Skip to main content

encore?

soft moon :: terrific performance, but should an
encore really have props?
lately, i've gotten back into the habit of attending shows. actually, i never lost the habit, but there was an extended period when the shows that were happening in montreal just didn't excite me that much. but in the last few weeks, there's been joel dittrich at elektra, the ryoichi kurokawa/ emptyset show at mutek, soft moon performing with the excellent local post-post-punk troupe dekoder and, most exciting of all, the canadian debut of william bennett's afro-noise project, cut hands. that's a great diversity of performances in a variety of different spaces and the contrasts got me thinking of the things i appreciate about live music and one thing in particular that i don't like.

it's quite easy to see the appeal of a live show- at least to me- the energy of a crowd can augment the thrill of seeing a favourite artist, plus there's that combination of the familiar and the unknown- you'll be hearing things that you've heard before, but often done in different ways, or interspersed with unexpected reactions/ interactions. at its best, it can be euphoric and i've been lucky enough to see a lot of shows that fall into that category. even when you know the music and can sing along [if that's your thing], there's always that excitement that comes from seeing it done with your own eyes [we are after all, visual creatures] and from feeding off the collective energy in the room.

the thing that i don't like- something that actually annoys me more and more each time i see it done- is the "expected encore". there was a time when an encore was a treat- you hollered and stamped and ballyhooed long enough that the band felt compelled to come back and do something to sate your longing. often, that would be a song they never did as part of their normal set, or a cover of someone else's track. in fact, encores used to be panic-inducing, because it the band would have played all the songs they came prepared to perform as part of their regular live set. now, however, it's just assumed that there will be encores and, what's worse, it's often the biggest numbers that get saved for the part that's supposed to be unplanned. surely that's cheating.

i've seen enough shows to know that it's perfectly possible to get a fully satisfying set without forcing the audience to beg for part of it [some of the shows that i mentioned above were great without relying on this]. and as audiences, we should expect that an artist is going to give a fully satisfying performance [or at least try their damnedest] without having to interrupt themselves for the sake of cheap theatrics.

there are times when encores are legitimately demanded, because the set has been so wonderful that the audience just can't bear to let it go. but those should surely be the exception. when you know from a band's set list what three tracks they're going to play as encores, it sort of diminishes the impact. and even if you don't, you know that if there are a couple of major "hits" [i use the term in its broadest possible sense] missing from the main set that it's a lock you're going to get an encore that includes them. and although we all know that live shows aren't as spontaneous as they seem, it does seem a bit insulting all around to have to go through the steps of a ritual whose outcome is predetermined.

i've certainly been part of howling throngs in my time, playing my little part to perfection, but i find that my patience gets thinner as my tolerance for bullshit decreases. every time i see this bizarre little sub-clause of the social contract kick in, i hear a small voice in my brain groaning "you know you're coming back. we know you're coming back. just bloody get on with it."

if a band or artist wants to take a break, that's fine, but don't pretend that things are ending when we all know perfectly well that they aren't.

i don't know how you curb this tendency, since it's become part of the expected sequence of events in the rock show and both sides are acting out their part, but i have some hope that it's something that will fade from popularity and go back to being something that really is reserved for the most exceptional performances.

Comments

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

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

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 …