Posts
Josh Groban doesn't think you should expect value for money in a charity gig
The Lefsetz Letter picks up some comments from Josh Groban, apparently tweeted after complaints about a lacklustre charity show:
"I really don’t feel that charity performances should be subject to reviews in the same light as other performances…."
"people give their time, energy and voices, for free and with little to no rehearsal and critics should put away the snot-o-meter."
"just a thought. night!"
This was after a gig where some people had paid over a grand for their tickets. Is it really okay to suggest that because Groban's not pocketing the cash for himself that nobody should complain if a show is a bit rubbish?
Then why bother playing the show at all?
Would Groban feel alright with going to a charity night at a restaurant only to discover that the chef had spat in the spaghetti - but, hey, it's for charity so why should anyone complain?
7 comments:
Man, you did not do your homework. The show was not lackluster. The snitty reviews were crap. The musicians gave it their all, and everyone in the audience received more than the worth of their donation. Ask the people who were there.
Why rip into artists who have given their best to a fantastic cause and in honor of Neil Young? It is mean-spirited and small.
Rethink what you wrote.
I agree with Anonymous!! I was there and it was an awesome show from beginning to end.
You obviously misread into what he said -- didn't mean he shouldn't have a stellar performance because he did have one.
"The internet" in "lacks basic reading comprehension skills" shocker.
Simon's post was not about the show, rather about what Groban tweeted. It was a silly thing to say, plain and simple.
And, 'Rethink what you wrote?' Really? Watch out, Simon - it sounds like there'll be some MOR fans on their way to Milton Keynes brandishing pitchforks and torches...
Critics in general,pardon my crudeness, are about as worthless as tits on a boar hog. I keep on hoping that if we ignore you long enough, you'll just go away. PFFT! No such luck. So in the mean time, just do as josh says and keep your snot-o-meter up your butt where it belongs. Any artist doing their stuff for free is ok by me. Josh? He could just walk on stage and smile and he'd be worth the price. Now shut up. Peace.
Why would you put a snot meter up your bottom?
Trouble is, anonymous, those criticising weren't Critics - fey fops with special hats and large notebooks being paid to watch things, but were merely people who'd paid to see an event and felt it a bit underwhelming.
It's fine for Josh to do this for nothing - although, of course, a cynic might say he was merely taking it out his promotional budget - and maybe you would be happy to pay hundreds of bucks just to see him come on stage and wave.
Personally, I've always found Groban to be at his best when he isn't singing.
The point is, though, he'd persuaded people to buy tickets to see him sing. And they didn't feel they got their money's worth. And Groban suggested they had no right to complain as they money was going to charity. That's the whole point of this story.
Should you just smile and accept it if you're ripped off because the artist isn't charging?
I can see there's an argument that if, say, a scout had done a dodgy job for Bob-A-Job week, you might look a bit shitty if you wrote a letter of complaint to Lord Baden-Powell.
But I guess the easiest way to try and recalibrate this in a way you might find easier to understand: how poor would the show have had to be before you'd say "well, yeah, it's fair enough to complain":
- If Groban hadn't turned up?
- If he had, but only sang one song?
- If he'd forgotten most of the lyrics and just bellowed Three Lions over the music?
- If he'd sung a three-hour version of James Blunt's You're Beautiful?
Remember, before you answer, that the complainants are people who clearly thought well enough of Groban to pay a fortune to see him.
Post a Comment
As a general rule, posts will only be deleted if they reek of spam.