How much of a fuck do you want artists to give?

What level of fuck-giving do the artists you like generally convey? Feel free to isolate for various factors musical or extramusical or to discuss truly not gaf vs. simply appearing not to gaf. If there are a limited number of fucks to give, where do you prefer the artist to apply that fuck energy?

I consider myself a fuckist

wholly fuck

imo

artists should give precisely the fuck required. the only thing worse than too little fuck is too much.

i dont give a fuck how much artists give a fuck

I started thinking about this a while back because of that Clapton vs. Neil Young thread. It occurred to me that there are certain artists I've never liked possibly because of this factor. Like I could never get into the Modern Lovers because it just didn't seem like they were putting much effort into it, but then it occurred to me that that's precisely the reason why a lot of people probably like them.

Then I started thinking about various trends that swing back and forth between favoring an idgaf aesthetic vs. a more polished sound/look/performance/attitude. But the more I thought about it, it's almost impossible to nail down actual, carelessness (or carefree-ness) vs. a carefully constructed appearance of not giving a fuck.

Is it even possible to truly not give a fuck and actually make something worthwhile and lasting?

i dont give a fuck how much artists give a fuck

you probably do though right? do you ever think something is overproduced or somebody is trying to hard, or something sounds half assed or unfinished?

there is certainly a level where, if an artist does not appear to give a fuck about their music, I have little to no incentive in giving a fuck about listening to it

and this is not in a "artists must be PASSIONATE" or "artists must love their work" sense, it's some undefinable thing that I divine from my response to the recording/performance; if I don't actually feel like you give a shit about what you're doing, I'm unlikely to feel that it's worth my time to follow your work

unfortunately this is one of those things that is keeping me from outright hating Train

nb: "not giving a shit" isn't defined by staring at your shoes or mumbling your lyrics, otherwise I wouldn't have gone so apeshit over the shoegazers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Afc5mcKSk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37Afc5mcKSk

No fucks given - Acceptable version:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/23/TheManWhoSoldtheWorld.jpg

No fucks given - Unacceptable version:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Gb1Y-KApL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

nb: "not giving a shit" isn't defined by staring at your shoes or mumbling your lyrics, otherwise I wouldn't have gone so apeshit over the shoegazers

yeah it's almost possible to look at some kind of generalized level of care or passion or whatever, but you can break it down into different factors: technical chops, songwriting, lyrics, performance, graphics, fashion, persona, etc.

it's interesting how different genres deal with it too. electronic musicians are perhaps allowed to be more polished and mannered in their overall presentation than musicians in other genres. technical chops are more acceptable in metal than in punk, etc. the oversimplified holy war version of this dynamic is prog vs. punk I guess, but it's a lot more complicated than that.

haha, but that "the next day" cover is so highly conceptual and self-consciously arty

I don't think bowie has ever done anything that wasn't carefully thought out and labored over, but I really like the next day cover because of the way it takes a carefully considered idea but executes it in a style that outwardly appears to ngaf.

How does the quote go? If you have to explain it...

http://virusfonts.com/news/2013/01/david-bowie-the-next-day-that-album-cover-design/

I would like artists to give the exact quantity of fuck that results in their best artistic output.

I don't know, the concept seems pretty clear to me. do you think the simple and bland visual execution was an attempt to seem like he didn't give a fuck and it's just kind of a boring failure in your eyes? or what exactly bothers you about it?
xp

xp ... unless they're punk-rockers, in which case I expect them to give either A.) zero fucks or B.) 200 fucks. no middle ground for punks.

im willing to bet that the actual amount of peeps that actually dont give a fuck about their music is a crazy small amount. like, celine dion or josh groban really care abt their music, but so do jimmy buffet or metallica or w/e. its not a valuation for me because i think the idgaf crowd is pretty much a strawman

I agree. but don't you think there's a certain quality of seeming not to care that gets a lot of traction and appeals to a lot of music fans for whatever reason?

xxpost: It doesn't feel to me like the product of a brilliant inspired brainstorm, rather, like the result of laziness and an inability to come up with an original thought. And even then, if this is the final idea, (and I pretend with all my heart that it's a good one) it's not executed correctly. It looks like a placeholder for an idea that requires further development. Like at some point the guy just said... ok, fuck it, no need to expand on it, let's go minimal, people love that, right? The fact that Barnbrook (the 'designer') has to explain it just proves my point.

like im trying to think of somebody that legit doesnt care and im coming up blank. i can come up with plenty of people that seem to be lazy about what they do, but in reality they probably arent - maybe thats just dumb musician talk, but its pretty hard to imagine having the creative impulse and then actually one day just not caring at all. mitch miller from sing along with mitch made some of the most phoned in sounding stuff possible, but he was a legendary tyrant nightmare when it came to HOW MUSIC WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. i think that same stripe runs through most muso types

tldr: I think it looks bad, and the idea behind it isn't as brilliant as the designer wants us to believe.

what about musicians/artists who appear not to give a fuck about anything OUTSIDE OF music/art?

basically I just want all my favorite artists to fuck me

like im trying to think of somebody that legit doesnt care and im coming up blank. i can come up with plenty of people that seem to be lazy about what they do, but in reality they probably arent - maybe thats just dumb musician talk, but its pretty hard to imagine having the creative impulse and then actually one day just not caring at all. mitch miller from sing along with mitch made some of the most phoned in sounding stuff possible, but he was a legendary tyrant nightmare when it came to HOW MUSIC WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. i think that same stripe runs through most muso types

I know what you're saying but isn't there still a widely accepted (or imagined) continuum between for example some punks going into a studio and bashing out 12 songs in 4 hours, using the first takes and leaving in mistakes VS on the other end of things steely dan?

studio time costs money bro

so yeah, not giving a fuck might be less of a genuine laziness and lack of care and more of a deliberate aesthetic stance.
xp

xp and if the lead singer of that punk band isn't screaming his heart out for 4 hours, he is for sure gonna hear about it

studio time costs money bro

not really the main impulse behind punk though was it? I mean that's part it but it's a larger ideological and aesthetic choice as well.

I feel like I've seen (live and on film/video) a ton of artists who don't give a fuck where live performance is concerned. That could mean anything from not wanting to put in the bare minimum of physical effort required, to not giving a fuck about how fundamentally unexciting their presentation is, to outright contempt for the audience. But I've never thought, in any of those situations, that the artists didn't give a fuck about their work overall.

So to answer your question, wk: Both. I think it's incredibly boring and I think that Bowie didn't give a fuck when he gave the green light to release it. It's not particularly transgressive, it's not polemic, it won't get any people talking (well, maybe a couple of designers), it's simply boring.

So the difference between an acceptable giving a fuck, imho, is how hard you try too seem like you don't.

im willing to bet that the actual amount of peeps that actually dont give a fuck about their music is a crazy small amount. like, celine dion or josh groban really care abt their music, but so do jimmy buffet or metallica or w/e. its not a valuation for me because i think the idgaf crowd is pretty much a strawman

this is completely OTM which is why this question translates to me in a really weird, specific way about my perception of the artist rather than the actual number of fucks given by the artist

So to answer your question, wk: Both. I think it's incredibly boring and I think that Bowie didn't give a fuck when he gave the green light to release it. It's not particularly transgressive, it's not polemic, it won't get any people talking (well, maybe a couple of designers), it's simply boring.

it's interesting that we read it in such different ways (and and illustration of the exact phenomenon that made me want to start the thread!). to you it successfully reads as not giving a fuck and that makes you not like it whereas I think it reads as kind of a phoney attempt to look like he doesn't give a fuck but I still like it.

and and illustration = idgaf

I think maybe different musicians have different ideas of what their obligations are. "making the best-sounding record possible" vs. "playing a killer set every night" vs. "continually developing as an artist" vs. etc etc etc

ha see i really dig that bowie cover a lot

this is completely OTM which is why this question translates to me in a really weird, specific way about my perception of the artist rather than the actual number of fucks given by the artist

yeah, it's ultimately all about perception since we can't really know about authorial intent

Depends on the artist. A posture of cool detachment works best for some artists and others rock earnestness and ambition in a way that is endearing. In either case, I'm wary of taking their level of fuck-giving at face value.

this is one of my all time favorite album covers tho so:

http://www.amiright.com/album-covers/images/album-Liars-Theres-Always-Room-on-the-Broom.jpg

of course, if (you believe that) Bowie believes that one of his obligations is to be 'challenging' or 'unpredictable', then deliberate aesthetic missteps suddenly become defensible (although not, e.g., half-assing a live performance)

what if i'm mistaken about the amount of fuck the artist gives? does that make my response to their art incorrect?

yes

btw this will all be on the final exam

idngaf

I'm too lazy to go back through the thread and find quotes but I feel like there was a lot of criticism of Savages in that thread that seemed to be coming from the spirit of -- they're too period perfect, put their influences and visual style together too carefully, take themselves too seriously, etc.

I'm too lazy to go back through the thread and find quotes

^^^ attempt to exude idgaf vibe

the new thing is to care passionately, and to be right-wing

oh I guess your parenthesis covers that. I'm not really someone who has a fit about (assumed/projected) "smugness" or anything like that tho xp

Just bothers me generally. I like when people are more grounded.

fair enough, I just can't get with that at all

like did james brown need to be more down to earth? & brian eno is prob the single smuggest person on earth (he is smugger than bono) but I <3 him like a mother

It doesn't make me not like the music, but it's distracting and I get put off a little for sure.

In the spirit of the thread I prefer less of all that.

I wouldn't consider James Brown to be overly serious or anything either btw

zappa seems like a good example of somebody who dgaf about lyrics, propriety, and just general attitude, but cared intensely about music and chops, which is pretty much the least popular combination. it's more popular to do the opposite and be musically inept but more serious about ideas and image.

how was james brown not serious? he would fine band members for mistakes!

he was the hardest working man in show business! he wrote political lyrics, wore costumes, and put on an intensely professional stage show.

it's more popular to do the opposite and be musically inept but more serious about ideas and image.

Popular with whom? Phish seem to sell a lot of concert tickets.

where do you prefer the artist to apply that fuck energy?

― wk, Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:27 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, if they can't be bothered to spend it themselves, they should give all that energy to me and then I can become the fuckin' fuck-givin' master.

Artists should give enough of a fuck to produce good work that rewards listeners (or readers, or whatever) giving a fuck. Generally, more is better than less, in art as in life.

Generally, more is better than less

I don't know if that's true or we wouldn't have criticisms like "trying too hard", "overproduced" etc. And critics and audiences wouldn't reward and celebrate roughness, spontaneity, amateurishness, and general lack of polish and professionalism.

i don't think 'overproduced' necessarily has anything to do with the amount of effort put in imo, i always saw it as more about smothering a song in overly fancy or superfluous arrangement. it doesn't mean something was played too well or recorded too nicely.

it implies putting in too much effort though doesn't it? going too far, working too long on something until all of the wrinkles are ironed out and any spontaneity is smoothed over.

maybe it gets used that way, but that's not how i would normally read it..

if i were a rock star i would alternate between amazing live shows and "meltdowns" where i would just walk off the stage, causing fans to become infuriated when they don't get their money back and allowing myself the opportunity to tell them that i "don't give a fuck." it's the only way to be.

I make assumptions about whether an artist gives a fuck or not based on how much their music matches a number of criteria that I give a fuck about, I guess. S it's not necessarily how much of a fuck they give, but what kind. I've always got the impression that Suede, for instance, didn't really give a fuck about music in the same way as I do, but they clearly give a fuck about something. The new Phoenix album suggests they don't give a fuck about sound quality, which is obviously a big turn off to me, and they've gone down in my estimation (again; they do with every other album, seemingly). House of Blondes, who I'm really digging at the moment, obviously give a massive fuck about sound and listening in a similar way to how I do, and that's a big part of the attraction.

The Bowie cover is an interesting one. I don't know whether it says idgaf or I give a fuck too much. I just know that I think it's fucking ugly.

This is a good question, I think the only time it really bothers me is when a band I like puts out a disappointing, by-the-numbers record and I find myself wondering "Could you not be bothered writing any decent songs or have you just forgotten how to?" (although I'm not sure which I'd prefer - the latter is more forgivable but probably more dispiriting...).

Have always been very wary of 'not giving a fuck' being used as a badge of coolness, it usually just seems to be license to act like an obnoxious prick.

The Deerhunter / Atlas Sound guy definitely gives too much of a fuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdzY49xlvdY

sometimes I feel like the whole 90s irony/slacker/"whatever" thing gets unduly exaggerated in memories of the era; but then I watch something like this and I realize just how far we've come in a couple decades

Hahaha maaaaan those two

watching that clip again, another potentially-useful fuck-giving metric occurs to me: what, if anything, would it take for the artist(s) in question to get annoyed or defensive (especially re: their own work/the interpretation thereof) in a live-interview-type situation

i want all artists/critics to come from backgrounds prosperous enough they have no idea even how to give a fuck

lol.

"the leisure class" would be a good band/album name

effort is so gauche

sometimes I feel like the whole 90s irony/slacker/"whatever" thing gets unduly exaggerated in memories of the era; but then I watch something like this and I realize just how far we've come in a couple decades

it's funny because they can't actually keep it up the whole time, Thurston gets actually interested in his own questions at one point

holy shit that interview

pretty sure they invented the high five there

holy shit that interview

Aero OTM though. It would have been better if they maintained the absurdity of the first minute or so for the whole thing.

'gosh, you're on dgc too?'

wow Beck what a dickface

lol

haha, that's hilarious. perfect example of carefully trying to appear like they don't give a fuck in a way that actually comes across as totally calculated. of course he doesn't fuck around when it's time to say the album release date. it's like the '90s equivalent of those '60s bands that made a big show of not lip syncing properly.

omg

I like the calculated nature of it. If they actually didn't give a fuck, they probably wouldn't have made it to the interview in the first place; if they did, it would have been really boring. This seems pretty obvious to me (and did when I was a teenager too). This is more of a humorous/absurd play on the idea of not giving a fuck, if anything, which was kind of original in its way.

yeah, less sex pistols style provocation and more monkees style irony.

i agree with Sund4r. everything, ultimately, is a calculation. not giving a fuck is a deliberate pose, and whether you strike that pose or not has no relationship to your actual level of fuck giving

it's like phil says,
Well you can tell ev'ryone I'm a down disgrace
Drag my name all over the place.
I don't care anymore.

Was Thurston acting weird in that interview? I dunno I stopped watching when Beck threw the shoe, I couldn't watch past that. But it didn't seem like that up to that point, just seemed like he was trying to figure out how to react to Beck.

someone i know told me that his mom was in an elevator with beck once. she recognized him and asked him if he was "from that band, beck" and beck replied "I AM BECK!" in a hostile tone.

did they then kiss?

idk. this is a third hand anecdote.

wait i've heard this story before

was it the beck from the band beck though?

Then the mother sat down on the floor of the elevator, not noticing that Beck was speaking to his dog.