smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Christopher <plattc@optonline.net> |
| Subject | Performing Vibe |
| Date | Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:20:50 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (3.2 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
It's all been said a hundred ways by now, but heck, I'll chime in with
perspective from both sides.
First from the performing side: I don't do the rock thang (not
publicly, anyway), but I sing in a pretty well-regarded choir in my
spare time. We've had gigs at Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall, etc. It's
a decent sized group, around 70 members, and we come from all walks of
life. Now obviously, talking about spontaneity and shilling and
autographs and the like for a bunch of amateur choristers doesn't hold
water, but there *is* a matter of connecting to the audience. Anyone
playing live, anyone being on stage for ANY reason, I think there's an
implicit understanding that the performer is giving their all. I can't
begin to count how many times I've had a gig after a 12-hour day of
work, change into my tux in my office, hop the subway to whatever church
or concert venue where we're performing, and go to it. My problems, my
issues, my exhaustion be damned. I'm there for the audience, I'm there
to serve the music. If I considered putting myself out there without
being *into* the music, without letting the audience-performer feedback
work its magic, I would never ever bother. We're constantly exhorted by
our music director to project, not just sound, but attitude. It's a
performance. We want the audience to be moved. We want ourSELVES to be
moved. The less put into a performance, the less gotten back from it.
Now from the audience side: I was once a die-hard Sting fan (I'm over
it, thanks). One of the things I really loved about what he was doing
when he struck out solo was the (seeming) spontaneity of his concerts.
Granted, that was by design, given that he brought aboard some serious
jazz chops to his backing band, and he let them go when they'd solo.
Admittedly, I was young and impressionable at the time (late high
school), but I thought "Man, how cool is that? It's a different
freaking show every night!" Even if the setlist was carved in stone,
which undoubtedly it was by the time they were touring, the band was so
tight but so freewheeling that there was a massive rapport with the
audience.
Fast-forward a decade or so, Sting's band got a little less "out", the
shows a little (or a lot) more "produced." Hell, he was singing along
to a multitrack tape of his own backing vox, even though there was a
whole band there to back him up. Lighting cues turned on a dime. Even
for freaking ENCORES. Songs segued seamlessly from one to the next.
Any pretense of spontaneity was gone, and so was my interest. He was
just playing his albums, very admirably mind you, but no "value added"
other than seeing his pretty-boy face, if you're into that sort of
thing.
So how does all this apply to FoW? Well, if they're just up there
playing by rote, not playing because they love the songs and want the
audience to come away smiling, then they're just not a band that should
bother playing out. Is it grueling hell for them to tour? I'm sure it
is. But they do themselves AND their music AND the audience a major
disservice if they can't at least put on a smile as they recreate their
album tracks onstage.
At least that's my humble opinion.
Christopher
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.