|
Post by Cotton on Apr 18, 2005 19:40:29 GMT -5
wow. misreading me?
see kgp & FAF re: crowd
|
|
|
Post by maybellene on Apr 18, 2005 19:47:52 GMT -5
wow. misreading me? see kgp & FAF re: crowd I did. I still don't understand the 1/2/3 definitions... Thanks...
|
|
|
Post by Kathy on Apr 18, 2005 19:50:46 GMT -5
This is a weird tour in terms of people's reaction. I get emails about a show being a mess and emails about a show being great fun and rocking and Paul having a great time - and they are talking about the same show. I do think there are two basic flavors of shows this year and examples of each would be New Orleans and Chicago. The New Orleans type shows, the mail that comes is is all pretty much the same (big thumbs up). The other kind shows, that's where the reaction is all over the place. And my feeling is, how we view that kindof show is just a personal thing - sorta like a Rorschach test. Everyone sees something different because we're all different people and have different experiences and expectations. I don't fault someone who shows up hoping to hear the words to their favorite song actually sung close to correctly. That's a pretty reasonable expecation to have. Personally, I enjoy hearing the lyrics, call me crazy On the other hand, if you're going to a show and have read about them online, you should know enough to understand you may get that....but you may get something else and it's pretty much out of your control. You pay your money and you take your chances. Some people who show up hoping for a Memphis/Chicago type show might go home disappointed if they saw the "almost too professional" show in New Orleans. So differing opinions are ok, but that review was insulting to Paul, the band and the fans at the show who had the audacity to disagree with him and "inexplicably" enjoyed the show: "Inexplicably, the faithful fans adored and cheered Westerberg's every move. Maybe they never saw him at the height of his powers, two decades ago. Or maybe they were so eager to relive those days that they happily settled for this sad updated simulation." And also, using the word "inexplicably" and then going on to name 2 possible "explicits" negates the whole concept of "inexplicably".
|
|
|
Post by UnderneathABigHorse on Apr 18, 2005 19:54:40 GMT -5
The two guys in front of me I would've liked to kick in the back of the knees. MOVE DAMMIT, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO BE HERE.
I try not to dissect or rationalize a Paul performance, though I usually end up doing it anyways. He does what he likes, and that's why I'm there. *shrugs*
Hi to the MWT bored reader who got incredibly drunk next to me and FAF. HE was having a good time...
|
|
|
Post by Cotton on Apr 18, 2005 20:00:59 GMT -5
I did. I still don't understand the 1/2/3 definitions... Thanks... after dinner.
|
|
|
Post by TomT on Apr 18, 2005 21:08:57 GMT -5
I collect a lot of bootlegs of the Mats and they had a pattern to them. If they played a really messed up drunk show you could almost guarantee a straight one the next night and vice versa. It could apply to these days as well.
He was a good (boy) in Miwaukee, bad in Chicago, good in Louiville. He was good in NO and then bad in Memphis. I doubt if he would string two drunken performances in a row but we shall see.
|
|
|
Post by TomT on Apr 18, 2005 21:13:29 GMT -5
Hi to the MWT bored reader who got incredibly drunk next to me and FAF. HE was having a good time... You mean "Mr. Pogo while holding up a beer" guy? He said he would post a review. Well Bill, c'mon and chime in already.
|
|
|
Post by UnderneathABigHorse on Apr 18, 2005 21:17:30 GMT -5
You mean "Mr. Pogo while holding up a beer" guy? He said he would post a review. Well Bill, c'mon and chime in already. Yeah, my left side was beer flavored after that night. DO IT. DO IT. DO IT. Peer pressure, we're all waiting...
|
|
|
Post by scoOter on Apr 18, 2005 22:03:50 GMT -5
somehow the chicago vibe was just weird. there were times where all you could hear was the idle chatter of the concert-goers and you couldn't even hear paul. i have no idea what was up with that. chicago crowds are absolutely famous for this. ask a touring band.
|
|
|
Post by goodtogo on Apr 18, 2005 22:10:14 GMT -5
i went with 4 friends in chicago. one who has seen paul and/or the mats 5-6 times and the others who are familiar but didn't really know what to expect. it was funny... as we congregated at the bar after the show to talk about what we just witnessed it was as if we all saw different shows. a few including me thought it was great and a couple others.. not so much. we watched the show from the same spot 10 feet back from the stage. i guess it depends on your expectation as you walk in the door.
i like that about paul.. you never really know what you are going to get. i guess it is who he is. he has never gone for the "i'm a professional and every show has to be spot on" kind of thing. i've seen him play encores with his back to the crowd and whistle the andy griffith theme for an encore while giving the audience his favorite finger (opening for petty). whethr he plays it straight and floors you with brilliance... or feels like letting loose and playing covers. .... he has to know that he has a good chance of polarizing half of those in attendance whichever way he goes ... and I imagine he likes it that way.
i'm a fan either way.
oh.. and derogatis is a tool. who cares what he thinks.
|
|
|
Post by Cotton on Apr 18, 2005 22:12:24 GMT -5
I am in agreement with Kathy & TomT. I don't think it's the crowd's ... fault, for the train-wreckers'. I do like & support FAF's intent though & think to myself (out-loud) you lucky fucker's (attendees), better be kicking it up! (At the right time!)
As far a the list goes... it wasn't a ranking. No judgements or criticisms. Too subjective for me to touch. I do see a couple/few different flavors of show on this tour & that's what the loose grouping is/was all about.
Modified version:
Vancouver & Milwaukee - first show of the legs & all that can be inferred from being that.
Seattle, Portland, KC, NO, Dallas - consistent, tight, hard rocking type reviews.
Chicago, Memphis, LA 1/2, Tempe & SF - described as "edgy", varying degrees of train wreckiness, also noticable references to whiskey, blood, throwing and smashing stuff. - still fun, but not as consistent, looser.
Austin, Columbia, Solona, Disney, Louisville - still fun, with generally positive reviews from fans... mellower, perhaps the day after the more raucous shows. Perhaps a better chance for a more meaningful meet & greet.
Denver, with the hamstring issue - still fun for fans, sounds good & he was a trooper for going on.
If you think any or all of the shows you've seen were the absolute best, that's ok with me. Just a non-hostile observation of the few different possibilties that have happened on this tour.
|
|
|
Post by Strange and Grandiose on Apr 18, 2005 22:15:45 GMT -5
|
|
Wolfdog
Beagle Scout
Long Live Cap
Posts: 1,794
|
Post by Wolfdog on Apr 18, 2005 22:20:07 GMT -5
as Hunter said, 'You buy the ticket, you take the ride.'
and I happen to be partial to rides with uncertain destinations and detours.
My thoughts on the Chicago show....'I might be going to hell in a bucket, but at least I'm enjoying the ride'
|
|
|
Post by ElegantMule on Apr 18, 2005 22:29:38 GMT -5
I feel like I haven't emphasized enough my violent distaste for Jim DeRogatis. I know his name has come up here in the past, and I enjoyed calling him rude names then, but this review was just...so....petty. We're talking seventh grade girl study hall note petty.
And for the record, to call those nice boys a hack bar band is just rude. They are fucking great musicians to be able to keep up with the voices in PW's head.
The baseball bat and the fifth of Jack Daniels is already in the car, as is my map to Chicago. Now, to find my black hooded sweatshirt...
|
|
Wolfdog
Beagle Scout
Long Live Cap
Posts: 1,794
|
Post by Wolfdog on Apr 18, 2005 22:32:17 GMT -5
The baseball bat and the fifth of Jack Daniels is already in the car, as is my map to Chicago. Now, to find my black hooded sweatshirt... I've got yer back. and I know of a nice quiet alley by Wrigley where this business can be dealt with.
|
|
Monkey
Beagle Scout
Ninja Republican
Everybody dance like there's ass in your pants
Posts: 2,438
|
Post by Monkey on Apr 18, 2005 22:36:12 GMT -5
There are several tests to determine if a music review is worth paying attention to. The first, clearly, is to glance at the byline and determine if it was written by Jim Derogatis.
If the answer is "Aww crap, yes" and one decides to proceed anyway, the next step is to find the inevitable paragraph(s) dealing with the Replacements. This may be a vehicle for singing the Replacements' praises and providing some context for Paul's current work (if so, all to the good). This may instead be a vehicle for taking cheap shots at the band for commiting the cardinal sin of not actually being the Replacements (bad bad bad). Either way, these paragraphs provide invaluable context and, as is the case here, indicates that it's going to be another one of those reviews.
After that the astute reader will pose the following question: "Given that the performer in question has moved on from the Replacements, and the reviewer clearly has not, is there anything that the performer could have done to make the reviewer happy?" Given that within this review Paul is criticized for being both too professional and too sloppy, too little like the Replacements and too much like the Replacements, too safe and too dangerous, too sober and too drunk, (and probably, in a passage that was cut for publication, too short and too tall), we can safely conclude that no, short of ceasing to exist the moment the Replacements broke up, there was nothing Paul could have done to please Jim Derogatis.
After reaching that conclusion, it only remains to toy around with the corpse of the review, note various acts of condecension toward the fans, and maybe point out logical fallacies and factual errors, some of which have already been mentioned in this thread. I especially like Kathy's point about providing explanations for inexplicable events. My own contribution: "walking a blurry line down the middle of the road between unrestrained rock 'n' roll aggression and slick, mature and thoroughly boring professionalism." Now to my (inexplicably) fannish mind, it seems that avoiding the far ends of the spectrum, utter chaos and manufactured pop music, might be a good thing. In fact, it seems to me that someone wrote a fairly long and involved book on the benefits of seeking a middle path between two extremes...Greek fellow, I think.
|
|
|
Post by GtrPlyr on Apr 18, 2005 22:42:41 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of hearing the chestnuts everytime Paul plays, so shows like the Chicago one are a nice change of pace. I don't go to a PW show to hear faithful renditions of his songs. I want to see a spontaneous, and of the moment show, where anything can happen, and nothing is scripted. I for one liked the extended blues moments, and random covers thrown inbetween songs. I've heard all the Mats classics numerous times at shows, so his musical tangents are a welcome sight, and make a show a little less predictable. After all, who really wants the shows to be carbon copies of each other. If they were, I don't think you'd get all these fans going to multiple shows.
|
|
|
Post by paulie on Apr 18, 2005 22:44:30 GMT -5
i'm gonna be seeing Paul and the band exactly one week from now and if i don't see a painful display of unprofessionalism i'm gonna feel ripped off. this tour sounds great, mixed with the perfect amount of older tunes, new songs, covers and general hootenany. i don't see how anybody could want more.
|
|
|
Post by TomT on Apr 18, 2005 22:50:10 GMT -5
i'm gonna be seeing Paul and the band exactly one week from now and if i don't see a painful display of unprofessionalism i'm gonna feel ripped off. this tour sounds great, mixed with the perfect amount of older tunes, new songs, covers and general hootenany. i don't see how anybody could want more. It was PERFECT for me in Chicago. A little of everything that makes Paul who he is. And Gtrplyr - Right on Bro. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Cotton on Apr 18, 2005 23:30:09 GMT -5
I'm not a big fan of hearing the chestnuts everytime Paul plays, so shows like the Chicago one are a nice change of pace. I don't go to a PW show to hear faithful renditions of his songs. I want to see a spontaneous, and of the moment show, where anything can happen, and nothing is scripted. I for one liked the extended blues moments, and random covers thrown inbetween songs. I've heard all the Mats classics numerous times at shows, so his musical tangents are a welcome sight, and make a show a little less predictable. After all, who really wants the shows to be carbon copies of each other. If they were, I don't think you'd get all these fans going to multiple shows. I'm with you, except for the campier covers, like "I Think I Love You" and "If I Had a Hammer", yes I get the whole Folker/Folk Star thing, but I would rather hear something like "My Daydream"... even "Actor in the Street". Although they do provide a chance for a run to the john. Near train wrecky is good, but I always cringe when I see a Strat get busted up and think to myself, man, I could have loved that guitar. As far as carbon copy shows go, it's probably why I didn't walk the 2 blocks down the street to see the Pixies last summer and instead opted for listening to them from my yard. Which leads to ... I just heard that said Pixies are doing a couple of shows in Portland, umm, soon, that are kind of an interesting set up. Early show: all b-sides, late show: the classics. sep. tickets or combo. perhaps a discussion in the misc. section?
|
|