You Expect Professionalism?

[Brad]

Lots and lots of good, valid points on this thread.
Not to beat a deadhorse but here are my 2 cents and probably a threadkilla because I'm good at that:)

I personally love Paul because he is himself at all times. I don't consider everything he does, says, or f*cks up as an "artistic statement". I enjoy that stuff because I like him. Someone compared it to Johnny Carson being hilarious when he bombed on stage. I agree.
No other artist can make me laugh and cry in equal measure like Paul Westerberg. Some of my favorite songs or movies are about the beauty of failure or the celebration of not being perfect. No one celebrates the beauty of imperfection like the guy who wrote, "Dreams unfufilled, graduate unskilled".
Here is the main reason I admire Paul and let him get away with what some percieve as train wrecks or not professional: It's real. I know, I know this has been said a million times before but it is very important to me. We live in a time when "artists" that get played ad nauseum on the radio and TV are professional to the point of boring and fake. Someone mentioned Ashlee Simpson. Perfect example. She sings with a backing track because A). She can't really sing and B). She is trying to sound EXACTLY like the she does on the CD. This is what they think people want. I'm not sure if most popular music fans know what they want or like unless it's on a NOW Music mix. I know what I want from a live performance though - LIVE. I want to see a real person with a soul that isn't afraid of not looking perfect and feels what they are singing (if they are in fact singing and not "singing")
Backing tracks are not live. Lip synching certain parts so you can dance like a jackass is not live or real in any way. But we are subjected to this stuff in the mainstream day after day after day. Even if you never listen to mainstream anything this stuff still somehow finds you or at least me. Like when I'm in my car and a sixteen year old with a stereo system the size of Cleveland is next to me or in a department store or a restaurant. It's hard to escape CRAP music.
Ashlee Simpson lip synchs on SNL or the "backing track" messed up or her band did or it was acid reflux or what-f*cking-ever. Be real!!!! The very next week Eminem comes on and he uses a backing track??? He isn't even singing! Why? Because he said he wanted it to sound like the CD. Is this because fans demand live performances to sound exactly like the recorded ones? If so that is f*cking lame in my humble opinion. If you want that then save the ticket money and stay home with your CD. I want to hear that person sing that song how they want to sing it then and there and in-the-moment. I never enjoy concerts more than when I hear a version of a song I like that's different than the CD. Like I absolutely love when Paul throws in "I'm the dog that's broken..." in the middle of "AAA". Or when he did a slow bluesy version of "Kiss Me On the Bus". I guess it feels like the songs and performance is unique to me and the rest of the audience for that night only or that tour and that makes the show extra special to me.
So my whole point is I thank god for Westerberg because he isn't perfect and would never try to be. He is what he is. He doesn't need backing tracks or smoke and mirrors to move you or put on a kick ass show.

[A Regular]

my one cent.

I think the tales of "trainwrecks" are greatly exaggerated. I've seen a cpl shows and from what i've read every night he is playing at least 2 hours and around 30 songs, most of them nailed. And from what I've witnessed, the songs that aren't dead on are performed without planning, as the setlist is all over the map after 30 minutes. If he wants to "play" while performing I don't mind, and have never felt cheated leaving one of his shows. Like others have said, you never know what you are going to get, which keeps bringing me back to any show I can get to.

[ElegantMule]

Hey Bent, I think I love you...but what am I so afraid of..

[ElegantMule]

I am not trying to oversimplify this, especially because I like to read what everyone is saying, but it sort of comes down to this for me -


is what he's doing up there art, or a job?

And, depending on that answer, should he be expected to act within the "typical" confines of such?

[A Regular]

ElegantMule said:

is what he's doing up there art, or a job?

And, depending on that answer, should he be expected to act within the "typical" confines of such?

Well, if you are kinda like an artist, isn't it both if you are getting paid for it?

And the confines for a rock and roll artist is NOT the same as us schmucks sitting in an office, and thank god for that. Maybe when we see him smash a guitar, somewhere in the recesses of your psyche, we are wishing we COULD do that to our computer, or boss, or spouse, or whatever.

As long as he doesn't step over the line into self-destruction I've no problem with it. Besides, the acting out is also in the backseat to the 30 great songs you'll hear when you go.

[FreeRider]

A said:

my one cent.

I think the tales of "trainwrecks" are greatly exaggerated. I've seen a cpl shows and from what i've read every night he is playing at least 2 hours and around 30 songs, most of them nailed. And from what I've witnessed, the songs that aren't dead on are performed without planning, as the setlist is all over the map after 30 minutes. If he wants to "play" while performing I don't mind, and have never felt cheated leaving one of his shows. Like others have said, you never know what you are going to get, which keeps bringing me back to any show I can get to.

A Reg,

I agree, I like the idea of not knowing what I'm going to get too, that each show is different. And you make a good point---for every "moment" he has onstage, whether it's smashing a guitar or hurling his harmonica to the back of the stage, I think you'll get a pay off with the rest of the performance.

The Memphis show got a little funky at the end, with Paul singing and playing off stage, or lying down behind Michael B to play the next song. But everything else was great, the rest of the songs had fire, passion and poignancy and everything else you would want from him and his songs.

[FirstAveFiend]

BentAllOuttaShape said:

I could get drunk at work one day, get pissed off, do my job intermittently, smash my computer, tell my boss to f*ck 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?

If you're the type that likes to get drunk, break stuff and thinks your boss is an asshole then yeah maybe you are being true to yourself. Do I need to quote Fight Club here?

BentAllOuttaShape said:

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.

I actually don't think you get what I'm saying. I'm not calling his every move an artistic expression. I never have once brought up the term art. In fact I really don't care for the term at all. I'm saying that in all the shows of his I've seen, the music has never disappointed me. I'm saying that I love these shows because of the changes in the songs that I wouldn't hear and the musical tangents he goes on. Sure he smashes stuff and I get a rise out of that but all in all he's playing 99% of the time he's on stage, which is not something I would call obnoxious and with the 30+ songs, yeah I'm definitely getting what I paid for and more. And when he does take a minute to say something theres a pretty good chance is personal or its fun. A glimpse we don't see from in unless we're at the show.

BentAllOuttaShape said:

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 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.)

When I'm at these shows I see him putting his realness and emotion into his music. Am I the only one? He plays songs he wants to play and if he gets bored with a song he mixes it up a bit so he likes it more or has more fun with it. Where is he not putting his realness and emotion into the music? Its not like he stops playing for 20 minutes to goof off or blab about something unimportant. Its always about the music for me and it seems like it is to him as well.

BentAllOuttaShape said:

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.

I don't think his drinking on stage is a sign that he's burning out. In fact I don't like how people are so critical of it. He has yet to disappoint me and in some pretty drunken states he's pulled out some great tight songs. He's on tour, let him have some fun. He's said in his interviews that when he's home he doesn't go out, and its more then obvious that he does as much as he can for his son. So when he's out on tour he's kicking back and having his fun and putting on a great f*cking show while he's doing it. I'm not seeing someone thats burning out by any means. If he was burning out from these "train wreck" shows how is he able to go to the next town, the next night and put on a show people are referring to as tight and "professional."

Of course this is all my honest opinion and I realize it may not be taken the most serious but I'll stand by it. Go ahead, think I'm looking at things through a cloud because of my love for his music, but its how I feel.

[snickers]

ElegantMule said:

I am not trying to oversimplify this, especially because I like to read what everyone is saying, but it sort of comes down to this for me -


is what he's doing up there art, or a job?

And, depending on that answer, should he be expected to act within the "typical" confines of such?

right....

does the fact that someone earns a living from it ("it" being some kind of creative endeavor) endow it with the same kinds of expectations and responsibilities that other jobs have?

[angela]

I don't want to quote your post FAF because it's quite long, but I just have to say that's exactly how feel but you said it far better than I could.

[FirstAveFiend]

angela said:

I don't want to quote your post FAF because it's quite long, but I just have to say that's exactly how feel but you said it far better than I could.

Thanks Angela, I figured I wasn't the only one. And its good to hear someone understands, cause I'm not the best at putting my thoughts into words.

[goodtogo]

every job or profession comes with its own parameters and expectations. i work in an office and i understand that there are certain expectations as to how i need to act at work. paul is a musician... a rock star even. he is his own boss and i think throughout his career he has made it abundantly clear that he likes to do things on his own terms. he has the luxury of recording where and how he wants to and releasing what he wants to. and i don't think it has ever been a secret that his shows can be unpredictable.

i would certainly be disappointed if he showed up and couldn't play his songs and just fell around. but what i saw in chicago was nothing near that. he was loose and off the cuff and maybe a little off here and there... but i saw a rousing rock show.

it would certainly be out of character for bruce springsteen to chug whiskey, smash stuff, lay on the floor, start and stop songs and play a bunch of off the cuff covers. but paul westerberg... not at all.

[Joee]

when i was going to see paul live, i expected some kind of drunkard behavior, or guitar bashing, etc... I got it all. Made me the happiest man ever, his guitar strap falls off, so he falls to thefloor to kep playing, and to sing he kicks the microphone stand over and sings while lying down.


What i expected, and wanted, and what i got.

[ElegantMule]

A said:

As long as he doesn't step over the line into self-destruction I've no problem with it. Besides, the acting out is also in the backseat to the 30 great songs you'll hear when you go.

Good point, that one.

[ElegantMule]

FirstAveFiend said:

Where is he not putting his realness and emotion into the music?

When he's singing "Can't Hardly Wait" for the 1023rd time? Sometimes it seems like he's cringing through it as much as some of the audience is.

And I don't fault him or anyone else for that. He has an unusual legacy in that he literally has 25 years of well loved songs - evidenced by the fact that people still yell out for "Customer."

He's on tour, let him have some fun. He's said in his interviews that when he's home he doesn't go out, and its more then obvious that he does as much as he can for his son. So when he's out on tour he's kicking back and having his fun and putting on a great f*cking show while he's doing it.

This is a very simple (and overlooked - by me anyway) point. I mean, look at all of us when we get together. Okay, there hasn't been much breaking stuff. Yet. But we're all pretty much doing the same thing.

That lucky bastard.

[scoOter]

ElegantMule said:

This is a very simple (and overlooked - by me anyway) point. I mean, look at all of us when we get together. Okay, there hasn't been much breaking stuff. Yet. But we're all pretty much doing the same thing.

That lucky bastard.

"you learn to love the highway when you're home, and love home when you're away..." marah

[bigbak]

Unprofessional to me would me the afore-cited lip-synching, backing track crap.

Paul is a great artist who sometimes plays it fast and lousy, sometimes tight and wonderful. But anyone on this board who doesn't expect the possibility of anything and everything happening when they purchase their PW and HOF lottery ticket is akin to someone being offended by nudity when they visit a strip club.

[thetwilitekid]

I don't want an "artist" or someone doing their job on stage. i want them up there on the stage to have fun and to play the shit out of their songs and not care about anything other then how those songs make them feel right then and there. And an off night is okay - they're only human.

I don't care about your hair.
I don't care about your clothes.
I don't care about your ego.
I don't want cheesy banter like "rock on_______"
I don't want to see no posing or "choreographyed" jumps and leaps.
Don't try to be some fukking rock star - just be yourself and annihilate and have fun.

Also what's up with paying $60-90 seeing Sting or whoever? Tickets shouldn't really be much over $20 to see anybody perform music. (even though if I could've I would've seen Paul for the $37 or whatever it was. Even though Paul might be the only musician I would spend that much on - hell, I think he is the only one who I really like right now whose tickets are over $20, other than maybe New Order. But I haven't really gotten to see any shows recently)

[angela]

thetwilitekid said:

Also what's up with paying $60-90 seeing Sting or whoever? Tickets shouldn't really be much over $20 to see anybody perform music. (even though if I could've I would've seen Paul for the $37 or whatever it was. Even though Paul might be the only musician I would spend that much on - hell, I think he is the only one who I really like right now whose tickets are over $20, other than maybe New Order. But I haven't really gotten to see any shows recently)

Ticket prices are completely out of hand. When PW tickets went on sale I was happily stunned that the price was only $22 (well, before TM tacked on their fees & shipping, sending the price to nearly $35 each). My dad called the other day to tell me that Brian Wilson was headed back this way. Tickets are nearly $60, plus all the fees. I've already paid that the past two times he was here and he's drained me. U2 tickets *start* at $52 for the nosebleeds. For decent seats you're looking at a minimum of $100 and up to $162 if you actually want to be able to see them. I can't think of anybody I'd pay that amount of money to see. And certainly not Bobo and friends.

[FirstAveFiend]

My dad wants me to go to Paul McCartney with him and I'm sure the tickets are well over $100. I hope he knows hes paying

[Pete]

FirstAveFiend said:

My dad wants me to go to Paul McCartney with him and I'm sure the tickets are well over $100. I hope he knows hes paying

I wouldn't pay a hundred dollars for him anyday. Though I think you shouldn't pay more then a hundred considering he'll probably only give you a hundred dollars worth of music. Right?