jb wrote:I think you are approaching this as if they were a cover band only happy to see whoever appeared that night. That's not the case.
No, I get that, but they're a new band and I'm assuming they would be happy to have people in the audience listening to the music. It wasn't a closed rehearsal, it was a public performance; why else would they be performing?
jb wrote:At the start of the segment they discuss that yes, they were kind of glad they the show would be empty because they were tired and just wanted to play and go home.
Okay they were tired, and they suggested that they would have felt perfectly fine if nobody had attended the show, but they were going to play whether that crowd showed up or not. At worst, the crowd delayed their bedtime by one or two encores. I don't see how that should make a big difference in anybody's opinion of the event. (Also I have my doubts about the sincerity of their claim that they would have preferred a dead show, to me that sounds more like a reassessment after the fact to help them feel more justified in their anger - but that's neither here nor there.)
jb wrote:You say they should have focused on the positive-- but for this story they were asked how they felt, so their emotions are legitimate. In public they did as you suggest and worked the moment to their benefit, even as they felt betrayed and hurt inside.
You say it would have been easier to feel some other way? I don't understand that. They felt how they felt, and it wasn't a choice but a reaction to having the rug pulled out from under them. Somebody loves our music! Oh wait they were only kidding. Intent doesn't matter here- they weren't in on the joke, so it's as if the prettiest girl asked the nerd to the prom then revealed it was just a joke.
Yes their emotions are as legitimate as anyone else's. But the disappointment was based on some pretty specific expectations, and when you really think about it, those expectations are unjustified. As for the 'choice' aspect, I don't think anyone should be a hopeless slave to their emotions regardless of the initial reaction. If I'm angered by something that I have no reason to be angered by (casino commercials, capri pants on men, Xmas decorations in September) then I am able to dismiss that emotion because I'm an adult and because I have some perspective.
The band is also unnecessarily dismissing what they felt during the show. It is
not like if the prettiest girl asked the nerd to the prom and then revealed it was a big joke. It
is as if the prettiest girl asked the nerd to the prom, then they went to the prom together and had a great time together, and then the nerd got to 2nd base with the prettiest girl, and then three days after the prom it was revealed to be a big joke, and then the nerd was all the more popular for it and got the sympathy and attention of the school, the press, NPR, Showtime, etc. In the purest objective terms they lost nothing and only benefited from the experience. The 'bad press' [no such thing] they got was based on their own negative reactions. The tone of this story would have been much different (and, yes, probably not as interesting) if the band had been great sports and had a positive attitude about the whole thing.
jb wrote:So I think that the Improv guys had a moment of severe lack of empathy for this band, thinking that the only thing that mattered was the moment, when really the goal was something other than that.
I disagree with your 'severe lack of empathy' label. The origin of the prank had to have been rooted in empathy. They found a show that was doomed to be poorly attended and they made it the "Best Gig Ever". The title is not ironic, it's literal. It was essentially intended as a random, bewildering gift, and IMO the band could have accepted and appreciated it as a gift instead of seeing themselves as hapless, wounded victims.