Last night, I made the trek out to Oakland (which has become an almost weekly thing) and went to my new favorite venue, the Fox Theatre. Last month, I had the pleasure of seeing Sonic Youth there, and found the place to be pretty damn decent. Quality, even, as they say inland. The Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs were performing, and having heard good things about their live show, I had reasonable expectations. It's a funny thing, because I usually have no expectations. People tend to think that as a musician, I always want to go see live music, check out bands I've never heard of, and just generally hang out in the scene.
Nothing could be further from the truth. When I go to show, it tends to be work. Not that I have an agenda, but I can't help analyzing everything that happens from how efficient the tech crew is, to the lighting, stage presence, the flow of the setlist, audience reaction... How long do they wait between songs? Is the FOH actually paying attention? How would I do things different? It isn't easy to sit (stand) back and have a good time with a constant commentary in my head.
There were two openers: the first was totally forgettable ironic indie hipster noise that annoyed me for the entire twenty minutes I had to slog through. Next came a band that I'd recently read about in the Guardian. I probably read about three sentences before deciding that it was some sort of detached satirical tripe that writers working for independent weekly newspapers take for cool, and I find to be a steaming pile of koala crap, air-lifted fresh from down under.
I was right.
There's a quote from author John Lawton, who said the "irony of the information age is that it has given respectability to uninformed opinion." Well, modern technology has given respectability to the bedroom producers who shouldn't have gotten out the front door. Of course people should be able to pursue any hobby they like, but there is a sharp, clear line between hobby and career. Anybody who is computer saavy and not completely tone deaf can program something that sounds like music, and then can jump around pretending to sing to it. Those people are free to do it all they want, but I prefer they don't ask me to be around when it happens.
Enough about all that. My whole point of writing this post is to proclaim that Karen O has the potential to become the biggest star of her generation. When I watch a show, I pay attention to everything (see above), and it is truly rare to see someone play a crowd the way she does, and clearly enjoy it. It was obvious from the start that it was her show, that no matter what went into making the music, she was the focal point on stage. It was rock and roll at it's finest- majestic, dirty, grandiose, and in your face. My fear over the years has been that MTV would ruin the live show. That bands would either try to recreate their videos to the point that there would be no point in paying to see it done up close and personal, or the other extreme- they eschew any artifice and just stand there in t-shirts, staring sullenly and looking like they want to be anywhere other than on stage. Karen O struck the perfect balance, knowing that some things that happen on stage are stupid, but people pay to see SHOWS as opposed to performances.
Nothing could be further from the truth. When I go to show, it tends to be work. Not that I have an agenda, but I can't help analyzing everything that happens from how efficient the tech crew is, to the lighting, stage presence, the flow of the setlist, audience reaction... How long do they wait between songs? Is the FOH actually paying attention? How would I do things different? It isn't easy to sit (stand) back and have a good time with a constant commentary in my head.
There were two openers: the first was totally forgettable ironic indie hipster noise that annoyed me for the entire twenty minutes I had to slog through. Next came a band that I'd recently read about in the Guardian. I probably read about three sentences before deciding that it was some sort of detached satirical tripe that writers working for independent weekly newspapers take for cool, and I find to be a steaming pile of koala crap, air-lifted fresh from down under.
I was right.
There's a quote from author John Lawton, who said the "irony of the information age is that it has given respectability to uninformed opinion." Well, modern technology has given respectability to the bedroom producers who shouldn't have gotten out the front door. Of course people should be able to pursue any hobby they like, but there is a sharp, clear line between hobby and career. Anybody who is computer saavy and not completely tone deaf can program something that sounds like music, and then can jump around pretending to sing to it. Those people are free to do it all they want, but I prefer they don't ask me to be around when it happens.
Enough about all that. My whole point of writing this post is to proclaim that Karen O has the potential to become the biggest star of her generation. When I watch a show, I pay attention to everything (see above), and it is truly rare to see someone play a crowd the way she does, and clearly enjoy it. It was obvious from the start that it was her show, that no matter what went into making the music, she was the focal point on stage. It was rock and roll at it's finest- majestic, dirty, grandiose, and in your face. My fear over the years has been that MTV would ruin the live show. That bands would either try to recreate their videos to the point that there would be no point in paying to see it done up close and personal, or the other extreme- they eschew any artifice and just stand there in t-shirts, staring sullenly and looking like they want to be anywhere other than on stage. Karen O struck the perfect balance, knowing that some things that happen on stage are stupid, but people pay to see SHOWS as opposed to performances.
