Expecting Rain

Go to main page
It is currently Wed December 13th, 2017, 03:36 GMT

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 11:08 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed September 14th, 2011, 13:25 GMT
Posts: 12325
Location: Wherever I am welcome
technology to wipe out truth is now available. not everybody can afford it but it’s available. when the cost comes down look out!


The truth isn't in those grainy photos we snap, it's in the room and we aren't even paying attention.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 11:11 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue December 14th, 2010, 14:22 GMT
Posts: 43306
Location: Beneath the Southern X
raging_glory wrote:
technology to wipe out truth is now available. not everybody can afford it but it’s available. when the cost comes down look out!


The truth isn't in those grainy photos we snap, it's in the room and we aren't even paying attention.


Post of the month.
UP, got the awards ready?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 12:16 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat October 27th, 2007, 12:44 GMT
Posts: 16790
Location: Workin' as a postal clerk
Johanna Parker wrote:
Now that a line of mirrors has actually been moved to the pit and right into people's faces, it couldn't be much more clearer in saying, "Just look at yourselves!" Photos are one thing, craving his attention another, and then there's the live setlists of almost every single show after a year of him playing pretty much the same set every show. I love the setlist threads and photos / videos of Bob, but.... we don't even manage to reduce the live setlisting to agreeing to only text in case of changes, other than just confirming afterwards whenever it's the same setlist. I know we crave all this, but is IS absurd.



I'm sure he found it absurd even before the internet when people got his setlists 3 months later in Isis magazine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 12:25 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sat December 14th, 2013, 15:43 GMT
Posts: 1108
notdarkyet wrote:

Image




I would love if it Dylan released a live CD made up from these shows and used that photo as the album cover.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 12:52 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue December 14th, 2010, 14:22 GMT
Posts: 43306
Location: Beneath the Southern X
smoke wrote:
Johanna Parker wrote:
Now that a line of mirrors has actually been moved to the pit and right into people's faces, it couldn't be much more clearer in saying, "Just look at yourselves!" Photos are one thing, craving his attention another, and then there's the live setlists of almost every single show after a year of him playing pretty much the same set every show. I love the setlist threads and photos / videos of Bob, but.... we don't even manage to reduce the live setlisting to agreeing to only text in case of changes, other than just confirming afterwards whenever it's the same setlist. I know we crave all this, but is IS absurd.



I'm sure he found it absurd even before the internet when people got his setlists 3 months later in Isis magazine.


Sure, people have been making notes of the setlists for a long time, but it didn't involve playing around with phones during the show and potentially snapping photos while at it. Now, people are on ER at the moment they're actually physically at a show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 13:45 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat October 27th, 2007, 12:44 GMT
Posts: 16790
Location: Workin' as a postal clerk
The absurdity just increases over time, it seems. I know other artists have their setlist posted all the time these days, I wonder how many have regular live updates, it may be a commonplace thing these days for all I know, but I wouldn't be shocked if Dylan still has the most obsessive fans in the world. BTW when does the next live setlist start? I don't want to be late 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 14:41 GMT 

Joined: Sun July 6th, 2014, 19:57 GMT
Posts: 472
Lonesomefetter wrote:
I have also experienced all of the other intrusions you mentioned (fights, spilled drinks, medical emergencies, belligerent fans, etc...). They are all distracting and unpleasant, in varying degrees. Anyone who feels otherwise obviously is not there for the performer and the performance.

That said, of all the examples we have both mentioned, ONLY using a cell phone to photograph/text/call/shoot video of the show is COMPLETELY avoidable, and COMPLETELY discretionary.

By that, I mean that people can find themselves thrust into altercations, or have drinks spilled on them, or be accosted by unstable or aggressive audience members without warning, or by accident, or because of otherwise involuntary or uncontrollable behavior.

Yet, it takes a certain mindset and a deliberate series of actions to completely disregard the view, mood and enjoyment of those surrounding and behind you by CHOOSING to use a cell phone in this manner.


Okay, I'm gonna throw the brakes on here...it seems to me that the distinction you're drawing is somewhat arbitrary. Funny how everything else can be chalked up to "involuntary or uncontrollable behavior" until we get to cell phones, which are "completely" avoidable/discretionary. Is it really that difficult to see how things like drinking are to some degree avoidable, while cell phones at concerts are to some degree uncontrollable?

Why is the confluence of neural and psychological activity that leads up to someone taking their cell phone out of their pocket for a picture at a concert any more deserving to be called "choice" than the confluence of neural and psychological activity that leads someone to buy, or sell, 64 oz. buckets of beer? ...it takes a certain mindset and a deliberate series of actions to completely disregard the view, mood and enjoyment of those surrounding and behind you by CHOOSING to become uncontrollably drunk.

Quote:
This current preoccupation with digitally "documenting" every minute detail of one's life, no matter how blurry, low-fi or fragmented it may be is a symptom of both the deterioration of civility and a growing lack of awareness of the negative ramifications of one's actions on one's fellow man.


Don't you think you're being a little dramatic?

Quote:
I'm also not a Luddite. I just recall vividly when things were much nicer at shows, and I desperately miss those times.


Quote:
Try this thought experiment: Pretend no such thing as cell phones or small, digital cameras exist.


This will be easy, as I am in my 30s and remember what concerts were like before this stuff.

Quote:
Now, imagine paying $80 to be in a 5,000 capacity theater, and as soon as BOB F*CKING DYLAN comes onstage, 1/3 of the crowd reaches in their pockets and pulls out super-bright LED flashlights that simultaneously shine a bright red light in the bandmembers' eyes, and a bright white light backwards at everyone behind them. Then they proceed to turn them on for minutes at a time for the duration of the concert, and repeatedly hold them high in the air or stick them in front of the faces of the people to their immediate right or left.

Now, you tell me: is it "overly rigid" to view this as infuriatingly selfish and anti-social behavior?


Yes. Yes, it is. It's 2014. The world has changed. Why weren't concert audiences holding cell phones aloft in 1965? Was it because they were less selfish and anti-social?

Also, I think you're overstating the "problem". The only concerts where you really find that massive, constant cell-phone filming are ones by artists that are really popular at the moment, and in this context--among the kids, you might say--it's expected and even a desirable aspect of the experience. I mean, if this is how you feel about cell phones at concerts, then you must be absolutely tormented by advertisements for cell phones/internet providers/websites/etc. which often glorify the experience of viewing a concert through a sea of glowing cell phones. It must be like staring directly into hell for you.

At shows by what you might call "legacy" acts like Bob, I see a fairly reliable pattern. There's a quick burst of cell phone activity at the very beginning of the first song, then very little until the end except for that artist or group's best known song (or two). I dunno...it's not that big of a deal to me. I mean, if someone directly in front of me was holding something up for the entire concert, yes, that would be annoying and I'd definitely say something to that person. But I've never had that experience. For the most part, people seem to want to just take a brief clip. Which is fine. Maybe they're taking it so they can bring it back to their dying father who is a lifelong Dylan fan. It was that person's first Dylan show in 20 years without their dad, and they wanted to take home a few minutes of Blowing In The Wind back to the hospital. And you're sitting there thinking all of this heaven-and-hell, clash of noble ideals stuff...

Quote:
Dig: I still go to concerts, but not nearly as many as I want to, and when I am there, I shut up and pay close attention to the magical act of artistic creation taking place on the stage.


Is it fair to characterize a 2014 Bob Dylan show as a "magical act of artistic creation"?

Quote:
However, there are many things in this wicked world that WERE much better long ago than they are now. Audience behavior at rock concerts being one of them.


Again, why weren't concerts flooded with cell phones in the '60s? Or '70s? Or '80s? Or '90s? Or, for the most part, the '00s? Because they were better behaved?

Believe it or not, video-taking cellphones have only been around since the late '00s. Less than a decade ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 17:05 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue December 14th, 2010, 14:22 GMT
Posts: 43306
Location: Beneath the Southern X
Beets14beets wrote:
Is it fair to characterize a 2014 Bob Dylan show as a "magical act of artistic creation"?


How can one answer that if you have the nerve to ask? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 17:33 GMT 

Joined: Mon October 5th, 2009, 01:25 GMT
Posts: 199
Beets14beets,

I understand the points you made in your last post, and even as I was typing the one you referred to, I could imagine the many ways in which it could be picked apart by anyone who wanted to follow a number of my statements to their logical conclusions.

Of course, getting drunk at a show is discretionary.

Of course, getting involved in some sort of loud or violent altercation is often (but not always) discretionary. Sometimes, in a crowded room, plenty of people who have nothing to do with and/or no idea of what an altercation is even about wind up part of the fracas merely due to their proximity to the brouhaha.

However, in general, being obnoxiously drunk and/or fighting are both still considered forms of behavior which are not tolerated at live, public events. They are also forms of behavior which, in general, last a very short while before they are "taken care of."

Not so with the insensitive use of light-emitting screens.

"Get with it, old man," folks opine.

"Mantovani's down the block!"

No way, daddy-o. I dig the Ramones.

I know it's 2014. I also know that newer is not always better, and that everything comes with a price.

Substituting your point on the availability of cell phones having something to do with folks using them in obnoxious fashions... I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to get at there, but it reminded me of this truism:

The drug abuse problem in the USA was an awful thing before the advent of crack. However, after crack it got horrendously worse, and society in general has never recovered from that particular "advance."

Folks did not do crack in large numbers until it became a popularized, mass-produced product.

Once it became available, they did, and they still do.

So, um, huh?

Wait. I'm lost.

Oh, right. I'm not equating crack use to cell phone use.

I'm just saying that, sure, when desirable products that provide transient joys are made commonplace and are hyped via peer pressure, people gladly jump onboard and abuse them.

In the end, it's all about just what sorts of obnoxious behavior society is and is not willing to tolerate. I think you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this particular topic, which is fine.

As far as me being (overly?) dramatic? Sure, that's a fair cop. Perhaps it was the canned IPA talking!

As for whether or not I think it's fair to characterize a 2014 Bob Dylan show as a "magical act of artistic creation?"

I do, absolutely. Because it is.

Just as much as a Katy Perry show or a Blues Hammer gig or your neighbors' son's shitty cover band at the talent show. The only difference is that some are more interesting than others, depending on what your own specific bag is.

In fact, the idea that it might somehow not be, is exactly the kind of flawed logic that makes it all too easy for folks to tolerate and/or promote the very use of cell phones that I am decrying.

Just my .02, for whatever it might be worth.

Thanks for the thoughtful discourse!

Best,
L.F.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 18:02 GMT 

Joined: Sun June 22nd, 2014, 19:26 GMT
Posts: 500
Johanna Parker wrote:
Sure, people have been making notes of the setlists for a long time, but it didn't involve playing around with phones during the show and potentially snapping photos while at it. Now, people are on ER at the moment they're actually physically at a show.


Of course Dylan can reserve the right not to be photographed, but people will text and even speak on the phone during ANY show these days. Maybe not at the rail, but it certainly starts only a few rows back. But that is just a fact of life. There is nothing Dylan can do about that. No announcement and no mirrors is gonna change people's behaviour.

smoke wrote:
The absurdity just increases over time, it seems. I know other artists have their setlist posted all the time these days, I wonder how many have regular live updates, it may be a commonplace thing these days for all I know, but I wouldn't be shocked if Dylan still has the most obsessive fans in the world. BTW when does the next live setlist start? I don't want to be late 8)


I think the live setlist thing is indeed a very common feature these days. I know the Bruce fans do it at least as long as we do and with the Rolling Stones, you even get the updates right from the official Twitter feed. Jack White tried to have people not take pictures by having an official photographer take some that are available for free through his website (at least he did that a couple of years back). Now THOSE are effective measures, giving the people what they want for free and with better quality/higher accuracy than a punter at the rail could possibly deliver. But I doubt that Dylan will ever make that step. It definitely would help more than add'l vocal mikes and mirrors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 18:09 GMT 

Joined: Mon October 5th, 2009, 01:25 GMT
Posts: 199
I'm just waiting on the Dylan hologram tour.

Image

~ L.F.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 18:39 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat October 27th, 2007, 12:44 GMT
Posts: 16790
Location: Workin' as a postal clerk
Going back a few poses, does Dylan really think he looks better there than at his concerts?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 21:33 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu October 26th, 2006, 02:28 GMT
Posts: 24048
Location: I'm in Bostontown in some restaurant.
Beets14beets wrote:
Is it fair to characterize a 2014 Bob Dylan show as a "magical act of artistic creation"?


Yes, I do think that's a fair statement. Changing the arrangements the way he does is no small feat and he does it all the time. Oftentimes, it's like hearing a song for the first time. This is especially true for older songs he changes.

It's also one of the reasons I still love to see him live. You never know what you're gonna get.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 21:36 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21409
BostonAreaBobFan wrote:
It's also one of the reasons I still love to see him live. You never know what you're gonna get.

Yes sir, ma'am!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri July 11th, 2014, 22:50 GMT 

Joined: Tue February 10th, 2009, 16:11 GMT
Posts: 674
I can totally understand that people object to people using cell phone cameras or any other type of camera at concerts, not just Dylan's, no matter the artist's own camera policy. It can be really annoying when people hold their cells over their heads for minutes at a time.
The worst thing is when people use flashes. That's a big NO-NO and useless anyway. Your flash won't matter if the object is a stage 30 feet or more away. Using cell phones may be inappropriate, but using a flash is downright rude to both the performer(s) and the people around you.
That said, I confess that I sometimes use my cell phone camera (and sometimes other cameras) at concerts. Rarely at Dylan concerts, but I attend quite a few non-Dylan shows. I try to do it discreetly. At some venues it's possible to get perfectly without even letting the camera leave your jacket or shirt, if you know what you're doing. If I have to hold the cell or camera in front of me or above me, I try to make the process as quick and painless as possible (unless - which can happen in some less crowded venues - I find a good spot where I'm unlikely to bother anyone with my activities). I turn on the camera, remove it from jacket, make sure to get good focus, click twice, put the camera back in my jacket or shirt and turn it off. The whole process usually takes ten seconds or less. That way I can get up to 20 shots without distracting myself or anyone else from the performance for more than a total of 90 seconds or so .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat July 12th, 2014, 12:18 GMT 

Joined: Sun July 6th, 2014, 19:57 GMT
Posts: 472
L.F., do you think that cellphones/smartphones are evil in general, or just in the setting we're discussing?

smoke wrote:
Going back a few poses, does Dylan really think he looks better there than at his concerts?


That's a great question. I had never made the connection between the onstage stuff and the extreme photoshopping of the last 15+ years (since Time Out of Mind, at least). I mean, it would be hard to say for sure because for all we know, someone else is pressing for this photoshopping...like, maybe it's Jeff Rosen's thing. But it would be a revelation, indeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat July 12th, 2014, 13:55 GMT 

Joined: Sun March 22nd, 2009, 17:48 GMT
Posts: 3030
Location: Pittsburgh (duh!)
We discussed this on another thread, but the constant texting, picture taking, video taking, & "selfies" at concerts is ridiculous. I go to a concert to see & hear the performance, not to show it to my friends. My feeling is that if it's important to my friends, they can buy a ticket to get in like I did.

That said, if one chooses to perform in public & become a famous celebrity, people wanting to take his picture is a necessary evil that goes with the territory. Imagine aliens landing in the middle of a Dylan show, seeing a band performing in the dark, with the "singer" talk-singing indecipherable lyrics while hiding behind mirrors, busts, & multiple microphones, as the audience is going crazy. They'd think earthlings had completely lost their minds. And I'm at the point where I'd agree with 'em, & it's why I'm not likely to attend another Dylan concert.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat July 12th, 2014, 18:19 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun September 15th, 2013, 22:58 GMT
Posts: 422
Location: waitin' for it to rain
I think if Bob really wanted to "hide" from his audience he could simply do what Miles Davis did, and have about as polite an answer when questioned about it. (And I don't think Davis was hiding, I think he was doing as he pleased, sound familiar?)

I think it's reasonable to assume if Bob was (completely unnecessarily btw) concerned about him appearing as someone who looks appropriate to his age he could more than afford to have plastic surgery until his ears met at the back of his head. I shudder to think of seeing him nipped tucked and sucked into some plastic version of himself, and poured into some skintight jeans (okay I might want to see that part a little lol) all because he felt some sort of public pressure to adhere to peoples insecure and infantile denial of the unavoidable (unless you are dead) consequences of aging. People who are that vain, blah! Their narcissistic preoccupation is a lifetime punishment in itself.

I think Bob does what he does because people close to the stage taking vids and constant pics or doing odd things to get his attention is annoying. It would annoy any reasonable person if people did that while they were at work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat July 12th, 2014, 18:29 GMT 
Mercury Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed September 14th, 2011, 13:25 GMT
Posts: 12325
Location: Wherever I am welcome
Sweetheart68 wrote:
I think if Bob really wanted to "hide" from his audience he could simply do what Miles Davis did, and have about as polite an answer when questioned about it. (And I don't think Davis was hiding, I think he was doing as he pleased, sound familiar?)

I think it's reasonable to assume if Bob was (completely unnecessarily btw) concerned about him appearing as someone who looks appropriate to his age he could more than afford to have plastic surgery until his ears met at the back of his head. I shudder to think of seeing him nipped tucked and sucked into some plastic version of himself, and poured into some skintight jeans (okay I might want to see that part a little lol) all because he felt some sort of public pressure to adhere to peoples insecure and infantile denial of the unavoidable (unless you are dead) consequences of aging. People who are that vain, blah! Their narcissistic preoccupation is a lifetime punishment in itself.

I think Bob does what he does because people close to the stage taking vids and constant pics or doing odd things to get his attention is annoying. It would annoy any reasonable person if people did that while they were at work.


I try to avoid using Bob quotes at every turn, but what you said is so true and Bob addressed it years ago!

For them that think death’s honesty
Won’t fall upon them naturally
Life sometimes must get lonely


I witnessed some really ridiculous shenanigans at one show in particular, where people were nearly turning inside out to get his attention. It was very uncomfortable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat July 12th, 2014, 18:49 GMT 
User avatar

Joined: Sun September 15th, 2013, 22:58 GMT
Posts: 422
Location: waitin' for it to rain
Thank you for the quote Glory! As usual Bob has said it better and in a lot less words than I typically use.

I think Bob looks dignified and snazzy in those suits. (Every girl crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat July 12th, 2014, 18:54 GMT 
Promethium Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri July 15th, 2011, 02:23 GMT
Posts: 21409
Is he still blasting the high beams on the crowd? I'll still bring shades for that part.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat July 12th, 2014, 21:00 GMT 

Joined: Mon October 5th, 2009, 01:25 GMT
Posts: 199
Beets14beets wrote:
L.F., do you think that cellphones/smartphones are evil in general, or just in the setting we're discussing?


I don't think mobile phones or small cameras are evil in the least. On the contrary, I think they're awesome!

It's the automatonic, intrusive, self-important usage of them during live performances of any and all kinds that I find rude and generally unnecessary.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

However, it's a hell of a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with your bare hands or a knife or a piece of twine or a dessicated cat carcass - and as a bonus, you can also do so without even feeling them expire because of your actions.

Same basic thing with the bright lights from cell phones.

It's far too easy to rationalize being rude by using them at inappropriate moments and in inappropriate ways, because they are often omnipresent and so many other people are doing the same thing that being rude simply becomes "being contemporary."

In that respect, I'm happy to remain a fuddy-duddy and not harsh anyone's mellow for the sake of a blurry, far-away picture that will likely be indistinguishable from the hundreds of thousands of snapshots taken by other people on the same tour.

Especially when I realize that there will certainly be several hundred people who actually get away with amazing, clear, closeup shots from the same tour (often without using an illuminated viewscreen and bothering those around them) which they'll eventually post online for me and everyone else to view for free - without any of us even needing to be part of the problem.

I hope this clarifies my position, flawed as it may be.

~ L.F.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun July 13th, 2014, 00:40 GMT 

Joined: Thu March 18th, 2010, 09:54 GMT
Posts: 470
Location: Sweden
Just noticed from a video that he has moved two mirrors to the front of the stage. Does this create any dead spots on the rail?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun July 13th, 2014, 02:34 GMT 

Joined: Tue February 10th, 2009, 16:11 GMT
Posts: 674
People have always wanted souvenirs, something to prove they were at a particular place at a particular time. Once upon a time they may have removed a piece of rock from a particular place. Now people take a photo or buy an overpriced t-shirt for 50 bucks or so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun July 13th, 2014, 06:05 GMT 
Senior Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu October 26th, 2006, 02:28 GMT
Posts: 24048
Location: I'm in Bostontown in some restaurant.
I admit guilt to both taking photos and texting during Bob's shows, the later is only done to provide live set lists to you good people. I do like to think I'm strategic in when I do both things. I'll only text or snap a shot (without a flash) between songs. I'll only talk between songs as well - no chatting during performances.

I saw Richard Thompson twice last month, once sitting 2nd row; once sitting 3rd row - both center. I could have taken some really great photos but took nothing until the very end of the shows during the encore and his bow (some are posted in the Richard Thompson thread). Both venues where intimate and it would have been distracting to text or take photos- moreso than at a Bob show. So, I do think you need to use common sense and a little self control at times if the venue or circumstances tell you that it isn't appropriate. Like taping a show, discretion is everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 117 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group