Theatricality in Rock

in the end it really comes down to taste.

xpost-- good point there Hurting, punk's theatrical as well. but it's not how he initially meant the question i think.

The Decembrists, on the other hand, actually sound like Broadway to me, which is why I fucking hate them.

Anyway, that's not the point. You say why I can't have both? Because I don't want both. Like I said--quite simply--I go to _HEAR_ great music. End of story.

Most of the punk I like sure ain't theatrical, but different strokes...

I myself am a huge fan of Tom Waits, King Crimson, Decemberists and I prefer them to the Velvets et al but it's the musicality and songwriting that attracts me to these bands - not the theatrics so much. I like a lot of black metal but I find that some bands like In The Woods overdo the theatrics and that really grates.

I think this is a bit of a myth. How, after all, can the audience truly judge if a performer's emotion is "real" or not? What makes a performance good is when it's convincing -- which may in fact mean that the performer is a great actor.

Then again, I suppose good acting requires some sort of emotional connection to the role, so in a way the emotion does have to be real.

Usually it's pretty obvious. But perhaps we go to see different types of performers. I mean, if the guy is doing some kind of crazy stage shtick, who is to say he's not really into it? I couldn't tell, honestly--but then, that's not the thing I pay money to see, so it is irrelevent to me. I just want good music, playing by a human being, not a rock star or any of that.

Unless you want to pretend these guys are trying to subtly build their careers by acting the part of a regular, stand-up guy who gets a little misty eyed playing some of their tunes. That seems ridiculously cynical even to me, having had a decent amount of conversations/encounters with a few of my favorite musicians.

(Peanut gallery: BUT HOW CAN YOU TELL HE'S A GREAT ACTOR? WHAT IF HE'S JUST A SONGWRITER IN DISGUISE, HAR!)

My personal taste in acting runs more toward the two extremes that most people would probably consider overacting or underacting. If you got a group of people to speak and act onscreen the way that real people speak and act, most people would consider it bad acting or underacting. And on the flip side if you watch any of the so-called reality shows you'll see the most insane overacting passing as real human drama.

Likewise the poses of punk rockers appear to me as a cartoonish degree of overacting although a lot of it may be unintentional. Rather than the thoughtfully constructed artifice of someone who might be considered more theatrical, the punk rock act is more of an insecure and unconscious adolescent impulse to ape certain accepted rock-and-roll behaviors.

So I don't think complaints about theatricality have anything to do with real theatricality but with certain musical characteristics as Hurting pointed out. People who sing with too much vibrato or belt it out from the chest rather than tightening up their throat into a weedy "real voice" will usually be criticized for being too theatrical. And songs with too much of a tin-pan-alley influence, with too many chords, key changes, and fancy arrangements might be considered too Broadway.

The point you're missing is that you may be getting a great actor whether you want it or not.

There's no doubt that some musicians have pulled off a similar feat, I'm thinking David Bowie/Ziggy Stardust/Thin White Duke, Bob Dylan (talk about acting! he's probably the most famous musician of the 20th Century, but his whole life is purposely cloaked and obscured by layer upon layer of self-created myth and rumor), etc.

To be successful or noteworthy, this would have to be carried out over a substantial period of time. It's not the same thing to write a single song from the POV of a 18th Century Russian serf as it is to create a persona that your fans genuinely can't quite distinguish from your "real life." So here I wouldn't consider Colin Meloy (decemberists) in the same category as, say, Tom Waits, who spent the 70s playing the role of beatnik piano-man, and since then has evolved into the circusy, Weimar hobo crooner that has truly solidified his reputation. It's a different thing to compose a collection of story-songs, like Meloy, than it is to maintain a unique performance identity for years.

But playing a role as an entertainer/musician is a pretty old thing -- Woody Guthrie was the educated son of a musicologist who played this universal hardscrabble farmer/laborer/hobo. Leadbelly had elegant taste and liked to wear expensive suits, but (largely at the behest of others) donned overalls and played up the myth around how supposedly dangerous he was.

The older model is a sustained myth about who the artist is, whereas in the newer model, the audience plays along with certain "myths" about the artist that ultimately add up to an uber-myth about the artist as artist.

From Slate's review of his 60 Minutes interview last year:

The basic Q & A template went something like this:
Bradley: "Many regard you as a prophet/god/savior/genius. What do you say to that?"
Dylan: "Argh, erm, well, hmmm."
Bradley: "Wow, you're so enigmatic."

heh.

To be even fairer to Woody, his music is totally kick-ass. The album of topical songs on the Asch Recordings set is an amazing historical document. Also the Sacco and Vanzetti album.

On going through the motions. Believe me, I've spent enough time at the old guitar to understand what you're saying. But there's a difference between "getting-in-the-zone" emotion-wise when playing your music and getting into an act or pose. A frequent thing a person does is put themselves into the moment when they wrote the song, or into the head of the character IN the song or whatever. Similar to method acting, you're right.

But it's authentic, because no one is meant to believe a singer singing a song is telling the literal "truth"--Neil Young didn't shoot his baby down by the river, and all of that. Simply because that tends not to be what art IS--it's not a literal, all-encompassing summation of your day, like, "Woke up 8:00, looked at clock, looked at clock again, felt woozy, moved leg, scratched head, thought about The Wizard Of Oz, felt cold....".

Thing is, the musicians I like, if they don't feel comfortable doing song--as in, doing it honestly, capturing it's spirit, and so on--they either A) drop it from their set, or B) keep it because it's a favorite, do lackluster performances, which people tend to report on giving me or whoever the heads up.

Erklie,

Crimson may not be the best example--it was more or less given to me than chosen. The point is I'm not interested--upon hearing a great record--what the people behind it look like, how they dress, or how they move on stage. Why in hell would I? All I'd think of is can I buy more of their stuff or go hear them play live...

Kranz,

You're right about the acting thing. Of course, gee, I just watched a Capra film the other day, and there's human, emotional truths in, even if it's corny. It just depends on the way you look at it. I've got room for all types, I suppose. But yeah, I do prefer "acting", on a movie screen, to seem so real as to not be noticed as acting. This only really works when the overall context--the whole movie--is in harmony with the actor's performances. But even an outlandish movie, or a fantasy, or a cartoon, if it should possess it's own "logic", it's own believable, bulletproof way of "working", it feels real in the same way, which is fine with me.

But I don't think this has much to do with music. If it's got stylistic or superficial elements of the things you mention--vibrato, fancy arrangements, and so on--to me that's just an artistic choice. Same as "I'm gonna play a mandolin on this one...". It has connotations of theatricallity, but, to me, nothing more. I am more concerned with the things that have little to do with the music itself, and the artists relationship with it, such as performing a certain way to look tough or cool, or to impress, or to invite pity, to look nice for the industry folks up front, that sort of thing. To cultivate an image or an attitude or whatever, to play down to people, to look or seem a certain way. In doing that, you take your eyes off the ball, so to speak, and it tends to show. Of course some acts are built around such things, and have no real substance in the songwriting. Makes no difference to me, ultimately, because I like having some fluff around the house--but it's not the stuff I listen to or love the most, and it's not the stuff I'm going to travel and pay money to see.

So why not just put a stereo on stage? Well, besides the fact that this is a pretty silly arguement (one could respond to it simply by saying the sound would be an issue--a stereo or shoddy iPod music file pumped through club speakers can't compete with a live band!), or that the above-mentioned displays of emotion by live performers are welcomed...

...a stereo is only going to play something that someone recorded. See that word? SomeONE--a person, a human being. Now that same person, who is capable of reproducing (often quite differently, or to different effect) that same music, can be seen actually playing it in front of you, which is quite exciting, and will be a unique experience that a stereo playing the same album you own at home can not compete with. Just for example, seeing a real live drummer really lay into their instrument, and then feeling it through the speakers, I can't get that at home, and it sure is powerful. And it's different every night, for one. Of course, sometimes you see someone live only to conclude they're "better on record", but, shit, what are you gonna do?

But seriously, David, if you're going to take this kind of approach, why don't you answer ME something: Why would you go to see music played live with the expectation of a *theatrical* performance? (Anytime someone is up on stage, it's a performance--the way you phrased it, is, I think, getting too far away from the topic almost).

I like the thing about closing your eyes. I can see that. Though I don't tend to do it for whatever reason. It's got me thinking, though: another thing is the artist and the audience reacting and feeding off one another. I'm sure you get that when you've got a Spinal Tap type show going on, obvious, but what's interesting to me is I've seen it happen with just a guy and a guitar doing his songs. When he starts to really hit that sweet spot, the people know it, and there's something beyond just singing along or cheering or clapping, something that happens and you can see them sense it and sort of channel it into their performance. Doesn't always happen, but when it does...

The added attraction thing makes sense to me. But for those Classik Rawk types, who make powerful records, obviously, I see the on-stage antics as simple part of the total image package: they act up on stage, they trash their hotel rooms, do drugs, etc etc, which is a bigger overall thing. Now that is valuable insamuch as it suggests the type of on-the-edge person who is likely to MAKE extreme music, but I don't have the tabloid news/teenage crush fascination with this stuff. I have to be able to listen to a Hendrix record and just appreciate what's there, without the qualifier of, "Oh, but he did crazy drugs or lit a guitar on fire..." or something. That's great, but I don't give a shit about it, and it can't make the record any better or worse than it is.

Thing no one seems to understand is that--while I dislike Kiss--I can and do appreciate Bowie, and it's done by putting a Bowie record on and listening to it. You could have said I can't appreciate him LIVE without appreciating theatricality, and you might be right, but I can dig the records. Though I did manage to see him play when I was 14...

The fact that you even know about Hendrix has to do with all of these factors. Would he have been as big of a legend if he didn't die? Why do you mention him and not say Sonny Sharrock? Because he was a freaky pop star or just better looking? The burning of his guitar at a certain high-profile festival has nothing to do with the way he's remembered? Why do you think Hendrix's guitar destruction forever upstaged Pete Townshend's similar act? Was he just playing a better tune at the time?

Now I know you'll say that these issues may influence the average rock fan but that you're not falling for it. My point is that these elements of performance are such an integral part of music that they affect who you hear or not, who gets to record in which studio with what budget and which musicians, who the critics write about and what gets reissued. Performance* is inextricably linked with how we evaluate and interact with music. To deny that seems incredibly naive.

*see film of the same name.

The fact that I know about Hendrix, the bigness of his legend, burning a guitar, etc do not make Jimi *record* sound better or worse to me as I *listen* to it. I have pretty much already stated this. You say nothing to refute it. Now you might not be the same way--you might not listen to music, or consume/persue related things in the same way as me--I'm not saying otherwise.

As far as knowing who he is, who even gets a chance to put out a record, etc, you are absolutely right. But my point still stands: that those aspects of the artist, and the way they have shaped the artists presence in the world have absolutely nothing to do with how a record sounds. I mean, OK, Neil being on his back might have changed his 'Harvest' material, or Cobain haunting the thrift shops might have changed what guitar he used on "Polly", etc. But that stuff is set in stone--it's history once the album is finished and released to the public. And if I am an expert on a musician instead of a newbie, the record--as I listen to it--does not change it's sound.

"Performance* is inextricably linked with how we evaluate and interact with music"

It is not a part how I listen to music. How can you possibly presume to disagree with that!?

I never once said this is universal. Or even has always been the case with me personally, in fact!

But it seems kind of naive to do the old "But I, a complete stranger, know you better than you know yourself" crap when we could be--despite our differening opinions, tastes, and listening habits--have discussion that is mutually enlightening.

I am in fact "...interested in the very things that make live performance distinct in relation to recorded music...". Just not all of them. This is spelled out in my many above posts. I would have no more interest in listening to a band behind a curtain than I would watching a movie with a blindfold on. But that's just me. Above, M White made the point that he or she closes their eyes at some musicial events. I said that wasn't that "out there", if you ask me. But for me I like watching the performer, the audience, and so on. I just don't have an interest in the "theatricality" as it were.

>Perhaps there's a misunderstanding going on here, but to
>me, "theatricality" and "performance" encompass pretty much
>identical elements. Compared to sitting at home in your living room,
>listening with headphones, watching human fingers move along a
>fretboard is theatrical.

That's your take on it. That's fine. But if you had been reading my contributions to this thread, you would know I do not think of it in the same manner, and would not be making your arguement from this position. For instance, IMHO, fingers on a fretboard is an integral part of playing a guitar (I can not believe this discussion has reached this point...), and can not be avoided assuming you are seeing an artist with guitars present. As such it is nowhere near being an "extravagant display or exhibitionism". Neither is standing, or breathing, knowing the lyrics, whatever.