Roger Waters Live Last Night in Glendale,AZ

Sorry if this rambles for a bit, but I am very passionate about this subject.

I founded YOUniteUSA about 5 years ago. The initial goal was to identify, validate and celebrate our common links and connections. I developed the "Connections Pyramid" that looks something like this. From top to bottom (relative to group size) are: YOU, followed by "Heartstrings" (those we love) follow by "Shared Indulgences" (music, sports, cars, hobbies, wine, food, etc), then "Navigating Complexity" (going about our daily business while being in sync with others during our daily commute, Starbucks stop, etc) then, at the bottom (and largest group) "Everybody Else". I also formulated from this that our quality of life is dependant on those we’ll never see, or meet, and HALF those people have ideologies that are in direct oppostiion to our own. I also developed the inverted pyramid that (you guessed it) is upside down and illustrates where we put our attention -- mostly on US.

"Shared indulgences" includes live concerts. So, at 9:03PM the band/performer is introduced. At that point in time 100% of the audience is fully engaged, resonating as a group at the same frenquency. They all love the performer, and thrilled to share experience and energy with those who embrace the same passion for the genre, group, or solo entertainer as they do. They also hope that the performer shares thet same afinity for THEM as they do for the artist. Then, at 9:04 PM, the performer makes a statement that many in the group do not agree with. Let’s just estimate the group size at 20,000, then round this off to 1/2 of the group that didn’t appreciate the messaging. So, in a moment’s time, 10k people know the following: a) they don’t like the performer as much as they did a minute ago, b) the realize the performer doesn’t like them, c) they don’t like the person next to them who chanted approval of the message, and d) the person next to them thinks less of them because they "booed" the performer -- AND the message.

This is referred to as "disruptive marketing" whereby messages or actions are introduced without the consent of the participant in a way that they are unavoidable. These range from pop up ads, to the sticky notes on newspaper or magazine covers that we have to remove to get to the content we want. It’s a low level form of a ambush. Something we really don’t want/need thrust on us that disrupts the activity we are involved in. While no one gets physically hurt, the distraction from "the thing" can range from minor irritation to totally ruining an experience -- expecially those we were highly emotionally and financially vested in.

There’s another term I call "The Exodus of Authenticity." It seems that we are pulling away from things that are genuine and becoming more accustomed to substitutes for those things -- even virually representations of them. We’re also giving others permission to insert other agendas into "the thing", diluting the experience, sometimes to the degree where the other agenda dominates the experience. If we were out for a nice dinner, we wouldn’t be receptive of the server bringing out our meal accompanied by a 3-minute rant about their view of the world even IF it agreed with ours. If we disagreed with those points, we might have just handed the propriertor the death sentence for any future engagement. In other words, a dinner out IS a dinner out, Not a event where the experience is dimished by "others" attempts to impose their will on ours. The authenticity SHOULD remain intact. If the server persisted after being warned by their boss, they’d be repremanded, or even terminated for not following company guidelines.

Our society is held together by fine threads of cooperation and sanity. Like a suspension bridge, the support cables that keep them intact are made up of many smaller cables. If one small element of that cable is (intentionally) severed, it may takes centuries for catastrophic failure to occur. But, today we’re employing "Weapons of Mass Division" -- taking a laser cutter to mutiple strainds. Politicians who never stop campaigning top the list (followed by problems we don’t want solved). Those whose fame allows them to reach large audiences are a contributors to the Mass Division that I am referring to. Tens of thousands of smiling, wildly enthusiatic people who were "one" for a brief moment in time are insulted, rejected and turned against each other because a person, desperate for relevance, needs his/her voice to be heard. It is selfish, immature, bad for business, and destructive to a sane and loving society.

They get away with becuase they can. They have a buffer -- enough financial headroom to take risks and the resources to disqualify hafl their audience (and, former admirers). When they take the stage, they are "at work". They "punched they timeclock" and peforming their duties on stage as a professional entertainer. But what about the "average guy" on the street? Would they have the same freedom of expression? What about a gay man who works at Barnes and Noble who wanders over to the Christian book section to explain the customers that their interpretation of the Bible is misguided? Or, the Scientogist who delivers pizza who want’s to slip promotional materials into the pizza boxes he/she delievers. In both cases, customer objections would be dealt with immediately and termination would be emenent if they did not comply. They have neither fame, leverage, or the financial headroom to demand that their messages by heard -- at work. Celebrity has its privileges. Voicing opinions that alienate half their audience, and cause division, is one of them.

The combination of audience alienation and diliution of "the thing" we came to enjoy is two strikes against being politically active "at work". Sure, they can do personal interviews in their own time, and the viewer can opt in, or opt out of participating. Or, better yet, use artistic expression to convey those messages (For What It’s Worth, Ohio, etc) and let the open market decide the value (monetary, artistically and socially) of the work. It would bring people together. Not tear them apart.

Johnny Youniteus

@teo_audio Actually, I thought you said quite a bit in a few short sentences.

If I would have had more time, I would have written a shorter memo.

Gents, I drilled down pretty deep into this in a earlier (long winded) post, but have a few additional (short) comments.

The country is divided. It’s not getting better. Our common links and connections are fragile and being compromised on a daily basis. Concerts are one of those areas where magnitudes of people can still gather and share their passions, experiences, and (positive) energy, regardless of their background or belief systems. As far as performers are concerned, there’s a diffferce between talking TO your audience (Graham Nash) and talking DOWN to your audience. The goal of a concert should be to have a greater sense of unity and loyality to the artist than before. If this didn’t happen, something is amiss. There is no problem with someone sharing their view of life provided they make EVERYONE in attendance feel welcome, and valued. Stomping around, breaking links and connections, and having your audience feel guilty about foreign policy decisions and government corruption that happened well above their paygrades (or, before they were born) is not showing proper respect for the audience who are just there to show admiration for YOU and your music.

When thousands (or tens of thousands) attend their concerts to celebrate the artist and their work, the musical content (and, comments about all things related to the music) should be "the thing". I take issue with the assumption that it’s THIER concert and they can do what they want. The concert goer paid for tickets. Its a business transaction and the performers is "on the clock". I don’t think many of you would enjoy a restaurant owner walking up to your table and spreading mayo all over your steak "because it’s his business and he can do what he wants to". They have an obligation to deliver for the customer. PAID entertainment should be no different.

People who have reached the pinnacle of being wealthy and famous often have an expanded, and oftentimes overinflated, view of their impact on the world outside of their profession. They also have the choice of being "uniters" or "dividers". While they certainly have no professional or moral obligation to be "uniters", their actions are often disruptive, and (intentionally, or unintentionally) cause division.

There is a fine line between being a successful individual who energetically inserts their viewpoints into a venue of admirers, and textbook narcissism. I don’t believe in absolutes and understand the unavoidable consequences of gray areas. Particularly in human emotional and intellectual interactions. So, do we grant creative individuals who have had an enduring impact on our culture more freedom than the "average Joe on the street" to express themselves in the professional environment, and give them a pass even when they’re being cruel and insensitive to their "customers", or when those comments are incoherent, irrational, or untrue? Maybe so.

There are a lot of exceptionally brilliant, sane individuals who have a lot to say, can change the world for the better, and will never have the platform to say it. Or, if they do, they’ll be looking for a career change after they get cancelled, or fired. They’ve not quite reached celebrity status so their voices are muted.  Or worse.

@hartf36

"However, I will agree that there are a WHOLE lot of people bumbling around the good, old USA who I sorely wish didn’t have voting cards, but I digress."

It’s been said that Democracy only works as well as the mean sanity level of a society. If you take a sample group of the "most tethered to reality" and offset that with an equal number of misfits, it’s the rest of us that need to have our act(s) together. This group is circling the drain at present and pretty close to the event horizon where there’s not sufficient numbers to push back against the forces of the Weapons of Mass Division, and misinformation.

Rigid partisanship is a factor here. And, I believe we can establish a scale where the more rigid the partisanships, the less willingness there is to seek the truth. Add to this the element of "risk tolerance", and you have air-tight bubbles where the only information that makes it past the "toll gate" is a digital bitstream of misinformation plugged directly into our brains to confirm our biases.  We're no longer concerned with "protecting Democracy".  We're only concerned with protecting the party.

"Free speech" is more "free" to some than for others. Wealth and celebrity has it’s privileges.

@teo_audio It appears you’re quite passionate about your ideas. My "hot button" is the fragility of our common links and connections, and distain for those who benefit from intentionally breaking them. "Division pays dividends".

I’m glad this thread is still active. I’ve learned a lot from you guys.