The second kind are entirely aware of this phenomenon, and take steps to avoid it. Ben Folds springs immediately to mind, he says in "One Down":
I'm really not complainingCounting Crows, in theory, are of that second grouping too, at least to some extent. Recovering The Satellites might have been mainly about Duritz's post-fame breakdown, and "Have You Seen Me Lately" might just as well have been entitled "Just Because You Buy My Music Doesn't Mean I Want To Make Eye Contact", but Duritz at least had the grace to apologise for his dabbling in Second Album Syndrome, and point out that the rock star life style does genuinely have attendant problems. Ones that have to be considered alongside the obvious advantages, yes, but problems nonetheless.
I realise it's just a job
I hate hearing bellyaching rock stars
Whine and sob
'Cos I could be busting tables
I could well be pumping gas
But I get paid much finer
Playing piano and kissing ass.
So, whilst a lot of famous singers are miserable, whinging douche-bags, I do have sympathy with the line that it's a job with its own set of drawbacks.
If it is just another job, then, how about people do it fucking properly?
I remember watching an interview with Gomez during the six months they were the next best thing, and one of their three lead singers (I can't remember, but I think it was the one who sounded like a leopard singing through a suede balaclava whilst being wanked to climax) was whining about how they don't like playing their songs the same way they recorded them. "That's boring; who wants to do that?" Well, maybe no-one. But if this is a job, then I couldn't give a flying fuck if you're bored, do your job. Sing the fucking song I paid to hear.
The Rolling Stones have the same problem, insisting on peppering their set-lists with their newer, far crappier songs. "We get more of a buzz playing the new stuff", they claimed at one point. I don't care. People paid seventy-odd quid for your gig, and it wasn't to listen to Mick Jagger play guitar. Sing "You Can't Always Get What You Want". Do your job. [2]
The 10% of Wednesday's Crows gig that pissed me off was an off-shoot of the same problem. The Crows have always had a habit of reworking their songs, adding sections, mixing them together. I tend to be OK with that in this case, mainly because they tend to work really well (and if I like songs X and Y I’m generally going to be OK with the song (X-a)+(Y-b), where a is a verse and b is a chorus, or sometimes a middle eight). What doesn't work, and will carry the death penalty as soon as I finally work out how to rule the world (or at least the music industry) , is just randomly making up tempos and melodies for each line. Mr Duritz; you are not Alanis Morissette. Also: Alanis Morissette is shite. And, whilst Duritz is choosing his pitch according to an arcane and baffling stochastic process, the rest of the band are playing the song the same way they always do. I paid forty squids to attend a fucking karaoke competition. With only one contestant. Who was retarded.
This nonsense must cease. I came to a gig to hear songs I like. Or songs I don't like, but might change my mind on, or even songs I haven't heard before. Not to hear songs that are structurally similar to ones I like, but have then been re-scored by a tin-eared idiot. You're trying to persuade people to buy your records; how is that going to work if you make all your songs shittier?
Stop fucking around. Do your job.
[1] I once heard Richard Burton point out "I've been rich and miserable, and I've been poor and miserable. Rich is better." Anyone who ever finds themselves with a bank balance in seven figures should be forced to have that tattooed to the insides of their eyelids.
[2] A qualification here. If a band in its declining years insists on playing their pathetic imitations of past glories in order to shift more albums, then I'm fine with that (disappointed, but fine). Even superstars need to put bread on the table (or cocaine on the silky thighs of a hooker). But whilst most bands make losses on a tour and thus need to shift units, the Rolling Stones make a profit on their tour. They could just play their best songs each time, and never sell another album, and still continue to swell their already massive coffers. Once you get to that stage, if your fans (read "customers") are telling you to get your head out of your arse, then maybe you should live the fantasy that you're still talented exclusively in the recording studio, and spend your tours just actually being good.
3 comments:
But if bands like only ever played the popular material, they would never ever bother recording new material.
Frankly, if all you want is the hits, go and see a cover band.
And if a band produces a gig that sounds exactly like the record what is the point of going to see the gig?
"But if bands like only ever played the popular material, they would never ever bother recording new material."
Yes, they would, because then they would get paid. People like getting paid (as I've said, from a financial perspective tours are for making records sell better, records aren't for making tours more varied). Moreover, I'm not suggesting no-one ever gets to play a less well-known song, or that a band that already has 15 awesome songs can't try out new material, I'm talking about realising when you're past your prime, and adjusting set lists accordingly. Or charging far less for your tickets, I guess.
This is why I mentioned the Rolling Stones. If a band makes what a lot of people think is a sucky album, and they try out those songs on tour to indifference or possibly rioting, those songs are often cycled out of the set-list (this is why you won't often hear songs at gigs that are both disliked by most fans and are also more than two albums old). But given there's no way to tell how songs will go down with a live audience, and given that the point of the tour is to promote the new songs, these mis-steps are understandable. What I was objecting to was making shitty albums for more than two decades, and refusing to stop peppering your sets with them despite significant complaints. At that point your band is just a vanity exercise, and whilst I acknowledge the Stones aren't to blame for people paying through the nose to see such a thing, it would be nice for them to admit it.
"Frankly, if all you want is the hits, go and see a cover band."
Yes, because hits and good songs are the same thing, aren't they?
Still, I guess it makes your argument a bit easier. "Frankly, if all you want is good songs" doesn't have so easy a conclusion, does it?
(Well, it does, I guess: "Just listen to your i-pod", but the problems with that line of argument are pretty obvious).
Not to mention the fact that if I want to hear the band I like play the songs I like, suggesting I ensure the latter by removing the former is a bit strange.
"And if a band produces a gig that sounds exactly like the record what is the point of going to see the gig?"
I'm pretty sure I was very clear that alterations to a song aren't what bugs me so much as shitty improvised alterations. Not to mention the fairly obvious fact that even a very faithful version of a given song can have a very different effect when played live, and also that one can object to extensive changes without demanding carbon copies of the original.
"The Rolling Stones have the same problem, insisting on peppering their set-lists with their newer, far crappier songs. "We get more of a buzz playing the new stuff", they claimed at one point. I don't care. People paid seventy-odd quid for your gig, and it wasn't to listen to Mick Jagger play guitar. Sing "You Can't Always Get What You Want". Do your job"
Ok this above paragraph pretty strongly implies that bands like Rolling Stones should only paly their hits at gigs.
You then approach my point and try to undermine it by saying hits aren't the same as good songs, do be aware of what your article says (and I realise you'll probablly argue what you've written doesn't directly say it, but the implication is there quite heavily.) before you start arguing semantics.
The rest of what you say if fair enough, I admit I was playing devil's advocate to an extent anyway.
Post a Comment