Here's one example: In the film "Crush" a church organist boasts that he is able to make anyone cry with music. He doesn't say that he himself is moved when he does it, he simply knows how--how to push people's emotional buttons.
A reverse example: Jerry Jeff Walker once complained that he has on and off nights--sometimes he's into it, but when he isn't, people complain that he's not as good, that he seems bored or irritated. They want him to "at least look like he's having a good time."
Jerry Jeff said "I'd just like to remind people that prostitutes can do that too, 'she really loved me, man, she moaned and groaned and everything'."
Which makes me want to remind Jerry Jeff of something--prostitutes are not called prostitutes because they fake it, they are called prostitutes because they take money. If they're good at faking it, that makes them GOOD prostitutes.
Jerry Jeff takes money, so I guess we know what he is. The only question is--is he a good one? If people can tell when he's not having a good time, I reckon he's ripping his customers off.
So, why does manipulation--performers and songwriters deliberately pushing our emotional buttons--have such a bad name? Critics often complain about it. They seem to think that if the effect was achieved by "inspiration," that's how it should be, but if the composer or performer has just learned his craft well and learned what works, he's somehow cheating.
Why don't we give a cold, cynical manipulator due credit for doing a good job?
_________________
I don't do it for the money, babe. I do it to entertain people.-- Susan Boyle
Home 
Register 
Log in 
Subject: Cold, cynical manipulation in music and the arts 
Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:26 pm
