Roger Waters Live Last Night in Glendale,AZ

My first concert in a while. Last was Sia. 

Roger has a message for his audience

that comes with the music. Somewhat off-putting

I must say. I went for music not politics. Not saying

I totally disagree with his. F-bombs galore. All our presidents

past and current are mass murderers. Could be a bit strong.

He is 79 and British.  Has some fun stories. I can live without

the other messages though. Is this messaging common nowadays?


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:  wow, your picture should be next to the definition of long winded.

When I go to a concert I go to hear the music, not the political rantings of the musician.  The last three concerts I’ve been to had no politics at all (Eagles, Bob Seger, Bob Jovi), and enjoyed the hell out of all of them.  Saw Cyndi Lauper (sp?) and left when she started spewing her left wing liberal Democrat garbage.  Don’t want to hear conservatives either, just play your music, sing your songs, maybe an encore or two, then on to the next city, leaving the audience happy.

Do your political statements on your own time and dime, not on mine.  The NFL listened to the sound of money leaving their coffers, so non-support can and does work.

Although I am a huge Floyd fan, Waters is off limits. He has gotten increasingly louder in his rants but the final straw was when he said “America is the most evil country in the world”. Why would I pay to hear him spew his bullshit? You do not see David Gilmour or Nick Mason going on about politics, it should be kept at home. I will no longer spend my money to see him or buy anymore of his music. Waters is dead to me.  A big FY to Roger, well deserved.