Friday, June 29, 2012

Bricks in the Wall

Part of the problem with writing concert reviews on deadline all the time is that I often find myself scrambling to write something, anything, the first thing that comes to mind, about the show I am reviewing. There’s no time to collect my thoughts and really reflect on what I have just seen and listened to.

Roger Waters’ performance of Pink Floyd’s opus “The Wall” at the Times Union Center on June 28 is a perfect example. My opinion of the show didn’t really form fully until about an hour after the final song, as I was driving home. And it seems to me, at least judging from reactions I’ve been reading on Facebook and conversations I’ve had with friends who were at the show, that my opinion is in the minority.

Visually, the show is overwhelming. The huge Wall, the floating pig with glowing eyes, the fireworks, the airplanes, the huge projections — it was a total feast for the eyes. But amidst all the eye candy, one important element — actually, the single most important element — felt sorely neglected. Strip away all the bells and whistles and flying pigs, and the performance just didn’t do anything for me.

We’re talking about an album originally created by Pink Floyd, a band whose instrumental interplay and performance acumen is legendary. From their meticulously crafted studio albums to their epic shows (such as the 1972 document “Live at Pompei”), this was a band that never slacked off when it came to both the music and the visual aspect of their performance.

So why did Rogers and his band make “The Wall” feel so hollow, so dull? For one thing, Waters doesn’t seem to be in the mood to share the spotlight with his bandmates. There were some decent players onstage (no less than three guitarists and four vocalists filled in for David Gilmour, which kind of says something about Pink Floyd’s musical acumen), but they mostly came across as faceless, playing just enough to get the song across. Waters took the spotlight entirely — at one point dueting with a video of himself on “Mother,” quipping that he hoped it didn’t seem too egotistical (I’m paraphrasing here).

Here’s the thing, it totally did. Everything about the show felt like a monument to Waters’ ego. I mean, if it wasn’t, why not get the remaining members of Floyd up there? Or why not put your band front and center, create a musical energy, play off one another, jam a bit?

The band spent half of the second set completely obscured by the giant Wall — which effectively ruined “Comfortably Numb” for me. If there was any “Wall” song that I wanted to see Waters and company really tear into, it was that song. Instead, we got Waters running around in front of the wall, while Robbie Wyckoff occasionally rose above the Wall like a floating ghost to sing Gilmour’s lines. One of the three guitarists also got to float above the Wall while playing Gilmour’s brilliant solo — a fine approximation, but an approximation, nonetheless. The best part of the show came when the Wall fell, and the band lined up with acoustic instruments to play “Outside the Wall.” This was the only time that I felt like I was watching a band play off of each other.

Like I said, everyone else seemed to love it. I get it, the show was about the visuals, totally and completely. And what a sight they were — my fumbling attempts to describe it will not do it any justice.

But here’s a hypothetical for you — take all of that away. If you were at the show, pretend that it was just a show with a rock band, led by Roger Waters, playing “The Wall.” Would that have been anywhere near as memorable?

As a society — actually, as a species — we’re conditioned to like shiny things. Diamonds are not rare or special; they’re considered valuable because they’re pretty to look at. Gold is more rare, but if it wasn’t so brilliant looking humans probably wouldn’t have fought wars over it.

You see this in modern technological advances, too. Flat screen TVs offer state-of-the-art, top-notch graphics that dazzle the eyes. Films shown in 3-D are all the rage. And the technology keeps improving in the visual spectrum — in December, the “Lord of the Rings” prequel “The Hobbit” will be the first film shown in 3-D 48 frames-per-second, instead of the usual 24.

When was the last time you heard about comparable advances in sound quality? Not delivery, mind you — we’ve had plenty of gadgets come out that make listening to music more convenient, but usually at the expense of sound quality. Audiophiles still swear by vinyl records as the highest quality delivery system for sound, and those were pretty much the way they are now in 1950. Guitarists still prefer the sound of tube-driven amplification over the more modern transistor amplifiers.

I’ve never been the most observant person — I run into walls, quite frequently in fact. Visual stimuli don’t really effect me the way they seem to effect most people. For example, I spent 10 years watching movies on a television with a screen about a foot wide, and didn’t really think anything of it. Granted, I’d hate to totally lose my vision, but if I had a choice between that and my hearing, I think I’d deal with it.

So maybe for most people, “The Wall” show was all about the visuals. I can’t help but think that it could have been about so much more.

1 comment:

  1. Welcome to blogdom, Brian. A great opening volley.

    I agree with you on a number of points - overnight deadlines suck, and "The Wall" was a giant 2 & 1/2 hour ego stroke (but that's what I always thought it was all about).

    Re: "If you were at the show, pretend that it was just a show with a rock band, led by Roger Waters, playing “The Wall.” Would that have been anywhere near as memorable?" No, it wouldn't. Not at all.

    But I think perhaps our difference of opinion on the show (which I loved) is one of expectations. I think you were expecting a rock concert, while I was hoping for a theatrical performance. And I was most certainly not disappointed.

    ReplyDelete