Concert Etiquette

[OOO]

"Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."

 

It's still the best rule out there for my money.

 

Its very possible to enjoy oneself and getting a show while respecting those around you. Be curteous!

[mpolak21]

Wow, where you do start with this. First off, irony is clearly lost on this guy. Of course we don't all have to go to classical concerts rather than rock ones, but the point is, some types of music (including jazz and folk venues to a greater or lesser extent), do not tolerate the kind of behavior that goes on at rock shows. FYI to jono11, I come home many a night smelling like beer and cigarettes, because I like seeing rock music also. I am also in the demographic of the guy he was dissing and more often than not it is the younger fans who act the fool rather than the older ones since the older guys like me DON"T GO to rock shows because there aren't seats and there is too much bullshit involved. Calling rock more vital than other kinds of music (including classical) is just so much bullshit that there is nowhere to even start with it. Sure classical audiences are diminishing as people age, but that doesn't diminish its importance or quality. The same also happens to be true about jazz, folk and bluegrass by the way. In fact if ever there was a genre that needs something, it happens to be rock, but I suppose we shouldn't really go there.

 

I don't think we should assume that rock audiences are more alive than any other audience nor that rock is more vital than other types either. That is about as elitist as you can get. Yea jono11 I am probably gonna be dead long before you are, but until then I figure on squeezing everything out of life I can get; but I intend to do it with as much respect for myself and my fellow show goers as I can and that includes having the right to not get stuff spilled on me, get burned, get pushed aside from my space, have someone talk through an entire show if I don't want to hear them and any number of other things. Needless to say it is going to happen and there ain't really shit I can do about it, but for us all to remind one another that we are all individuals with the right to enjoy ourselves without being threated or mistreated shouldn't be too much to ask.

 

LouieB

 

 

Excellent points all around sir, great post. That was me being a yes man I guess, but it's sincere.

 

--Mike

[oceanman]

I just want to be clear since I will be up close for the Nov. 25 show in Chicago. Is it acceptable to be drunk and quiet? What about leaving my seat for a couple more beers, maybe even during a song? I don't want to offend anyone.

You know the rule man,do on to others that you would like done on to you,If it is a standing show you have every right to get a drink,it's usally good to do it during song breaks.But man,you paid for your seats to so don't feel bad on having a great time.I can tell your a great guy by the initial question itself,it shows you care!

 

There is a diffence beween a John Prine solo show and Ween at a festival.It's really not an drinking issue,it is whether or not your a douche bag.Don't let anyone say you can't have a great time,and don't let someone ruin it for you.

 

Stand your ground,and make your mother proud!

[oceanman]

"Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."

 

It's still the best rule out there for my money.

 

Its very possible to enjoy oneself and getting a show while respecting those around you. Be curteous!

Didn't see your post till after mine!

Great minds think alike.

[Analogman]

It does hold only a thousand, and it didn't come close to selling out, but I overheard some WVU people say they'd sold 600 tickets. Still a very small crowd, but a bit more than 200.

 

I never looked back - so that is another reason I could not get a feel for it. I was talking to some people that were there today - and they said several hundred - so you are right. I hope a tape surfaces - I have a bunch of folks who want a copy.

[Hodie]

I never looked back - so that is another reason I could not get a feel for it. I was talking to some people that were there today - and they said several hundred - so you are right. I hope a tape surfaces - I have a bunch of folks who want a copy.

 

I tried to look back, but my height, or lack thereof, was an issue.

[Analogman]

I never look back - it freaks me out.

[jono11]

1. I thought that the birth of Rock music instead of say, Rock N' Roll was said to be the point where Dylan was shouted at as a Judas and his reply was to play fucking loud. So from it's very birth your statement proves false. I would actually define Rock music as being very confrontational with its audience instead of bowing down to what the masses want to hear. Its the difference between proper Rock music and a bunch of people just playing very loud.

2. The people that 'stole' it from the black people were far from working class, certainly many were, but just as many were not - certainly the majority of the ones that took the blues and country and whatever else and turned it into Rock music during the 1960's - and the archivists who made field recordings for those people outside the Southern States to hear it.

3. He was clearly joking.

1. That's one theory. But remember, the whole reason Dylan was going electric was because it was what the masses wanted from a popular musician. The 1980s-era Dylan should dispel any illusions that this was a man who stuck by his musical principles. He's made great music, sure, but he made what the majority of people wanted to hear. If that gesture was him saying "fuck off" to the masses, then Metallica's St. Anger was too.

2. This discussion is about to turn to a dry history debate, and if you really want to carry it on, let's do it privately. I love history, personally, being a history major, and pop culture history is one of my favorite areas. But not too many others do. That said, if the earliest practitioners of rock 'n' roll were not exclusively working class, which they weren't, the musical styles they watered down, as well as the traditional greats of those styles, were undeniably bule-colllar.

3. The misfortunes of printed sarcasm.

[mountain bed]

Wow, where you do start with this. First off, irony is clearly lost on this guy. Of course we don't all have to go to classical concerts rather than rock ones, but the point is, some types of music (including jazz and folk venues to a greater or lesser extent), do not tolerate the kind of behavior that goes on at rock shows. FYI to jono11, I come home many a night smelling like beer and cigarettes, because I like seeing rock music also. I am also in the demographic of the guy he was dissing and more often than not it is the younger fans who act the fool rather than the older ones since the older guys like me DON"T GO to rock shows because there aren't seats and there is too much bullshit involved. Calling rock more vital than other kinds of music (including classical) is just so much bullshit that there is nowhere to even start with it. Sure classical audiences are diminishing as people age, but that doesn't diminish its importance or quality. The same also happens to be true about jazz, folk and bluegrass by the way. In fact if ever there was a genre that needs something, it happens to be rock, but I suppose we shouldn't really go there.

 

I don't think we should assume that rock audiences are more alive than any other audience nor that rock is more vital than other types either. That is about as elitist as you can get. Yea jono11 I am probably gonna be dead long before you are, but until then I figure on squeezing everything out of life I can get; but I intend to do it with as much respect for myself and my fellow show goers as I can and that includes having the right to not get stuff spilled on me, get burned, get pushed aside from my space, have someone talk through an entire show if I don't want to hear them and any number of other things. Needless to say it is going to happen and there ain't really shit I can do about it, but for us all to remind one another that we are all individuals with the right to enjoy ourselves without being threated or mistreated shouldn't be too much to ask.

 

LouieB

Lou as usual you're spot on man.I should say that I'm not the sort to patronize,either.

Not too sure about jazz or folk these days but bluegrass has been undergoing some really healthy changes for some time now.There are more younger fans digging than any time in recent memory.In my opinion Rock isn't nearly as innovative or original as it has traditionally been(a notable exception being the band that gave rise to this forum here).If it was why does it seem so easy when hearing a "new' band to immediately identify them with something that has come before? A bad habit of mine,to be sure,but only rarely do I hear something new and say,"wow,what the hell was that"? I loooove it when that DOES happen!

The Golden Rule is seconded,thirded,here as well

Also,just because a show is reserved seating...that really means NOTHING at some shows.I've seen Phish (perhaps the most notorious example) dozens of times...nearly all reserved seating.Of course you KNOW it's going to be crowded,you KNOW you're going to be standing/dancing for hours on end,etc.What to do when a bunch of folks try to crowd into an already full row? I usually would dance even MORE frenetically until those folks would eventually tire of getting bumped,feet "accidentally" stepped on etc..After those folks leave the row in search of "greener" pastures or what ever,all in the row who are actually entitled to be there would breathe a sigh of relief.

Ok that's enuff bs from me

[caliber66]

2. This discussion is about to turn to a dry history debate, and if you really want to carry it on, let's do it privately. I love history, personally, being a history major, and pop culture history is one of my favorite areas. But not too many others do. That said, if the earliest practitioners of rock 'n' roll were not exclusively working class, which they weren't, the musical styles they watered down, as well as the traditional greats of those styles, were undeniably bule-colllar.

 

That's pretty much like saying the progenitor of Croissan'wich is undeniably French. Which is to say, what the fuck does that have to do with the Croissan'wich?

[jono11]

Lou as usual you're spot on man.I should say that I'm not the sort to patronize,either.

Not too sure about jazz or folk these days but bluegrass has been undergoing some really healthy changes for some time now.There are more younger fans digging than any time in recent memory.In my opinion Rock isn't nearly as innovative or original as it has traditionally been(a notable exception being the band that gave rise to this forum here).If it was why does it seem so easy when hearing a "new' band to immediately identify them with something that has come before? A bad habit of mine,to be sure,but only rarely do I hear something new and say,"wow,what the hell was that"? I loooove it when that DOES happen!

To me, this is a classic example of the rock community's unhealthy fixation on progress. It only proves my point about vitality, but it's also unfortunate. Why must something be COMPLETELY different from what came before? That's just change for its own sake, not progress. All music comes from what came before, in the end, so why not just label everything as derivative!

 

How is Wilco "different"? Did Wilco REALLY make you say, "wow, what the hell was that?" If they did, I have to imagine that you never listened to music before. What makes Wilco great is that they do well-worn ideas extremely well. They make the old new again without needlessly changing it around. And when they do, it's generally just to add 10 minutes of noise at the end of a song, which can hardly be classified as musical innovation. That's just a slight misstep to be skipped through, to get to the next (better) track on the album.

 

That's pretty much like saying the progenitor of Croissan'wich is undeniably French. Which is to say, what the fuck does that have to do with the Croissan'wich?

Well, you can't have a Croissan'wich without Croissants...or am I missing something?

[augurus]

To me, this is a classic example of the rock community's unhealthy fixation on progress. It only proves my point about vitality, but it's also unfortunate. Why must something be COMPLETELY different from what came before? That's just change for its own sake, not progress. All music comes from what came before, in the end, so why not just label everything as derivative!

That's quite ambiguous, chief.

Progress is a form of change. However, change does not necessarily equal progress.

Exactly what is so unhealthy about the progress of pop/rock music and its vitality?

What exactly makes a fixation on progress strictly worse than fixation on music from previous and or present periods?

Furthermore, who judges which fixations are good, bad, and etc. even though they are opinions and preferences?

[Synthesizer Patel]

1. That's one theory. But remember, the whole reason Dylan was going electric was because it was what the masses wanted from a popular musician. The 1980s-era Dylan should dispel any illusions that this was a man who stuck by his musical principles. He's made great music, sure, but he made what the majority of people wanted to hear. If that gesture was him saying "fuck off" to the masses, then Metallica's St. Anger was too.

2. This discussion is about to turn to a dry history debate, and if you really want to carry it on, let's do it privately. I love history, personally, being a history major, and pop culture history is one of my favorite areas. But not too many others do. That said, if the earliest practitioners of rock 'n' roll were not exclusively working class, which they weren't, the musical styles they watered down, as well as the traditional greats of those styles, were undeniably bule-colllar.

3. The misfortunes of printed sarcasm.

 

1. Ok. So if you're saying that Rock Music is 'Democratic' and your reason for this is that the musicians make and perform what the audience wants, how exactly is it the only musical genre that is continually looking forward (in your eyes)? How on earth can you be creative when it is your audience that dictates your next move? And as for 1980's Bob Dylan - as some sort of means to disprove anything else he's done - by the 1980's what musical principals was he ever supposed to have had? The ones placed on him by his audience only, surely. By the 1980's, when he'd stopped being too interested in music he simply made music in a style that he thought his audience would want to hear - he became a parody of his former self (here again is where your "the audience dictates the music" theory hits another wall) Most of Dylan's music in the 1980's is not that good simply because it is not Rock Music, it is (as I said in one of my other posts) simply popular music played loud.

2. It's a bit difficult to disprove what you are saying without talking in an historical manner. 'The musical styles they watered down' were anything but blue-collar actually, the blues and country and folk artists were made up of outcasts/underclasses/migratory workers without real homes/slaves and criminals not everyday joes who went to work down the power plant. Blue-collar workers don't have the time to sit around thinking up songs and sitting around in groups playing them. The greatest influence that the blue-collar workers had on the genre is that they were perhaps the biggest social group to buy the material and so popularise it - they certainly didn't make it.

[LouieB]

2. Haven't been to too many bluegrass festivals, have you? Loud, drunken debauchery is the rule at such places.

4. Classical music is always looking backward (and I am friends with enough classical musicians, and I listen to enough classical music to not just be talking out my ass) while rock music is always looking forward, often to an unhealthy degree. I was just arguing with a buddy last night over his statement that rock music should always be pushed forward and further, and that he often enjoys a band simply for their ability to do so. That's the sentiment all too much in the underground rock scenes, and while I disagree with it, it does represent a vitality to the genre that most other forms don't exhibit.

6. Jazz, folk, and bluegrass are also reinventing themselves. That's what makes them more vital than classical. They don't recieve as much recognition for it, which is why I call them less vital than rock music.

No way I am taking this point by point, but the following things I do want to respond to. I don't attend bluegrass fests, but I did make a trip to ground zero of bluegrass last fall along the VA/NC board and the audiences at every show I went to were way older than me. Bluegrass fests used to be rather staid affairs, with no drinking and a family friendly atmosphere and I believe the older ones still are (I did attend Bean Blossom in Indiana many years ago and it was very controled and not debauched at all)

Classical music does tend to look back, but there are many modern classical composers who look far forward of most rock musicians and those can't be ignored either. Frankly all music these days tends to be rather self referential, particularly and including rock. All musical genres have innovators to be sure, but rock tends to be just as stuck in a rut as any other form. I used to have a joke that the music of the new Millenium was "post punk power pop", now it seems alot of groups are coping a "soul" vibe instead. My daughter and I have a running joke about the sound of indie rock, which is so generic it really is impossible to tell who is playing the music. Frankly most artists musical vocabulary (as opposed to their actually musicianship which is far better than ever) is pretty limited. Most groups can be classified in ways that are pretty embarrassing (oh yea, they sound like the Kinks/Stones/ Beatles with a touch of Beach Boys and Nick Drake.....)

 

We are currently in an era when musicans can hear any and all types of music because virtually nothing is out of print and yet most musicians fall back on some pretty tried and true formulae and even those that appear to be somewhat experimental sound like the group next door.

 

Quick edit to Mountain Bed.....I agree that bluegrass has moved somewhat forward over the past few years and that if anything in its short history it some remarkable twists and turns, (new grass, dawg music, Bela Fleck's experiments, etc. etc) and most of it is pretty enjoyable stuff, particularly some of the newer artists such as Jim and Jenny and the Pinetops, but ultimately bluegrass may be THE most conservative genre there is (with the possible exception of Blues..), with many bands writing new material that sounds identical to old material and the general intrumentation and singing style remains fairly static. Frankly there is nothing wrong with that at all, because there is great comfort (culturally speaking) in hearing something that is familiar and recognizable and doesn't really shake up the status quo that much.

 

Back to a general discussion - if age has brought me anything it is an appreciation for older stuff and the more older stuff I listen to the more I like it (hence my current obsession with Archeophone records). But if anyone really thinks that rock is all that progressive, stand back and do some real objective listening for a change (not based on the fact that we are supposed to like certain artists), and much of the indie rock scene apes one another to a degree that even country, blues and bluegrass musicans would be embarrassed by. (Yea I know my syntax sucks....

 

LouieB

[Atticus]

Did Wilco REALLY make you say, "wow, what the hell was that?"

 

yes. and I think it's pretentious and misplaced to state that because wilco may cause that reaction in someone that they've never listened to music before. I've been exposed to many forms of music since I could hear, I tought myself to play the guitar and I listen to a fairly wide spectrum of music, relatively speaking...

[parisisstale]

I think jono11 is Jesus Christ in disguise.

[LouieB]

I think jono11 is Jesus Christ in disguise.

That appears to be the case....he has listed exactly zero personal information.

 

This must be the second coming....

 

LouieB

[mountain bed]

This must be the second coming....

 

LouieB

Oh no! No time for frivolous discussion...better go stash my porn!(& Sabbath LPs)

[LouieB]

did we run jono11 off already?? Wow, that was a short tenure.

 

LouieB

[mchchef1]

And I thought I'd done everything I could to rid myself of the Vile Individual. Wow. Sir, you are incredible.

Ah shucks, notin to it

[jono11]

Progress is a form of change. However, change does not necessarily equal progress.

 

That's just change for its own sake' date=' not progress.[/quote']So, basically, you're agreeing with me?

 

Exactly what is so unhealthy about the progress of pop/rock music and its vitality?

It's unhealthy because it's not about progress. It's about changing things for the sake of change.

 

What exactly makes a fixation on progress strictly worse than fixation on music from previous and or present periods?

I didn't say any fixation was good. Progress, and references to the past, should be organic, because they make sense, not just because it's trendy.

 

Furthermore, who judges which fixations are good, bad, and etc. even though they are opinions and preferences?

Why, you're right. I will never again say anything is good or bad again. Because that's too judgmental. Nobody can have an opinion. I'm gonna hold you to that, too, OK, buddy?

[jono11]

'The musical styles they watered down' were anything but blue-collar actually, the blues and country and folk artists were made up of outcasts/underclasses/migratory workers without real homes/slaves and criminals not everyday joes who went to work down the power plant. Blue-collar workers don't have the time to sit around thinking up songs and sitting around in groups playing them. The greatest influence that the blue-collar workers had on the genre is that they were perhaps the biggest social group to buy the material and so popularise it - they certainly didn't make it.

1. Forgive the expression "blue collar." As the language evolves, "blue collar" has come to mean "lower classes."

2. Rock music was for the working classes. Classical was specifically a means of separating rich people from poor.

[jono11]

No way I am taking this point by point, but the following things I do want to respond to. I don't attend bluegrass fests, but I did make a trip to ground zero of bluegrass last fall along the VA/NC board and the audiences at every show I went to were way older than me. Bluegrass fests used to be rather staid affairs, with no drinking and a family friendly atmosphere and I believe the older ones still are (I did attend Bean Blossom in Indiana many years ago and it was very controled and not debauched at all)

Classical music does tend to look back, but there are many modern classical composers who look far forward of most rock musicians and those can't be ignored either. Frankly all music these days tends to be rather self referential, particularly and including rock. All musical genres have innovators to be sure, but rock tends to be just as stuck in a rut as any other form. I used to have a joke that the music of the new Millenium was "post punk power pop", now it seems alot of groups are coping a "soul" vibe instead. My daughter and I have a running joke about the sound of indie rock, which is so generic it really is impossible to tell who is playing the music. Frankly most artists musical vocabulary (as opposed to their actually musicianship which is far better than ever) is pretty limited. Most groups can be classified in ways that are pretty embarrassing (oh yea, they sound like the Kinks/Stones/ Beatles with a touch of Beach Boys and Nick Drake.....)

 

We are currently in an era when musicans can hear any and all types of music because virtually nothing is out of print and yet most musicians fall back on some pretty tried and true formulae and even those that appear to be somewhat experimental sound like the group next door.

 

Quick edit to Mountain Bed.....I agree that bluegrass has moved somewhat forward over the past few years and that if anything in its short history it some remarkable twists and turns, (new grass, dawg music, Bela Fleck's experiments, etc. etc) and most of it is pretty enjoyable stuff, particularly some of the newer artists such as Jim and Jenny and the Pinetops, but ultimately bluegrass may be THE most conservative genre there is (with the possible exception of Blues..), with many bands writing new material that sounds identical to old material and the general intrumentation and singing style remains fairly static. Frankly there is nothing wrong with that at all, because there is great comfort (culturally speaking) in hearing something that is familiar and recognizable and doesn't really shake up the status quo that much.

 

Back to a general discussion - if age has brought me anything it is an appreciation for older stuff and the more older stuff I listen to the more I like it (hence my current obsession with Archeophone records). But if anyone really thinks that rock is all that progressive, stand back and do some real objective listening for a change (not based on the fact that we are supposed to like certain artists), and much of the indie rock scene apes one another to a degree that even country, blues and bluegrass musicans would be embarrassed by. (Yea I know my syntax sucks....

 

LouieB

1. The Walnut Valley Bluegrass Festival, here in Kansas, which is the home of the National and International Guitar Championships, and has one of the richest traditions of any music festival, is also one of the most booze-and-pot-soaked events I have ever witnessed. The crowds are not predominantly old.

2. "Modern classical" seems like a contradiction. I'd call that neoclassical, also something of a contradiction, but at least it clearly separates the genre. Classical music needs to have occurred in a period that satisfies the basic requirement of "not in the recent past."

3. Yes, there is too much self-reference in all music. But the indie rock scene, which is the most forward-thinking of rock scenes, is obsessed with moving forward (your soundalike bands aren't true indie because they aspire to nothing more than major contracts.)

4. "they sound like the Kinks/Stones/ Beatles with a touch of Beach Boys and Nick Drake....."--The day I hear that sound will be the day I vomit up my lungs.

5. Well, at least we can agree that bluegrass isn't particularly forward-thinking. Off on a tangent for a second, I get tired of bluegrass musicians who seem more concerned with showing everyone how talented they are at instrumentation, rather than bothering to write good/fun/catchy/interesting/original songs. Also, would you really still classify Bela Fleck as bluegrass? He seems to have moved into some different territory by now.

 

I think jono11 is Jesus Christ in disguise.

Why, yes, I am. I didn't want to say anything, because I figured that anyone claiming to be the Second Coming would get crucified faster than the first time. That's the irony of Christianity: they're all waiting for the Second Coming, but they probably already burned him as a heretic.

 

That appears to be the case....he has listed exactly zero personal information.

 

This must be the second coming....

 

LouieB

What, should I list my location as "Way Over Yonder In A Minor Key"? Would that help you get to know me?

 

did we run jono11 off already??

No, I had to run to the store and get some milk, and then I had to help Dave move, you know how it is. Never enough time these days.

[M. (hristine]

1. The Walnut Valley Bluegrass Festival, here in Kansas, which is the home of the National and International Guitar Championships, and has one of the richest traditions of any music festival, is also one of the most booze-and-pot-soaked events I have ever witnessed. The crowds are not predominantly old.

I reckon the veracity of this statement would depend on who you asked.

[tmcdc]

y'all would've loved the Latrobe show---no alcohol for miles; puzzling, considering the campus thing/god-awful rolling rock homebase thing; solid show, but given the field house environmnet, and lack of people standing , a few pints in everyone's systems would have loosened things up a bit; For me, the three beers i got at the local sports bar afterwards tasted like they were the last brews in the world; Having grown up on a lot of Dead/Phish musical snobbery (no clapping/whistliing/newbies, etc.), it's a tough line to towcalling people out vs. sounding like a prissy a-hole yourself; bottom line, it pissed me off more seeing shit like fratboy meatheads with their arms crossed and guy X's girlfriend covering her ears the louder, scary stuff; You can't let that ruin the show for you, b/c as Jeff evidenced, the band is not above calling out these douchebags during the show, making them the butt of the joke....just my $.02

 

p.s. tx for the download from 9:30---5 blocks from my house and couldn't get in