Saturday, November 11, 2006

Musicians and politicians: part one

Well, this has been a tremendous week to say the least. It all started on Tuesday with the much-anticipated Foo Fighters/Bob Dylan show, and for that, I owe thanks not only to Tara for getting the tickets and driving, but also to April, Brandon, and especially Tonezone for holding it down on a solid News section. Unfortunately, after a rather difficult time finding Skillz and less than stellar traffic flow, we arrived at the end of Marigold, the second song in the Foo's acoustic set; it's a song written and sung by Grohl, but released on a Nirvana album - I want to say the greatest hits box set or something.

Anyway, our truancy notwithstanding, Grohl continues to blow my mind. This was my third time seeing them, after the Molson Ampitheatre show last summer and their July 7, 2003 set at Arrow Hall (I remember when I'd only been to 15 or 16 shows and I could recite them all by chronological date - oh, to be that cool again). It was interesting because they played a lot of the lesser known tracks (See You, Next Year, Another Round), as well as a new track called Skin & Bones - awesome, quiet start, but building - and of course, some of the absolute favourites, like Best of You and Everlong. They also did Cold Day in the Sun, which is the song that drummer Taylor Hawkins sings - I'm fairly convinced this dude, who put on a pretty mindboggling display with a triple-crossover drum solo, is Grohl, just a decade behind. I shall definitely have to check out his side project.

But yes, Grohl = God. His stage presence is tremendous, and Skillman, Bri, and I were all in stitches as he explained that he's allowed to curse incessantly because his mom's an English teacher and his dad was a speech-writer, and as such, he's articulate. It was also interesting to ponder the notion of Grohl having a past before Nirvana, and to contrast what sounds thus far like a fairly normal upbringing with the absolute mindfuck of reading about Cobain's twisted childhood in Heavier Than Heaven, a tremendous novel by the insanely-skilled Charles Cross. Anyway, yes - does anyone know of a performer they think could rival Grohl for his stage presence, setting aside your thoughts about the Foo's music? And what makes a good performer, for that matter?

Well, if it's crowd interaction, Bobby D is very low on the list. As I think is perhaps a little more common amongst the aged rockers, crowd interaction was almost nil in the icon's hour and 45 minutes on stage. Frankly, I enjoyed the set. He played more of the songs that I wanted to hear than I could have hoped for, including Tangled Up In Blue, Masters of War, It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding) and, perhaps my favourite, Don't Think Twice, It's Alright. The encore also included Like A Rolling Stone and All Along The Watchtower (though Skillman assured me that Hendrix's version is far superior). Basically, had he replaced some of the initial songs with Hurricane and It's All Over Now, Baby Blue, I would've suspected he'd geared the set list directly at me.

Now, I would say all my friends were less impressed than me (though my brother liked it, and I have yet to hear the analysis of Mr. Joseph Turcotte). I think their expectations were too high. While I would've liked to see some of the classic Dylan tracks performed in a more stripped-down light with less backing instrumentation, he didn't do too bad. Sure, his voice sucked, but it was never that good to begin with. Do we take it for what it was, or is it fair of us to expect more from a man who has gone through serious drug usage and is in his '60s? Should artists past their prime even be performing? Is it doing a favour to a younger audience by affording them an opportunity to see them, or is it simply tainting a legacy? I found it interesting that Scorsese's documentary paid no attention to Dylan's career beyond the 60s. It almost seemed to me to be an implicit commentary that the years that have followed aren't as crucial to the Dylan legacy. Thoughts?

This post is getting too long. I'm going to break now and Bill Clinton, Jurassic 5 and Adrienne Clarkson will be relegated to another post.

4 Comments:

At 1:57 a.m., Blogger Mish said...

I have thoughts. I hope they don't get me killed...

I have nothing but love and respect for B. Dizzle. In fact "Shelter from the storm" is one of my all-time favourite songs. I love all his classics.

I think Dylan's work was possibly finished a while ago. He's not about his amazing voice, his catchy songs and his fly dance moves. And ever since his "prime" THAT is what has dominated mainstream music. Not, as Dylan was best known for, raising social consciousness. Even that would require slightly better aesthetics.

thatisall.

ps. you have EIGHT fingers, Brown. Not three. Eight. And they're fabulous. Jesus, learn to count!

pps. if you're going to be watching scorsesee films that better star Jack Nicholson!

 
At 3:14 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Long time listener, first time caller. Enjoying the blog, but there's not enough content about meaningful things like celebrity babies and Deal or No Deal.

In response to your question about whether older artists are doing the young punks a favour or tainting a legacy, I think you're approaching the question all wrong. This is art. The decision on whether to continue should have nothing to do with public perception. The relevant question an artist has to ask themselves is: Do I still have anything meaningful to convey. I think Mr. Dylan can still answer that in the affirmative so I'm all for his decision to continue touring.

I will grant you that an artist's pride may cause them to give some consideration to a 'legacy', but inhibiting one's artistry in the hopes of maintaining one's pride usually causes damage to both.

 
At 2:02 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, now you've gone and done it Brown. You've officially drawn me into commenting on a blog. (I thought since you referenced me and all, I couldn't resist).

So, here we go:
1) the Dylan show kicked ass. Dylan has long since given up on trying to do what people expect him to (if he ever did). 'Remember' Newport, the electric, finding Jesus, making bad-country albums? That's Dylan right there. Not some quaint folk-rocking, protest-song writing troubadour. Dylan is an artist, a musical expeditionary (if you will). It is for that reason (and to not get caught in a spot "where he thinks he's somewhere") that Dylan changes his arrangements. Or I could be totally off-- read Chronicles Volume 1 and find out for yourself.

2) Performing is art, and that's why I don't think that the older generation of artist's are tainting their legacies. Well, maybe the Stones. They seem to be more about money than art.

3) As for the whole legacy thing, why is it that the public (and the press) always want to create a legacy that is easy to pin-down while at the same time the legends themselves always seem to be avoiding definition. Defintion is restricting, it turns the individual into a subject that can be controlled. Legacy are limiting, in the same way that an obituary is. Neither can fully capture what the individual really is (or was).

Well I'm tired... it's late... and I'm rambling. Keep up the good work Brown, maybe I'll check in again the next time Dylan's around.

jt

ps. counting's overrated
pps. the departed does kick ass

 
At 1:40 a.m., Blogger A.M.B. said...

there are many people who adore mr. brown in this world.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home