You Expect Professionalism?

[ElegantMule]

There's been some discussing going on in the Talent Show thread re: Chicago, and it got me to thinking. Feel free to answer all or none, or riff as you please:

If a performer you liked - Wilco, or Elvis Costello, or whoever - got onstage and smashed stuff, and cut songs off after two verses, would you be mad, or would you chalk it up to "well, that's rock 'n' roll"?

When you pays your dollas and goes to a PW show, is it fair to expect a professional performance from him (however you'd define that), or do you gets what you gets and that's that?

And yeah, how would you define an "acceptable" show? Where is the line between "good" and "trainwreck"? (Gawd, I hate that word.)

What are you ALLOWED to expect?


Just wondering about all of this. I think there are valid points all over the points, so I thought I'd throw it out to a more general audience that may not be combing the Talent Show threads.

[pline]

I think if you are a Westerberg fan you know that anything is possible at the show - that is part of the appeal. Many of us are drawn to Paul because of his personality as much as his music (they are inseparable).
At the Memphis show, I didn't really care about the setlist as much as being concerned about Paul's appearance of being troubled during the show. I don't feel cheated out of a great performance though and wouldn't trade the memory of that night for anything. And fortunately I was able to catch him on a night that he was in a great mood and was really into the performance - Louisville.

I'll take Paul's pure honest emotion to professionalism any day.

[GtrPlyr]

If professional means being a human jukebox and going through the motions, I don't want any part of it. I don't think the Chicago show was unprofessional, or a train wreck. I enjoyed it from start to finish, and that's my only requirements for any show. A performer shouldn't feel obliged to trot out certain songs, or act a certain way because an audience expects it. Their only requirement is to play with passion, spontaneity and energy. I think PW managed to do all of those things.

[maybellene]

"If a performer you liked - Wilco, or Elvis Costello, or whoever - got onstage and smashed stuff, and cut songs off after two verses, would you be mad, or would you chalk it up to "well, that's rock 'n' roll"?

Well Wilco and EC aren't known for that behavior. Never have seen EC live, but his video with Burt Bacharach bored the shit out of me. Burt and Elvis are great, but I can't get that hour back.

When I go to Wilco shows I DO expect annoying long self indulgent noise and takes my lumps. I consider it a commercial break. I got get a drink, visit the restroom, etc.

Although Paul hasn't been that kind of wild and crazy in many years, it is part of his legend. The Mats shows I saw were rockin' good shows with few antics. I've never seen Paul act that way solo either. I felt like I was missing something all those years by not getting to see that. So no, I was not disappointed one bit to see that, other than a general concern for his well being and health. I felt lucky.

It was also the same when I saw Iggy Pop and he pulled his weiner out. I didn't need to see that, but because I had read stories about that, I wanted to see him act up.
I expect Rick Nielsen to throw out a KISS record during "Surrender." If he didn't, I'd be disappointed.

"When you pays your dollas and goes to a PW show, is it fair to expect a professional performance from him.."

I think we should expect any artist to be who they are.
I buy the records, I study the work, and feel like I have a pretty good bet of what to expect before I hit the door.

"What are you ALLOWED to expect?"

Just entertainment. Satisfied customer since 1984.

[jodi, queen of the underground]

i'm with maybellene, all i want is to be entertained. and lucky for me, i find trainwrecks entertaining.

[cellarfullofnoise]

I suppose trainwrecks make me as uncomfortable as the next person, but I do like shows that are "train wrecky" (or maybe I just am still in love with that term)

Three words make a show or a song magic for me:
Different. From. Record.

Smashing TVs? Different. Muffed or improvised lyrics? Different. Weird psychodynamics among band, between Paul and crowd, or just emanating from Paul's skull? Different, at least different to witness it live in person.

Best though is any song, played different in any way.

[hudson99]

Much of the appeal of the mats or Paul is that you don't know what to expect. Almost everybody these days plays the exact same set every night. Even Dylan has a standard set with certain spots where different songs are rotated. I love the fact that with the exception of a handful of songs, we have no idea what we're going to get. I'd rather hear a verse or two of Rebel Rebel or some other weird cover than the exact same song at the exact same spot of the show. Plus, these little oddities really showcase the talents of Mr. Bland.

Oh yeah, and smashing stuff is always cool.

[Monkey]

I understand the argument that fans pay a lot of money to buy tickets, travel, etc., and expect a decent show in return, but at this point we should know that a PW concert is just going to be a "buyer beware" kind of experience.

In a perfect world, yeah, I'd love a show where everything is tight as a drum the whole time, not in a boring way, but in a "Holy crap PW&HOF just blew the roof off the joint," Saturday-Pantages kind of way. But I still had a hell of a lot of fun at the shows people are calling trainwrecks (although I don't think they were bad enough to deserve that label*), so it's like the difference between four stars and three 1/2 stars. Some people (Jim Derogatis) need to turn these things into Major Events when they're just supposed to be fun.

And the last time I saw Wilco I would have killed for them to do get drunk, start smashing stuff, raise their voices, use strong language, or DO ANYTHING.





* Someone else made this point in the other thread but it's worth repeating, the Chicago show was hardly a trainwreck. For at least half the show, maybe closer to two thirds it was a great rock n roll show, there was a string of aborted covers and drunken antics that I thought started to end after the "Don't you dare walk away!" line, and by the time Left of the Dial and Alex Chilton rolled around during the encore things were smokin' again. If I may say so ,with all respect, I think we (the fans and the critics) are sometimes a bit too quick to launch into "OMG just like the Replacements!" mode.

[jodi, queen of the underground]

Monkey said:

If I may say so ,with all respect, I think we (the fans and the critics) are sometimes a bit too quick to launch into "OMG just like the Replacements!" mode.

i think we do that because we either want to
A) recall the glory days of the 'mats or
B) pretend like we have any idea what the glory days of the mats were like.

[Monkey]

jodi, said:

i think we do that because we either want to
A) recall the glory days of the 'mats or
B) pretend like we have any idea what the glory days of the mats were like.

I hear ya (option B for me) - I just think that leads to a tendency to make these shows seem crazier than they actually are. But hey, I saw the Mats exactly 0 times so I might be way off base.

[Miss E.]

ElegantMule said:

When you pays your dollas and goes to a PW show, is it fair to expect a professional performance from him (however you'd define that), or do you gets what you gets and that's that?

And yeah, how would you define an "acceptable" show? Where is the line between "good" and "trainwreck"? (Gawd, I hate that word.)

i wanna see something i'll never see again.

[angela]

I try not to expect anything when I go to a show. Or at least expect to be bored or underwhelmed. That way I can be pleasantly surprised when the band moves me. That said, sheer professionalism bores me. It's nice when the sound is decent and you get to hear a couple songs you like. But I hate it when a show is a carbon copy of an album.

Went to see Sigur Ros a couple years ago. Beautiful music, but I almost fell asleep at the table. I realized that I would have enjoyed myself much more had I just put the album on at home, turned off the lights and nursed a bottle of good red wine. And I would have saved some money too.

[cford]

ElegantMule said:

If a performer you liked - Wilco, or Elvis Costello, or whoever - got onstage and smashed stuff, and cut songs off after two verses, would you be mad, or would you chalk it up to "well, that's rock 'n' roll"?

I guess I'd have to answer that with a resounding "it depends." I know with the Mats I sorta got sucked into the mystic (like a lot of people) almost to the point of prefering one of their train-wreck shows.. That type of behaviour still seems to part of Paul's persona and it fits his style. Elvis Costello, on the other hand, would probably look foolish smashing a guitar (it makes me laugh to think about it).. Its what makes Paul a unique performer.. He can do stuff like that and it works...I remember Johnny Carson was funniest when he was telling crappy jokes and bombing...Same sort of strange dynamic going on..There's nobody like Westerberg.

CF

[BentAllOuttaShape]

I saw the Milwaukee show, and loved it--it was everything I hoped it would be. All I wanted was to hear Paul play a bunch of great songs, to be in the room with that voice, and to take in the little surprises that come along with hearing the songs played in the moment (a different inflection to a familiar line, a changed lyric, a different ending, a different guitar solo, a nod to the band, etc.), and that's what we got that night. Yeah, he didn't play some songs I wanted to hear, but so what? The biggest revelation of the night for me was that the basement songs sounded about a thousand times better live than on the albums.

From what I've read around here, I'm really glad I wasn't at the Chicago show. It sounds to me like it was pretty damn close to a trainwreck.

I don't want Paul or any other artist I like to be predictable and canned. Nothing against a little display of attitude, but I also don't want them to be so absorbed in smashing things and drinking that the musical performance suffers, songs go unfinished, etc. I don't what's cool about hearing a great band get two-thirds of the way through a song and then lose interest.

The choice isn't between being professional and having an edge. There are any number of ways that a concert can be edgy, unpredictable, and soulful, and also be professional. The emotions can be raw, the voice can be ragged, there can be mistakes--but isn't the beauty of it all undermined if the song falls apart from apathy or intoxication?

[kgp]

ElegantMule said:

There's been some discussing going on in the Talent Show thread re: Chicago, and it got me to thinking. Feel free to answer all or none, or riff as you please:

If a performer you liked - Wilco, or Elvis Costello, or whoever - got onstage and smashed stuff, and cut songs off after two verses, would you be mad, or would you chalk it up to "well, that's rock 'n' roll"?

When you pays your dollas and goes to a PW show, is it fair to expect a professional performance from him (however you'd define that), or do you gets what you gets and that's that?

And yeah, how would you define an "acceptable" show? Where is the line between "good" and "trainwreck"? (Gawd, I hate that word.)

What are you ALLOWED to expect?


Just wondering about all of this. I think there are valid points all over the points, so I thought I'd throw it out to a more general audience that may not be combing the Talent Show threads.

There's been so many good points made already, and since this has my head spinning a bit, I'll just make a short comment on each:

1. I'd just like Jeff Tweedy to sing to his audience and not his shoes. Is that a lot to ask?

I saw Patti Smith last year put on one the most amazing shows without being 'unprofessional' (professional defined as minimal snafus.) Off the cuff doesn't have to mean all hell breaking loose. (two, two, two clichés in one!)

2. It's been said too many times already, but with Paul you don't know what to expect. He has the inability to fake it, and while I admire that I don't know how comfortable I'd be witnessing an onstage meltdown. Granted I'm basing it on a bunch of disparate reviews I've read here and elsewhere. (I'm also sick of the 'yay! Paul's off the wagon! It's like 1985 all over again!" camp of fans. Whatever you think of the drinking, or not drinking it's still unfair to compare Paul to his past.)

The shows I've seen so far were not at all 'unprofessional'. Why do professionals have to play the same songs, use the same dance moves, wear the exact same outfits every night? If I wanted that, I go to a Ashlee Simpson concert argue on her message board the next day whether her performance was lip-synched or not.

3. Acceptable? Did I enjoy it? That's verification enough for me.

[FirstAveFiend]

Do I expect professionalism? No. He's not cutting my hair or doing my taxes.

I'm sure I've made it more than obvious how I feel on this point but I'm going to add my two cents anyway.

I go to a lot of shows, I see a lot of bands and I prefer a show where the persons not just going to stand up there and play their songs exactly as it sounds on the album, take a bow and walk away. I like that I can here a bluesy slowed down version of I Will Dare, with cazoo or not, a version of AAA spliced with parts of Anythings All Right that rocks my ass everywhich way. I love that I've seen Paul play what is probably my favorite Ramones song. And as far as cringing from smashed guitars, I can say I think that its great that he gets into it so much and gets that energy if something's not working with his guitar he's not going to stop and figure it out, he's break the fucker and get a new one. And for the man to do this, cut his head and still come out for 2 encores shows his dedication and what a rock n roller he is. I don't see calling any of his tangents a train wreck. And yeah if he doesn't finish a song, even if its a song you love, think of what could take the place of the second half of that song.

The "train wreck" shows as you call them are sometimes to me the most entertaining because they're the most raw and you can see his attitude or emotion. As he said in an interview with the mats circa PTMM "We act like we want to act we are who we are.." "...some nights we're not into it and we're not going to pretend like we are..." He's real, and I appreciate that.

[Lieworth T. Elling III]

couple of thoughts.
as a long time westerberg and mats fan, i don't have any problem with a drunken show. i think my problem with the chicago show was that it was the first time i really ever felt that the drunken show was really just another of the standard sets westerberg can do. this is the one where things fall apart at some point, either at the beginning middle or towards the end, and then he miraculously hits the stage for an encore and rips through ferocious versions of alex chilton (i particularly liked the line: if he died in memphis that'd be fine with me) and left of the dial, and then leaves.
i've seen that one before, and seeing it again makes me feel, rightly or wrongly, that it's a preplanned shtick.

i also agree however that chicago was not a trainwreck show. i haven't seen a trainwreck show since that autographs at tower/drunk at the beacon show, back in the day.

also, elvis costello is never boring, live. and in particular, his solo acoustic shows are riveting for an entire three hours.

[snickers]

jodi, said:

B) pretend like we have any idea what the glory days of the mats were like.

not to sound as old as i actually am, but i did see the mats live a few times....
they were very fun to watch almost every time i saw them....and i thought tom t was spot on when he said they didn't do the same type of show two nights in a row...

i think it must be incredibly hard to be a songwriter or musician AND a performer....they are often unique and totally separate skills.

i don't need professionalism or rote music playing...the whole point of a live show is to have a different experience from the recorded music.

that said, i think there is a difference between "fun" zany performances, and the ones where what happens seems to be based on the difficulty or bad mood an artist is experiencing. those moments can be hard to watch, money paying and expectations aside.

[kgp]

i don't need professionalism or rote music playing...the whole point of a live show is to have a different experience from the recorded music.

Why does professionalism have to be defined as rote?

[angela]

I think several of us are using 'professionalism' as shorthand for 'arrives on stage, plays sober set of songs that sound exactly like the album, says 'hey cleveland, great to be here', performs 1.5 encores, leaves stage'. At least that's the way I'm using it. I see where you're coming from though, that you can be loose and spontaneous and still be professional. And in that sense then yeah, professional is fine.