Friday, June 15, 2007

Wake Up: You Are On Stage with the Arcade Fire (part three)

  • This is the final post in a three-part series. Click the links for the first or second post.
Nearly six months had passed since the release of Funeral before I was willing to fully relinquish myself to the music of the Arcade Fire, and at the United Palace Theatre it was likewise only after a period of acclimation to the band and the crowd and the incredibly loud volume that I began to let go. Perhaps I was self-conscious. I was surrounded by thousands of people who, more than anything, wanted a glimpse of what I -- situated in the front row -- stood directly in the way of. Even if they weren't looking straight at me, many of them were obliged to look around my head in order to see the stage. I wondered what they thought. The songs from Neon Bible, the Arcade Fire's second and latest record, are less exuberant than those on Funeral -- more concerned with apprehension and inner turmoil than the gestures through which our worries can be externalized and, as they were on Funeral, released. The sense of everyone singing along, for instance, while not altogether absent, is no longer pervasive, and the feeling that Funeral conveyed, of having to confront something profoundly difficult, has been replaced with a retreat from something ominous and inescapable.

It had, of course, been necessary for the Arcade Fire to modify their outlook. Funeral was a beginning, an approach toward mortality that had relied on an urgent and one-off irreverence, only to draw back in awe -- enthralled, as the band's recent profile in The New Yorker ("Big Time") suggests, by the grandeur of a universe that was finally beyond its grasp; its songs forever reaching for, even on the verge of, a revelation that in the end simply wasn't there. This made for a nice variation on the young person's initial and predictably uneasy struggle with fate, but it wouldn't be sustainable if the band hoped to continue making music long term. Neon Bible would have to match the Arcade Fire's ambition with perspective and understanding if their sweeping movements and lush instrumentation was to constitute more than an empty (if agreeable) gesture. This may explain why so many of its songs address specifically the current and public turmoil that Funeral, by focusing on a turmoil that was instead universal and private, had so gracefully avoided naming. The results are clumsy and, for all the record's calculated references, lack those particularities that had distinguished the families and neighborhoods of the band's debut. There are lovely melodies and assertive rhythms, but no center of gravity to hold them together as Neon Bible is gradually overcome and buried beneath the weight of its increasingly loaded words: church, ghetto, MTV, bombs, downtown, holy war . . .

The stage production of recent performances only exacerbates the turgid subject matter, overpowering the viewer (who already had enough to look at during the Funeral tour, when the Arcade Fire was seven somberly dressed musicians) with more lights, horn players, neon reproductions of the new album cover, amplified megaphones and tiers of video screens that replicate and magnify every note and movement of the performers -- presumably a kind of comment on advertising and surveillance in the age of terror that succeeded only in making me dizzy (and sick of looking at the performers). Neon Bible was recorded last year in a church, and many of the subsequent performances have likewise been staged in churches -- the one I witnessed at the United Palace Theatre, which was originally a movie theater and is presently home to the congregation of a famous evangelical preacher, "Rev. Ike," didn't begin until the Arcade Fire had screened a brief sermon on the video monitors by an evangelical preacher (a woman, not Rev. Ike). So there is one more implication, I suppose, involving the relationship between religion and the secular media. The point is unclear. Has the media undermined our ability or willingness to pursue a meaningful spirituality by disseminating false icons, and is the hollowness of most rock concerts merely a reflection of our pervasive spiritual malaise? Is the church ideally a sanctuary from the electronic images with which we otherwise incessantly bombard ourselves? Or has televangelism subverted that sanctuary, as well as the media and perhaps the entire secularist enterprise by broadcasting messages that are originally intended for a particular congregation, to serve the political and economic interests of its leaders? The ambiguity of a song like "(Antichrist Television Blues)" seems, in this context, without consequence. If my suspicion is correct, and the setting of a church represents an attempt by the Arcade Fire to channel into their performance some celestial revelation, the band would've done better to simply jettison the video screens, stage effects, and lyrics about World War III, and instead concentrate more intently on the stylistic elements that had emerged on Funeral -- its soothing reiteration of ebullient rhythmic and melodic motifs, the singer's function as a fabulist whose stories unfold almost as a dialogue with the song of a distant and innumerably voiced reply, and of course a performance routine in which the natural playing movements of the musicians coalesce as a dance that brings all this into sharper focus, speaking to the audience -- in its best moments -- as if an intuition.

When such moments were in evidence at the United Palace Theatre, it was generally during the songs from Funeral, when little by little the crowd would begin to hum, sing, and all together emanate a tremendous ghostly noise that hovered somewhere above our heads, and commingled restlessly with the music from the speakers. If at first I regarded the singing of the crowd with skepticism, wary of a behavior that seemed mindlessly obeisant and conformist, when the noise continued to grow, at times even challenging the predominance of the musicians, I began to understand it as a form of empowerment. Rock concerts are exercises in visibility. They cultivate a yearning among musicians to see their work enlarged and circulated on a grand scale by manipulating the same yearning -- to see and be seen -- among listeners, who may find it difficult if not impossible to stand out from a crowd into which they are intended to recede. The individual who tries to rush the stage and claim a moment in the spotlight will, as several of my fellow United Palace theatergoers ascertained, be inevitably and ingloriously rebuffed by a team of so-called security guards, if not also forcefully removed from the venue altogether. An audience only effectively stakes an identity in unison. The singing of Arcade Fire listeners, then, which culminated during the last song of the set, "Rebellion (Lies)," when the musicians left the stage and for several minutes the entire theater continued humming the violin part until the band returned to play two more songs, was the most convincing act of defiance and self-discovery of the evening -- the crowd realizing that, together, it could not merely dodge the security guards but (more significantly) refuse to acknowledge the band's authority to stop the music, and thereby destabilize their claim to its possession.

Whether this qualifies as a proper purgative for the bitterness that springs inescapably from the audience of disproportionately celebrated performers is debatable. Encores are a standard element of rock concerts. If the Arcade Fire hadn't planned on playing two more songs, the lights would've turned on and everyone -- no matter how dearly they may have liked to stay and sing -- would've been forced to go home. As certain as there is a pure and elemental release that comes from wholeheartedly singing in a crowd, the moments of such release at the United Palace Theatre were occasional and of limited effect. More than half of the evening was devoted to material from Neon Bible, which is dominated by an unrelenting, brooding wariness; rather than ease or empathize with my concerns, in the end the concert merely drew my attention to them. When the band returned for its encore and I took the stage to sing "Wake Up," apprehensively and with the realization that I was being watched as well as photographed and videotaped by the rest of the audience, I could no longer tell if I was releasing something or simply working myself into a greater and more unsettled fervor.

***

The morning after the concert, I checked my e-mail and discovered -- at first with childlike delight -- that an image of the crowd on stage (myself visibly among them) was featured at the top of a popular blog. I indulged a moment of vanity in which I congratulated myself on a newfound sense of style and renown -- then took another look at the photograph and grew dismayed. I was lost in the crowd! Only the reader who already knows what I look like can identify me and see that I am actually turned in profile, as if to show off the line of my jaw. I also appear several times on YouTube, climbing onto the stage, and in a three-part video taken by another theatergoer on stage -- equally indistinct in each instance. (All told, I've found more than a dozen clips of the crowd singing "Wake Up" on YouTube -- and, in most of them, at least one and usually several audience members can be seen filming or photographing.) The more I thought about this, the more startled I became, first by how successfully I had disseminated myself across the web and then at how vacuous an achievement this was. I've often had the feeling that I'm being watched, but now, ever since the concert, I worry not only that my suspicion is true but that all I amount to in the eyes of my observers is an indiscernible blur flashing somewhere in the background of a grainy two-inch screen. Perhaps this is what the Arcade Fire are describing in "Black Mirror," the first song on their new record, in which the protagonist wakes up from a nightmare to sing of the impossibility of seeing oneself through the lens of a security camera -- "you can't watch your own image," he says, through the "black mirror" that "knows no reflection."

If so, among the conclusions one may draw from the Arcade Fire's run at the United Palace Theatre, which began on a Monday with "Black Mirror" and culminated Tuesday May 8, 2007 in the crowd taking the stage, is that the systematic surveillance to which each of us is presently subject has not been constructed by an Orwellian government agency, but by our own camera phones, wireless connections, and MySpace pages, in other words -- as Kafka implied in The Trial -- it is primarily self-imposed.


Other blog reviews of the Arcade Fire's United Palace Theatre concerts: (Mon., May7) Thoughts on Stuff, S/FJ, Brooklyn Heathen, Brooklyn Skeptic, Brooklyn Vegan, New York Magazine, Qbertplaya's Gigoblog, The Tripwire, Fluxblog, the daryl sng blog, Snakes Got A Blog (Tue., May 8) Fresh Bread, Shelves of Vinyl, Product Shop NYC, Vicarious Music (Both nights) Earvolution.


Photo: (above) of Win Butler at the United Palace Theatre, and on a screen - by Product Shop NYC.

Interesting Links: The Arcade Fire performs in Union Square, and in an elevator. Two reviews of early Arcade Fire concerts by a Canadian listener. How much would you pay to see the Arcade Fire? Did the Arcade Fire steal this guy's basketball? Is it okay for Radio City security to beat up the Arcade Fire's fans? Win Butler guest-blogs about music and Czech history. The Arcade Fire's violin player has a band called Bell Orchestre! David Bowie performs "Wake Up" with the Arcade Fire on TV. Thoughts on the United Palace gigs from opening band The National. More photos of the Arcade Fire at the United Palace Theatre on Flickr.


Notes

Frere-Jones, Sasha, "Big Time," The New Yorker, Feb. 19 & 26, 2007.

Moore, David, "Review: Funeral," Pitchforkmedia.com, September 13, 2004.

Petrusich, Amanda, "Interview: The Arcade Fire," Pitchforkmedia.com, May 14, 2007.

Schreiber, Ryan, "Interview: The Arcade Fire," Pitchforkmedia.com, February 14, 2005.

Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

Blogger WD said...

Yes, there is a lot of yammering on about how we're being liberated and connected by digital technology like camera phones. I am so sick of hearing about the digital revolution in American political culture and its democratization and so forth (e.g. George Allen's collapse after someone videotaped him calling a dude "macaca"). It sure seems like these technologies have just created a more panoptic society where college kids are warned not to do anything too crazy because someone might take their picture with a camera phone and put it on the Internet and then they'll never get a job and they'll starve and... please.

That said, I also think it's pretty much a waste of time to complain about how these technologies are ruining everything (and I'm certainly not implying that you made any such suggestion). No one is going to put this genie back in its bottle. The alternative solution -- the one that offers some kind of "liberation" so to speak -- is for everyone to let loose and say 'fuck it': If the rest of your life is going to be documented on Google, you might as well just let it all hang out. No one will be able to hide from his/her past -- but if we stopped holding people accountable for their pasts -- if we saw each other more as processes than static personalities -- would that be such a bad thing?

11:56 PM  
Blogger John E. Uhl said...

There will of course be no going back from here. I wonder, though, how possible it is to feel liberated -- or even fully engaged -- by an experience while one is preoccupied with filming and photographing, or otherwise documenting that experience. I am very hopeful of the possibility of seeing each other as processes, rather than static personalities, although digital media tends to emphasize the latter by selecting certain images that it then shows us repeatedly. Famous people exist as the individual moments of their notoriety, frozen in time. In this way, their pasts never disappear. What will be interesting is to see if, over time, this holds true for the way regular people are perceived via the Internet.

1:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Discussions about arcade fire’s music seem to easily slide into discussions about something else, something ‘bigger’, involving phenomena outside their music, such as, pitchfork and youtube and david bowie, while their lyrics and stage antics are parsed for meaning and interpreted in literal fashion not really fitting for rock music. Some of this analysis results from their self aware indie rock pedigree-- no one really questions the ecstatic writhing of fans at a Toby keith concert. A limp wristed, self conscious, self referential (When did you like them? Was it before they were big? What did they do when you saw them?) malaise, has almost entirely co-opted a band that seems primarily interested on making music that sounds good, and recreating it in front of crowds that agree with them.

This whole sort of contextual debate I would say is largely worthless when referring Arcade Fire’s music. The sing-a-longs, the ecstatic release of self consciousness, these things render discussions of fame, lyrics, consistency with artistic vision, moot. If you are there in the crowd and the music is playing and sounds good, that should be enough; context and circumstance are only self imposed obstacles between you and the musicians you paid to see perform music you love. There are all sorts of difficulties in subduing internal voices of discontent and distraction and living in the moment enjoying the music, but those internal struggles to enjoy the things we should enjoy don’t have anything to do with the musicians or the music. Arcade Fire produce great sounding, ecstatic music, that can produce a great night filled with moments of almost orgasmic/religious release for those that want to hear it/experience it. Why isn’t that enough?

11:03 AM  
Blogger John E. Uhl said...

Hello, Die On My Feet:

In answer to your question, "why isn't this enough?" I can only say that, for me, it isn't. I agree that one of the main points of an Arcade Fire performance is the release of self-consciousness, and that my reluctance to give in to this release probably leaves me at the outset of the band's target audience. This, however, doesn't make my point of view invalid -- only unusual, and for that reason possibly more interesting to read about. You seem not to think so, which is fine -- I'm happy to have the unsatisfied reader take his eyes elsewhere. Still, you invoke an I think valid dilemma when you call for more emphasis on the music itself, rather than the other issues that surround it ... and I have tried, to the extent that I think it is worthwhile, to discuss the specifically musical elements of the Arcade Fire's records and performances (see, in particular, part two of this essay) -- without making any attempt to separate this discussion from the context and circumstance that you consider "self imposed." Were you to ask why not, my reply would be that, in rock n roll -- a music that has no universally accepted musical standards -- the music is inseparable from its context. If I were to regard the Arcade Fire's records on the basis of Western musicology, for instance, their music would seem woefully (and perhaps unfairly) inadequate. One must take into consideration the audience, the stage presentation and accessories, the methods by which the music is recorded and disseminated, the nature of the personalities cultivated both on stage and in the liner notes, magazines, and web sites that are -- to any dedicated listener -- fundamental to his or her experience of the band in question ... etc.

One of the reasons I didn't find, at this particular concert, the ready "ecstatic release" that you speak of is because the Arcade Fire's recent music is less effective at generating it than the songs on Funeral -- for the reasons I outlined in the essay. The average listener is, of course, free to experience the music on whatever level he or she chooses, and in no way have I intended to suggest otherwise, but the critic (and this holds true whether the examined performer is the Arcade Fire or Toby Keith) who doesn't consider the relative consistency of the artist's vision is no longer a critic but rather a passive consumer of media products.

I don't mean to sound accusatory -- your comments are clearly thoughtful and well spoken. This, however, only makes me wonder why you would want to read an essay that -- if I understand what you're asking for -- more or less says: The Arcade Fire make great sounding, ecstatic music that produces an almost orgiastic/ecstatic release (which, in any case, I've stated in this essay already), so if you're interested in that kind of thing -- listen to them (which is the kind of endorsement that I won’t, under any circumstances, make --for any band).

I wonder if perhaps you followed a link here and only read the third and final segment of this three-part essay? The two previous sections may not be any more to your liking, but should you have overlooked them, I'd be curious if they in any way altered your thinking.

In any case, thanks for your comment,

-- and sorry for not responding sooner -- I've been out of town for the last week -- no Internet access,

John

7:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for your response. I’m struggling for anything to do at work this morning and a distraction is appreciated, much as reading your thoughtful 3 part essay was appreciated on Monday.

Your question as to what the alternative to an analytical, context driven examination of a rock band would look like is valid, and I don’t have a good answer. I have thought a lot about the direction of contemporary rock music lately, and there does seem to a be a movement among artists, regardless of the inevitable commercial intent, to get at what it means to be an individual in the modern world. Also inevitably, this can come across as pompous or trite, but I would argue that this ironic distance has more to do with the listener than with the artist. One should be able to make statements such as, “the powers out in the heart of man”, or “do you realize that everyone you know someday will die” and if they are surrounded by a lush, compelling musical landscape, those trite comments can gain a profundity that is rarely aspired for in modern music.

Arcade fire will not solve the world’s problems. They may get a lot of press for breaking out a violin, or a hurdy gurdy or a huge organ, but basically they make bass, guitar, drums, and vocals rock music. As you say, there is nothing revolutionary about their sound.
You speak of finally being able to appreciate their music at the end of part II,

“Once I was able to let go of the belief that the record should offer me direct insight into the life beyond this one, or an answer to the question of what our human endings can mean in the face of infinite, I was able to enjoy its actually charming naivete and feel invigorated by the energy of its enthusiasm.”

And I think that’s the point in its entirety. Pitchfork is full of shit. I found that NY Times article you sited to be full of shit. Being “invigorated by the energy of its enthusiasm” is most of the point of great rock music and where almost all the estacticness of arcade fire’s live shows are derived. And that enthusiasm is not faked.

Again, in Part II you said:

“A great deal of popular music -- and almost all indie rock -- derives its impetus from the presumed sincerity of the emotions it conveys. There is, however, nothing inherently more sincere about the music on an Arcade Fire record compared to any other record that is manufactured for commercial profit. What set Funeral apart was not the presence but rather the specificity of its emotion -- that here, clearly, was a record about mourning to satisfy the feeling, common among certain young people in the autumn of 2004, that something should be mourned.”.... The only certainty about Funeral is that it deals with grief, and the expression of grief, from the viewpoint of youth, which is to say that it is confused and sounds frustrated by the limitations of inexperience....[It] reflects an attempt to expel the uncertainty and disorder of these evocations without controlling the direction in which they go -- the necessity is to simply send out, indeed broadcast, what feels buried inside.”

The music created by Arcade Fire and other like bands (I’d put the Flaming Lips, Wilco, the Thermals and maybe Modest Mouse in this category) is fundamentally sincere. I would argue that its sincerity is the only thing certain about it. It offers no solutions to the problem of being an individual who will inevitably know death better than they knew life. But really, is that a realistic expectation? I’m not sure a 5 minute rock song really has much chance of offering anything better than an “attempt to expel the uncertainty and disorder of [grief and death]”.

Other types of art—literature, painting, photography, opera— have the capability of speaking movingly about our plight, and offering directions for our future. As chance would have it, I recently picked up an abused old copy of De Profundis at random having read no other Oscar Wilde and read his letters from a cell. It is profoundly moving, but I found it impossible to divorce his statements about the nature of man from my knowledge of his “miserable circumstances”. True, Wilde definitely did deliberate about what he wrote more than the Arcade Fire thought about what they wrote, but comparing philosophical ponderings of a genius locked in prison for his sexual preference and rock music is not exactly fair. Arcade Fire’s music definitely has a “one dimensional tendency toward exaggeration,” but why does that make it “in the end unenlightening?” One will not be enlightened by parsing their lyrics for deeper truths, but one can feel if not enlightened, pretty damn good, singing along the wordless chorus to wake up with the rest of sweaty masses at a concert.

The quote you offer from Wilde is an excellent one:

“Truth in art is the unity of a thing with itself: the outward rendered expressive of the inward: the soul made incarnate: the body instinct with spirit. For this reason there is no truth comparable to sorrow."

But Wilde’s life was so mired in misery and sorrow that this judgment of sorrows primacy to truth rings as self indulgent. There is a similar quote to found somewhere in VanGogh’s writings to his brother, which is just as appealing and just as much wish fulfillment. If you are a miserable person, wouldn’t it be great if your misery offered you a window into the soul absent for the placated, opiated masses?

I see there being a real problem with art in our culture, a separation of its creation and appreciation from our everyday life. Some portion of this is caused by the mainstream’s cooption of irony (DF Wallace has a lot to say about this http://www.murmurs.com/talk/showthread.php?t=78391) at the expense of sincere expression of beliefs or opinions. Arcade Fire and the other rock bands I listed, are sincere in a real, powerful way that almost no one producing art these days has the balls to be. I'm very interested in the reasons why art/artist might be constrained by real, sincere expression. It could be something as simple as my not looking in the right places.

Thanks for your reply to my comment. My disatisfaction is more generalized, I found your commentary thorough and thought provoking.

10:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home