Skip to main content

my life as an audience


one of the things that you notice about most people who are really dedicated music fans is that most of them either start out as or eventually become musicians. i know lots of people who are into music and almost all of them are involved somehow in making music (and that's an incredibly incomplete selection).

although i won't claim that i've never dabbled my toe in the music-making waters, with the exception of a couple of noise-based experiments and a touch of insanity during my techno-dj years, i've steered clear of actually attempting any proper musicianship myself.

that means that, as energetic and passionate as i feel about music, my role tends to be one of passive receiver rather than creator. that's an odd position to be in with something you really love. i'm constantly evaluating the skills and performances of people whose talents i admire, knowing that, as "informed" as i like to think my opinion is, i could never put my money where my proverbial mouth is.

in recent months, i seem to have gone to a lot of shows, either of my own volition, or because i knew people who were going and felt like being social. i even helped organise one in toronto before decamping for montreal. these shows have ranged from straight-ahead indie rock to some pretty harsh noise/ power electronics. the venues have ranged in size from tiny boites barely able t accommodate a couple of dozen to places capable of holding an audience of a couple of thousand. (for various reasons, you're unlikely to ever see me in anything larger than that.)

determining what makes a good show is tricky. great sound helps (my bloody valentine in toronto on my birthday was one of the best shows i've ever seen and the experience was undoubtedly enhanced by the power of the sound.), but it isn't always necessary. some artists can overcome substandard sound with energy. (noise artists, almost invariably relegated to playing shows through sound systems less powerful than my home stereo, can pull this off.) human-scale interaction (i.e., not just shouting randomly into the crowd, but actually trying to connect with them) can add to the feeling of being somewhere special (wire, who played here in october, were charming on this level, despite seeming a little off their game technically). however, there are some shows (taint comes to mind) where the lack of interaction helps build the overall atmosphere of a performance. so it's largely dependent on context.

since there is undoubtedly a visual element to a live show, putting some effort into making some type of visual statement (particularly for artists where there is little action on stage) can help build a unique live "experience" (my bloody valentine, pram, nebris and visions all did this). the need for exuberance on stage is completely determined by the type of music being played. going to see the bug in july, it was necessary (and they delivered). at the visions/ nebris/ sighup/ ourobouros show a few weeks earlier, it would have been inappropriate.

but ultimately, what defines a great live show experience is a sort of energy, something i'll describe as a symbiosis between artist and audience. if you don't believe me, think back to shows where the audience has been uninspired by what they saw (not antagonised, but simply left cold). i guarantee that it was a bad show for all involved. without actually giving them creative control over the sounds, a great live show bridges the gap between artist and audience, making the audience more than just passive listeners and transforming their role into a key part of what happens on stage.

i may never be a musician (really, i'd rather stick to writing anyway), but the best experiences i have at live shows still make me feel like a participant-observer, rather than simply a receiver. and the possibility of that happening is why i'm keen to continue as an audience member, until i'm too deaf to know what's going on.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …