Tag Archives: Bay City Rollers

Banning Superfans and other misnomers

Amanda and I have been studying fandom for about ten years now. I think we each try to stay current with publications and research, but every now and then something will come out that takes us by surprise. This weekend, an article was published in the Daily Mail (maybe not the hardest hitting newspaper out there) that made me stop and think about superfans. I shared it across social media, hoping to generate some careful thought and response.

The article is about a fan named Heather Vaughn, who considers herself to be a Bay City Rollers Superfan.  By her own estimate,  she has attended over 4000 BCR concerts and has been a fan for over 40 years. Unfortunately, since April, she has been asked to leave gigs and has been banned. She claims not to know why, although the article discusses a specific situation where Mr. McKeown was checking into a hotel, saw Heather out front and took a photo of her on his phone.  You can read the article here (in fact I really think everyone should).

Just in case you’ve never heard of them, the Bay City Rollers were a 1970’s Scottish pop group that happened to have quite a huge female following. They split in 1978, but the lead singer (after taking time to recover from drugs, etc) continues to tour under the name “Les McKeown’s Bay City Rollers”, and – this may surprise some of you given some of the “Who the heck are they?” responses I saw yesterday – they still have quite a strong following. These are people who go to every show, who have been fans from nearly the beginning. There have been many books and articles written about their fans, and there are definitely parallels to be found between that fan community and our own.

While the article interested me, I was even more curious about some of the responses I read, specifically from Duran Duran fans who had posted the article for their friends to read.  The responses went one of two ways:

  1. People felt there must be more to the story than this woman simply being seen at the same hotel that Les McKeown was checking into.
  2. People were appalled that the band was not thrilled that they had such a loyal superfan.

After reading those types of responses from several people who had commented, I decided I would post the article to the community-at-large over social media and monitor the reactions. I wasn’t really sure what people might say, but I was fairly convinced Duran fans would have SOME sort of opinion!  I was not wrong.

Overall, the same two original types of responses I read seemed to be the norm throughout the community. Although stated in a myriad of ways, directionally they were the same. Either fans were convinced there was more to the story than what was being shared, or they were firmly supportive of superfans.  There was also some discussion defining obsessive behavior and “crazy fans”, but ultimately – it comes down to whether or not you support the superfan, or you believe something happened where the band is “just” in their decision to ban said fan.

This seems to always boil down to the same discussion of what is acceptable fan behavior. And, as I could have predicted—everyone has a different opinion about that. It’s not an easy conversation.

I chatted with some people who felt that if you go to “too many shows”, it starts to look odd to the band. If you wave to band members, maybe that’s too “familiar”.  If they begin to recognize you,  that’s too much. If you talk to the band online as though you would anyone else, and expect them to answer, that’s bizarre.

I started looking hard at my own past “fan” behavior after I got offline. Unlike Heather Vaughn, I’ve never been called up on stage, or had photographs taken of myself doing housework for one of the band members. (Don’t even think about it. I love the band…but not that much!!) I have, however, traveled great distances to see them. I’ve been in hotel bars and restaurants at the same time as they’ve been. I’ve stayed at the same hotel before. I’ve gone to show after show, and yeah, I’m pretty sure that at least Simon recognizes me at this point, and likely Nick too.  What makes me any different from Mrs. Vaughn, other than the amount I’ve done?

The thing is, we don’t know why Heather Vaughn was banned. Chances are, there’s more to the story than what was reported, on both sides. What really concerns me is the idea that some Duran Duran fans think that no matter what she’s done, it’s OK because it was done in the name of being a loyal fan.  What exactly does “loyal” mean, anyway?  How do any of us know that she didn’t try to break into a room, or make threats, or continually show up to private events completely unannounced—purely because she thought that she was so much of a great fan that she belonged?  We don’t, but think about it the possibility. She’d gone to over 4000 shows. The band clearly knew who she was. She felt familiar, both in being a fan, as well as thinking they knew her.  I would imagine it is very easy to believe you’re more than just another fan in that case. It can be intoxicating to be validated by a celebrity, and after decades of just that, you start to believe you belong. That’s the risk.

It is those types of things, where you’re showing up to things a fan shouldn’t be, and getting into places you were not invited, that get a fan banned. Fans do not get banned because they happen to be in a hotel lobby, or because they’ve been to one too many shows in a stretch. Fans aren’t told to go away because they asked for a photo, and I’ve seen some really forceful asking! Restraining orders are for people who don’t know enough to back the heck off.  Blocking and banning are used for those who don’t realize what “private time” or “personal space” means, and have to be continually told, most of the time at the peril of the band member or others that work for the band.  Fans are banned because they ignore that a band member is actually a human being with a real life, or because they threaten a band member and/or their family.  Bands and artists don’t want to have to block fans from events. That’s not their goal, so when they do it, it is as a last resort, when nothing else has worked.  Assuming that this person is the victim is likely the wrong way to go here, and I really hope people who see it that way think twice. Or even three times.

Superfans aren’t the problem. Loyalty isn’t the issue at all.

If nothing else, the article gave me food for thought. I hope it did the same for you.

-R

 

I Knew When I First Saw You on the Showroom Floor

I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading recently.  I just finished Electric Ladyland last night, which is about women and rock.  While reading, I found a quote that I couldn’t get out of my head. I sent it on to Amanda because we’re working on something and I thought it would be of benefit to her, too. I’m going to share it here as well, because I’m curious about what our readers might think.

“Even after I realized women were barred from any active participation in rock music, it took me a while to see that we weren’t even considered a real part of the listening audience.  It was clear that the concerts were directed only to men and the women were not considered people, but more on the level of exotic domestic animals that come with their masters or come to find masters. Only men are assumed smart enough to understand the intricacies of the music.” –Susan Hiwatt, “Cock Rock”, an essay from Twenty-Minute Fandangos and Forever Changes

First of all, before the roaring chorus of “No way!!” begins, I feel as though context may be important.  I found this quote in Electric Ladyland, but it came from the essay cited above. Electric Ladyland examines the role of women in music, whether as musicians, writers, or groupies (anyone want to guess why I was reading?).  More specifically, the book targets the years of 1960 through the 1970’s. Anyone who has properly studied that time in history knows how much change occurred during that nearly twenty year period (1960-1979ish).  The quote came from something written in 1971, but I’m wondering how much of it still hold true today, and for the sake of argument, we can take Duran Duran for an example.

I don’t necessarily think that Duran Duran bars women from active participation, per se. I mean, I’ve been to concerts. So have many of our readers. It’s pretty clear they’re on board with the whole “there are women in our audience” thing.

That said, let’s take a few things into consideration. The band itself has never really gotten respect from critics and the like. Part of that reason is because of their following. And who made up most of their following?  Us. Women. Girls. Teenyboppers. Even today, when the band talks about their audience in interviews, they are certain to bring up the fact that their audience has broadened to include men. The point is, if it didn’t matter, I don’t think they’d bring it up.

Let’s talk about the concert itself since that’s something mentioned in the quote I shared. If you spend any time at all looking at the video screens behind the band, the images are mainly of women. Not ALL, but most. This has always amused me, because if the audience is primarily women, and we’re watching the show, which includes the screens…who are those images for, then?  Sure, we can and should argue that girls/women/models/etc has always been a part of Duran Duran’s entire visual package. Even so, there’s part of me that wonders, if the women in the audience cannot tear their eyes away from Simon for even a second to see the screens behind them, who is watching those screens?  Their dates?? Maybe. So while I wouldn’t argue the entire concert is directed towards men (hardly!), I do think there are images there designed for them. Not a bad thing, I’m definitely not condemning the band for them, I’m acknowledging what they’re designed to do.

Now, about that whole exotic domesticated animal thing. I’m not gonna lie – anytime I read words like that I think of “The Man Who Stole a Leopard”, which I feel is symbolism for a lot of different things.  But, when I get past that thought, I would agree that it’s difficult for me to see a Duran Duran concert in that same light. But isn’t that part of the reason why critics had such trouble giving Duran Duran even an ounce of credit back in the 80s?  The band wasn’t playing just for guys, or just for girls for that matter. They were meant for everyone.

On the other hand, I feel like there are a plethora of other examples, particularly in hard rock, where women are merely the eye candy for the evening. The music is meant for men, and they can bring their women along with them for the evening. Or women can show up on their own and then go looking for men! While I’m not saying that can’t happen at a Duran Duran concert, I’m also saying that they’re not the first band that pops into my mind when that scenario is discussed.

What about Duran Duran’s videos? This is another area that I think we have to at least acknowledge packaging.  Let’s be honest: many of their videos have beautiful women in them. Girls on Film, Rio, Hungry Like the Wolf, Falling Down, Girl Panic, New Moon on Monday, Careless Memories…I could go on and on.  They don’t just put women in their videos for their own benefit. They’re there to attract the audience the label (and maybe even the band) would like to have: men. Now why is that?  Why are men so important, and why is it that even when a band has millions upon millions of ardent female fans, why are they never given credit?

It’s not just Duran Duran in that boat, and it’s not just the 80’s we’re talking about here. The Beatles, Bay City Rollers, New Kids on the Block, N*Sync, Backstreet Boys, and yes, One Direction. By any account, all of those bands were (and still are) very successful. Millions of fans, sold-out tours,  and #1 records to go all around. In every example given, women make up the majority of their fans, and in every case the critical acclaim has never quite been there. (with the possible exception of The Beatles, where the majority of their critical success came after the band broke up). I just don’t think that’s   purely coincidence.

“Only men are assumed smart enough to understand the intricacies of the music.” 

If I am to understand that quote correctly, if men like the music – I think of Bruce Springsteen, U2, The Rolling Stones, The Police, etc – it’s because the music is genuinely good, men get that, and that is why they choose those bands to follow.  If an audience is made up of women and girls, it is because those women don’t really get the music. I mean, how could they – they’re too busy looking at the band to hear much else, and they don’t really understand music anyway. Ah. I see.

I can remember sharing my thoughts about various songs the band has done over the years. Amanda and I have done many reviews on the blog or even on YouTube. I never failed to be amused by some of the comments we received, some of which came incredibly close to a virtual pat on the head, explaining that while we’re cute, we don’t understand music.

Outraged, I’d write back, sharing my education with them. I would punch at the keys on my computer as though each one was hurting the (typically) male who dared question my intelligence. But then one day, I got smart and stopped responding. I don’t need to bother. I know what I know. I am confident that for the most part, the men (and some women) who choose to belittle whatever Amanda and I are doing at the time, aren’t going to ever be convinced of why or how we do it. We run into that kind of judgment all the time, whether it’s someone criticizing why we go to shows, why we blog, or why we’ve written manuscripts. We can’t win those individual battles on our own, but together, we can win the war.

It just doesn’t have to be this way.  I’m interested in reading your thoughts and ideas!

-R