enjoyed Movin’ Out (the Billy Joel one).
Something we didn’t get to in class: samples. I tend to think that using a sample in a song that’s contrapuntal to sample source is a misreading, but there’s a question of to what extent melody can be divorced from lyrics.
Across the Universe is most definitely a product of fandom. I completely disagree with Alex’s opinion that this movie was industry’s capitalization on Beatles fandom.
Across the Universe was not industry trying to make money: The goal of industry and industry capitalization of fans is to sell stuff. Warner Bro’s Harry Potter theme park is a good example, as are Star Wars action figures. Something needs to have mass appeal in order to see effectively. Across the Universe does not have any sort of mass appeal. The film is very stylistic and very inaccessible in many ways. A lot of the songs are weird and unrealistic. Contrast this with Mamma Mia. Mamma Mia is visually very accessible, is completely uncontroversial, and has a very basic plot. While Across the Universe has a pretty normal plot, the more bizarre aspects of the film (like the acid trip scenes, or the “I want you” scene) make it very difficult to sell to a mainstream audience. Why would industry create a film that would not have mass appeal? Across the Universe would have been a much different movie if industry created it to sell.
Across the Universe as a product of fandom: This movie felt like a product of fandom to me because of all the Beatles/Beatle-lore details that went into the film. All 6 main characters are named after people in Beatles songs (Jude-Hey Jude, Lucy – Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Prudence – Dear Prudence, Sadie – Sexy Sadie, Max – Maxwell’s Silver Hammer, and Jojo – Get Back). Several other characters are also named after Beatles songs. The song Dr. Roberts makes acid punch references, so the character who promotes the acid culture is named Dr. Roberts. A number of pieces of dialogue are lines taken from Beatles songs. There are visual cues referencing bits of Beatles lore. Giant puppets of Blue Nasties (from the Yellow Submarine movie) appear, as do visual effects that are similar to a famous set Beatles pictures. All these details are completely unnecessary in a mainstream setting, many people would not notice or care. Mamma Mia certainly didn’t have bits of Abba history or references in it; it was just the music. It felt like a movie by fans and to a large extent for fans. Across the Universe does not just use Beatle music as songs, the Beatles imbue every aspect of the film.
Industry and fans can work together, they are not inherently opposed. After all, books, movies, music, and even celebrities to a certain extent are all consumer products. Who hasn’t bought something that relates to one’s fandom, if only a DVD or a new CD. Consumerism and fandom are linked, and fan products (like Star Wars extended universe books) are frequently marketed, without them being derided as the product of “industry”. I think for music-based films the distinction comes from whether or not the creators of that movie are fans.