This was brought to the forefront of my mind again on Thursday, when I went to see Velvet Revolver at the Pacific Coliseum. The whole evening was set out as a "back to basics rock & roll show" - this is even how Slash described it in a pre-show radio interview. Scott Weiland's stage presence channels the icons of rock: his slinky garb and the amorphous sexuality oozes late seventies Bowie. His back and forth rooster strut invokes Mick Jagger in his heyday. Digesting Weiland's on-stage persona, in concert with noticing the black leather tophat perched upon an amp and watching Slash and Duff close the show by walking off the stage arm in arm, you realize you are watching an encapsulation of rock and roll history. This concert embodies the rock & roll experience; the rock & roll tradition.
Anthony Giddens, director of the London School of Economics, outlined several key elements which define a tradition:
First, it involves some form of ceremonial ritual or ritualistic behavior. Second, tradition involves a group of people; it's collective and social in nature. Third, traditions have guardians such as historians that have access to the knowledge or the truth of tradition's sacred rituals. Fourth, tradition stirs emotion within individuals to bring about a greater sense of self-awareness. In some cultures, these rituals are important to one's self-identity within the context of a larger society. (excerpted from metro news.
What is a rock concert but a tradition; a mass gathering which the participants adhere to rules and patterns without any formal training in such a milieu. You don't take lessons on how to behave when you go to see a concert, you just know how to behave. Everyone knows that when the band leaves the stage but the lights don't come up, you are supposed to clap and stomp and cheer and call them back. This is your opportunity to pay your respects to the spectacle. When a soft song is played, the lighters are held in the air. When the band turns the mike to the crowd, everyone sings. The call and response of the spectacle call to the collective conciousness of the crowd.
In the 1950's, Guy DeBord and the Situationists proposed a cultural revolution which reunitied art and everyday life. They felt that the alienation of everyday man from the deeper meanings of everyday life and the creative output had marginalized all relationships - captialism rendered life 'transactional' and reduced it to a 'spectacle'. That is, the superficiality of the creative endeavour masks the disatisfaction of a life separated from creativity and art.
Halfway through the concert, Scott Weiland took the opportunity to speak to the crowd about the state of modern music. He addressed his audience in an attempt to have us understand what the record companies have done to the artist. He differentiated between bands like Velvet Revolver and much of what is considered "pop" music*** by saying that the record companies have created an industry in which they support the flash-in-pan "pop" stars because they require a minimum investment. backing an artist with longevity is not in the financial plan - it's easier to generate carbon copies and spoon feed them formulaic paint-by-numbers pre-packaged performances then it is to support and nurture the development of an actual "artist". "So what do bands like Velvet Revolver do?" Weiland asked the crowd.. "We take our show on the road. What do the record companies call you people?" he called out. "They call you consumers. What do we call you? Mother-fucking rock and roll fans!". The crowd, of course, responded as it was intended to do.
What Weiland seemed to be implying is that Velvet Revolver is re-developing the relationship between the artist and the art and the crowd. When he stood on the stage and raised and lowered his arms like a space age messiah, he played the crowd like an instrument. The crowd's voices and reactions rose and fell with his gestures, turning the voices of the audience into another instrument - into part of the band. While the record companies seduce the masses as consumers (reduce them from being into merely having), Velvet Revolver is breaking down the division between the masses by involving them in the production of the entertainment itself - the spectacle becomes not the superficial stageshow of the Britney Spears' of the music world, but an interactive experience with its basis in the deepest cultural traditions of rock & roll.
These traditions remind us (the audience) of our sense of self and integral role in the show. The division between work and play is diminished and the individuals in the crowd become active participants in constructing their own experience. Moreover, who is cast in the role of performer and who is cast in the role of crowd is no longer clear. Guy DeBord and the Situationists "insisted that every individual should actively and consciously participate in the reconstruction of every moment of life. They called themselves Situationists precisely because they believed that all individuals should construct the situations of their lives and release their own potential and obtain their own pleasure." (http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Obituary/debord.html) Velvet Revolver is enacting, through their performance, the cultural revolution which the Situationists deemed necessary for freedom from a consumerist society.
Of course, this argument is problematic in that it cost up to $65 to attend this 'cultural revolution' and, beyond that, Velvet Revolver is in the business of selling records and t-shirts and concert tickets and g-string underwear. However, it seemed, to me, interesting that in a time where we are so missing the presence of a band to fill the shoes of U2, a supergroup to inspire us to a rock & roll lifestyle in which art is NOT separated from culture, Scott Weiland stood on stage and reminded us that the rock & roll lifestyle is the embodiement of a world in which the art *is* the lifestyle.
long live rock & fuckin' roll.
* and in saying this i don't mean a power group in the sense of a group that's currently really popular and makes a lot of money. i mean a group that appeals to a broad spectrum of people - diverse ages, backgrounds, and musical tastes; one that has longevity or the potential for longevity; one that has the power (for lack of a better world) to take control of their creative process out of the hands of the record company; and, obviously, one that makes vast sales.
** everyone also has ideas on who (if any) has the potential to be a 'supergroup' - pearl jam, radiohead. would it even *be* a 'rock' band? or maybe eminem stands more chance?
*** when the crowd reacted negatively to the term "pop" music, Weiland reminded us that thirty-five years ago the Beatles exploded onto the music scene - and that they would be considered "pop" music but are so far away from anything that could be compared to the current representations of the term that it is unfathomable.
|