You Expect Professionalism?

[FirstAveFiend]

kgp said:

Why does professionalism have to be defined as rote?

To me professionalism has too many ties to clean cut, blue collar, by the book and thats why I don't deal with using it when refering to concerts.

[scoOter]

i expect my rock & roll live & bloody. period. that means different things for different bands, but the description works for almost every band i see (with one notable exception).

[angela]

scoota-rama-lama-ding-dong said:

i expect my rock & roll live & bloody. period. that means different things for different bands, but the description works for almost every band i see (with one notable exception).

Well, someone has to ask: What notable exception scooter? Rush?

[Kathy]

In the context of EM's original post which was pretty specific to Paul, on this tour, I've been looking at it this way:

There are shows - like New Orleans - that are very tight, with a minimal amount of missed lyrics and stuff getting broken - just awesome, kick ass, rock and roll. In no way are those shows boring or do the songs sound exactly like the album or anything like that, I mean -- it's still Paul, sterile or corporate is the last thing you would describe it as. So that's show type A (to avoid bad labels).

And then there's show type B which is more of smashing objects and stage antics and missed lyrics and impromptu covers that fall apart. Some great great moments, but also some missed opportunites to knock out strong versions of songs people really wanted to hear.

That's my assumption of what we're talking about here, correct me if I'm wrong EM, but that's what I got from your post.

And I don't have a clue as to what people have a 'right' to expect...I guess I just think of it as, do your homework and make your decision. If I'm thinking about going to see a band, I'll look online and see some recent setlists and reviews and then I can figure out if I wanna go.

[Caroline]

angela said:

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.

I don't expect to hear the CD or hear CD quality work. I love banter, silly hats, audience chat, and spontaneous set list changes. I love alternate lyrics or guitar riffs or tempos. However, I don't love a train wreck. I want the performer (whoever that is) to respect the fact that I've paid for ticket because I really want to be there. This is their job - they are paid to perform not collapse.

I do have different expectations for different performers. I don't expect to experience the same attitude/vibe from Yo Yo Ma that I do from Rufus Wainwright or from Paul Westerberg. However, each should be doing their best at their job. That's what people expect from me, why should I expect less from them?

[FirstAveFiend]

I think there are some cases though when a preformer starts looking at their shows as a job that it can go bad. Isn't that why Tommy said he took a time off and did some telemarketing?

[go21bucs]

FirstAveFiend said:

Isn't that why Tommy said he took a time off and did some telemarketing?

did he really?!?? shit.

a lot of folks have represented my thoughts on the subject.

but, as far as my personal paul show experiences:

- I saw the mats twice here in pittsburgh...once when they opened for petty and once on the "all shook down" tour. the first one was not so good, thanks to the petty fans being ignorant and the mats being drunk. the second show was nothing short of amazing.

- I saw paul on his last tour when he stopped in cleveland. idiotic song title shouting from some drunken idiots notwithstanding, another amazing performance.

I just get bummed whenever I get a mats/paul boot and it sounds like shit. I wish that, besides "inconcerated," there was one really great live mats/paul release.

[allshookup]

I liked Kathy's response and would like to embellish it a bit. There are nuances even within the A shows and the B shows. Anaheim was definitely an A show - virtually antic-free - but compared to New Orleans it was bordering on (dare I say it?) bland.

The other three shows I have seen on this tour were varying degrees of B: LA1 was the first I saw reviewed as "bordering on a trainwreck," Solana Beach was a fun blow-out show in a bar full of appreciative fans and Memphis - well, we got a whiskey drinking, lyric forgetting, soul baring, guitar balancing, amp kicking, guitarist wrestling, harmonica throwing, band berating, on-all-fours crawling, blues singing, off-stage hiding PW. In all honesty, there were a couple of times I found myself looking away.

But you know, I wouldn't trade any of those five nights for anything...

[big swede]

"I know..
it's only rock and roll..."

[FreeRider]

RJ said:

But you know, I wouldn't trade any of those five nights for anything...

RJ,

I'm with you on that point; yeah, the Memphis show was kinda nutty, but I've no regrets about the show at all. I don't necessarily want to see a show that is the same as what I can hear on the CD, so I give Paul leeway to deviate and venture into spontaneity. I have no idea what to expect for the Boston and DC shows, and that's kind of exciting to me.

Granted, I do understand that sometimes you don't want to see starts and stops, half finished songs, but I think there's always something to take away from a Paul performance. There's always a moment there that is your payoff.

[scoOter]

angela said:

Well, someone has to ask: What notable exception scooter? Rush?

you outed me!

[Caroline]

FirstAveFiend said:

I think there are some cases though when a preformer starts looking at their shows as a job that it can go bad. Isn't that why Tommy said he took a time off and did some telemarketing?

Perhaps, but when you willingly enter into a contract to perform, then it is a job. I think most musicians will agree that it is a great job - one they wouldn't give up for anything. But if you hate it, then don't do it.

I can give Paul a lot of leeway regarding "professionalism" (far more than I would give any other musician) but there is a limit. I love his basic growly nature and the fact that he changes stuff all around and pushes limits. But if he just came out drunk, growled, and then pissed on the audience, that isn't being an "artist" - that's being a jerk.

[ElegantMule]

Hey Caroline - I think I love you...but what am I so afraid of, I'm afraid that I'm not sure of...

[ElegantMule]

Kathy said:

In the context of EM's original post which was pretty specific to Paul, on this tour, I've been looking at it this way:

There are shows - like New Orleans - that are very tight, with a minimal amount of missed lyrics and stuff getting broken - just awesome, kick ass, rock and roll. In no way are those shows boring or do the songs sound exactly like the album or anything like that, I mean -- it's still Paul, sterile or corporate is the last thing you would describe it as. So that's show type A (to avoid bad labels).

And then there's show type B which is more of smashing objects and stage antics and missed lyrics and impromptu covers that fall apart. Some great great moments, but also some missed opportunites to knock out strong versions of songs people really wanted to hear.

That's my assumption of what we're talking about here, correct me if I'm wrong EM, but that's what I got from your post.

And I don't have a clue as to what people have a 'right' to expect...I guess I just think of it as, do your homework and make your decision. If I'm thinking about going to see a band, I'll look online and see some recent setlists and reviews and then I can figure out if I wanna go.

I'm not even sure I could go so far as to start categorizing the shows. I guess the point I was making is - why is PW allowed this leeway of effing things up? I don't think people would put up with it from say, Springsteen.

And it makes me kind of sad, that being somewhat of a boor is "just his thing."

But then I have to figure out what's boorish and what's performance.

And so it goes...

[Kathy]

ElegantMule said:

I'm not even sure I could go so far as to start categorizing the shows. I guess the point I was making is - why is PW allowed this leeway of effing things up? I don't think people would put up with it from say, Springsteen.

And it makes me kind of sad, that being somewhat of a boor is "just his thing."

But then I have to figure out what's boorish and what's performance.

And so it goes...

Another thing to consider is, not everyone had the same reaction as you did to the show.

A lot of people thought it was FANTASTIC, so for those people, they aren't allowing him any "leeway", they liked what they saw.

That's where it gets so subjective - you're saying "how can he get away with this behavior?" and someone else is saying "Get away with what? Putting on a great show?"

Same with the "boor" comment - not everyone felt that way, and without seeing the show, just knowing all the time he takes after the show with people, "boor" seems harsh...but if that's what you saw, that's what you saw.

I do think a lot of it goes back to expectations -- it's relative. For example, I know Morrisey plays for like 90 minutes tops. I know from reading about his shows so that's what I expected when I went.

Springsteen, I know he does 2 1/2 to 3 hours shows so that's the expectation I have when I go in. For his solo tour coming up he has explicity said "This is not my greatest hits being done acoustically - there will be no acoustic "Thunder Road". I might WANT a greatest hits acoustic tour, but at least I know ahead of time what I'm signing up for (assuming I had gotten a ticket in the 30 seconds it took for the Boston show to sell out, which I DIDN'T).

[ElegantMule]

fwiw, I wasn't referring to the Chicago show, I was shorthanding the comments from the Chicago thread and previous posts on this thread. "Boor" may be harsh, but I am mystified why many of the opinions re: PW are akin to "Well, he smashes stuff up! That's what you get with him!"

It doesn't have to be that way.

I'm not expecting a kitten onstage, but being a brat (who said something back there about having to "look away"?) isn't necessarily top notch work.

It *is* subjective, moreso than any of us think, maybe....

[FirstAveFiend]

But don't you pay to see him? So why would you want something thats not him? I may be completely oblivious to something but I see his preformances as doing what he wants how he wants to do it. I go because I want to see Paul, and he's being Paul. To me he seems more real, more emotional and more true to himself than a lot of preformers, and thats what I like. And to me, the music is amazing. There's not much more I could ask for.

[UnderneathABigHorse]

FirstAveFiend said:

But don't you pay to see him? So why would you want something thats not him? I may be completely oblivious to something but I see his preformances as doing what he wants how he wants to do it. I go because I want to see Paul, and he's being Paul. To me he seems more real, more emotional and more true to himself than a lot of preformers, and thats what I like. And to me, the music is amazing. There's not much more I could ask for.

You stole my essay...

*crumples piece of paper up and throws it away*

Ah well, yours is better anyways...

[BentAllOuttaShape]

I could get drunk at work one day, get pissed off, do my job intermittently, smash my computer, tell my boss to fuck off, and then get my shit together enough to sort of finish the day. If that’s what I feel like doing, am I being more true to myself if I do all that than if I control myself and do what I’m paid to do as best I can under the circumstances?

True, I don’t have fans who romanticize my every move, but why would I be an asshole for listening to the more antisocial voices in my head while, according to some here, Paul is just being the real, beautiful mess that he is when he acts out?

FAF, as much as it’s clear you really love Paul’s music, you seem to buy the myth of the tortured artist, in which every crazy action (on- or offstage) is thought to be part of the artist’s self-expression (up to and including suicide, in some cases). Hey, Paul’s Chicago-style antics were real and heartfelt and genuine and we want Paul to be real. So, we must also want to see him do whatever he feels like onstage, right?

I think the logic of this view is forced. To buy this argument, one has to view Paul’s every action as artistic expression. But is it? If he wanted to take a dump onstage, it would be real, but it wouldn’t be art, right? It would just be obnoxious. I don’t look at everything Paul does, even onstage, as part of his art. What goes on onstage is not above reproach just because it spontaneously happens during a show.

As far as I can tell, his art is writing songs, singing them, and playing guitar. It’s not like the depth of his feeling is going to somehow exceed where music can go. He's great, but he's not that great. As his fan, it’s music that I want to see him put his feeling and realness into. (As I write this, I can easily imagine that, if I said all of this to Paul’s face, he might tell me I can blow it out my ass while secretly agreeing.)

Part of the mythologizing of artists usually includes this “better to burn out than to fade away” bullshit. In the last few years, Paul has been looking to me like he was going to transcend the myth by doing neither. He has seemed to be aging gracefully and thoughtfully, becoming more comfortable with himself and his audience (this is what I thought the CFMT movie was about), and becoming more productive as he walks further and further away from selling out. Wouldn’t it be heartbreaking if he turned his back on all of that to become the burnt-out “beautiful mess” that lots of people thought, during the 80s, he’d become? Especially when he’s recently gotten together with a band with whom he could make a really good record.

[hendrix]

I don't care what he does, it would just be nice to have the chance to see him again.
(Writes an English fan...)