Skip to main content

formal complaints

as you may have heard, the band arcade fire has ruffled a few feathers- or a few t-shirts and jeans, at least- by asking fans to turn up to their shows in "formal attire". their description of formal attire is fairly broad; it was defined in the band's own tweets as "suit, dress or fancy something". they've even invited people to appear in full costume if that's their thing. sharp criticism on social media was immediate and profuse and while the band's leader said that he wasn't sorry for making people dress up, their twitter account later did clarify that while they had said it was mandatory, it wasn't "super mandatory". so you might not want to drop your hard-earned cash on that ball gown after all.

i'll say from the outset that i'm not a fan of arcade fire. i've always referred to them as godspeed you! black emperor for dummies, meaning a group that has taken the indie/ arty roots of an underground phenomena, boiled it and packaged it for a pop music audience. it's not so much that i dislike the band or their music- i find both unexciting- but it does bother me when highly derivative artists are lauded as groundbreaking. that said, such bands can occasionally serve to broaden the horizons of their fans, so i can't say that their influence is entirely baleful.

my knee-jerk reaction to hearing this request was the same as a lot of people's: it sounds like pretentious twaddle. why should fans have to make a point of getting all dressed up to go to a show they're paying for? they could go see any other band and not have any demands made of them. the band has said that they feel like the show would be more fun if everyone got in on the atmosphere, but more fun for whom? for people sweating in the front rows because they were forced to wear a shirt and jacket? to the women shuffling their weight from one side to the other because they felt compelled to wear heels? or the person who gets cheap beer sprayed on costly silk that just happened to be their only top not made of jersey fabric?

after i thought about it a few minutes, though, another thing occurred to me: what's so bad about dressing up? when did it become a form of punishment to make yourself special? yes, it's true that bands don't usually ask fans to turn out all fancy-like for every one of their shows, but most people aren't going to every show on a tour- they're only going to one. so why not treat it with a sense of occasion? after all, you get dressed up for things like a prom, or for a wedding reception that you're probably going to enjoy a lot less than a show you're going to. people used to get dressed up to see any musical performance, for the exact reason that it was considered something exciting, something singular and they wanted to give it sartorial salute.

personally, i like getting "dressed up". that's not to say i walk around in hoop skirts and sequins [most days], but that if i'm going somewhere, i like to present the best me i can for the situation. the fact is that there are lots of times that i've thought about what to wear to a particular show and those decisions were not guided solely by what would be practical. i don't think i'm alone in that. why is it such a big deal in this case?

in fact, i think i've tripped across the answer to my questions by posing the questions themselves: people are annoyed, they want to go to shows in their jeans and t-shirts, they don't want to "bother" getting dressed up and they don't really want to think about their attire because these shows aren't special. they aren't occasions. i don't mind getting dressed up, because i'm still excited by the music i listen to and i'm excited to go out to a show. [moment of honesty: i'm not the most casual person anyway, so it might not even show that i've gone through some effort to select an outfit. it'll have to be our little secret.]

arcade fire are trying to create artificially an atmosphere that doesn't exist organically at their shows- the spirit of a carnival or an old-time festival. there are shows where you'll get that. old-school goth/ death rock shows are a phenomenal example. not everyone will turn out dressed to the nines, but chances are that you're going to get a good portion of the crowd who spent some time matching their accessories and boots, even if it was on a nearly unconscious level. black metal shows are similar.

the difference is that shows that draw those audiences are taking place at much smaller venues and festivals. no one is going to sell out the air canada centre with that kind of thing, because it just doesn't have the broad appeal. people who are attending shows in stadiums don't want to go through the trouble of getting dressed up because such a show isn't an occasion. it's just one on a list of shows that they're likely to see in the same place. yes, each show will be unique in certain ways, but chances are that they'll see the band only from a great distance, that there will be little interaction between artist and audience [no matter what anyone is wearing] and even if there is, it won't be noticeable to 90% of the people assembled there. it'll be a good enough time, but chances are it won't be very memorable. so why bother going through the hassle of finding something special to wear?

i don't think that that's the reason most people have front of mind when they're thinking about what bothers them about the request. i'm sure that the line of logic stops at "i'm paying for this, why should i have to wear something i don't want to?" but really, the more important question is "why wouldn't you want to?" and therein lies the problem.

arcade fire aren't making enemies because they want people to dress up. they're making enemies because they're trying to make their shows into something they really aren't: a magical, exciting and truly special experience. in a series of faceless arenas. if that's what they want, it's going to take more than a change of clothes.

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 …