I went to see Gary Wilson (front row center) last Wednesday at Joe's Pub and also caught a set recorded last tuesday for broadcasted on Scott William's show last night (Friday May 17th 8-10 pm) on 91.1 wfmu.
Check the above link to the archive for a relisten. He had one shoe on and one shoe off, flour on his face and black stuff on his lips, an oversized blazer with no shirt and two pairs of criss-crossing glasses / 3-D and regular cat style sunglasses. There were two sexy manacins
on stage that he rolled around with while a guy sprinkeled flour all over them and the stage. There was also a video moniter that showed old video proformances projects from the 70's of similar and even more over the top behavior (which is somthing else to look into). It was high proformance art with a brilliant musical aspect. His band back in the 70's was called The Blind Dates.
A google search on for GW and the BD's provides this solitary and pathetic account of them opening for the Tom Robinson Band back in the day:
"I still remember sitting in the theatre in the near dark waiting almost and hour for the opening act a horrible synthesizer band called Gary Wilson and the Blind Dates. They came out with flour sprinkled all over themselves and played with a dim blue light on. Very depressing. Finally they cleared off the stage and roadies hauled away their gear. More waiting."
I always think of Laurie Anderson whenever the term "high performance art" get's slung around. (not that it ever does)
When does a rock band's "stage show" become "performance art"? When it transforms the material into something beyond what the music delivers on its own? I saw a couple of Laurie Anderson multimedia shows in the early 80's and they were great; more interesting than her gallery-based performance pieces (which were properly boring in the good old minimalist-era manner), or her stand-alone musical recordings (which were never as good as real rock n roll). Does Wilson's performance go beyond the music, or is it shtick? Do Anderson and Lou Reed exchange pop for art credibility between themselves? And how does Kembra go from LES to Penthouse to American Fine Arts?
NY times article
letter to the arts & leisure editor at the times:
I was surprised to read that Adam Shatz had both professed fandom and disdain at musician Jim O'Rourke (5/19/02 Arts and Leisure Section's "Playing With Rock, Er, 'Rock'") for his so called "cheerful misanthropy" as exhibited on O'Rourke's recent release, and really must say it's unfair to sum him up as part of a pack of "sour white men" like David Foster Wallace, Neil LaBute and Todd Solondz without proper perspective of everything the man has done, and not even allowing him to explain his take on lyric-writing.
Lyrically, some of O'Rourke's "puerile malice" (not to mention his "kinky" graphics) can easily be traced to his adoration for another musical/cultural oddity, the Frogs, a pair of brothers from Wisconsin who, through the 1980s and 90s released albums of pristene, perfectly arranged pop music with bizarre lyrics. Like O'Rourke (who has professed much love for the Frogs in interviews, even reissuing their first LP on his own label) they too exhibited a masterful reign over a very eclectic array of musical styles, and I believe that he and many of his fans totally indentify this band as a very high example of what pop and rock music can project at its most perverse.
It seems fruitless in describing, as Shatz did, O'Rourke's lyrical put-downs as lacking in the depth and meaning of Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan; clearly O'Rourke loves music so much that he is willing to allow other influences (meaningful to him) seep into his work, influences that haven't been so overtrodden through the years. To Jim O'Rourke, the worlds of top 40 pop, 70s rock, 20th Century Classical, experimental electronic music, folk and noise all coexist in one happy sandbox for him to apply parts of to his music at his leisure. I felt Shatz only really took a magnifying glass to a very small part of the picture in terms of defining what the "artistic statement" must be based on a few recent releases.
It seems to me like some of the best artistic statements have been made by those who left everyone scratching their heads.
Brian Turner
WFMU Radio
Jersey City, NJ
From Musto in the Voice: Public access cable host
Barry Z kept trying to interview Laurie Anderson at a Women in Music, Inc.
luncheon last week, and he even had a publicist intervene, only to have Laurie's
significant other, Lou Reed, snarl "No!" "But Laurie and I have the same audience,"
counters Barry.
I saw Ms. Anderson's "Oh Superman" tour. I liked the album pretty well but the show was so good I couldn't bother listening to the record anymore.
Simmilarly, after seeing The Butthole Surfers around 20 times back in their hayday I find it difficult to enjoy their great albums.
Recording spectacle is tough.
(I recall Gibby calling Laurie Anderson "A grant sucking pig" at their show at The New Ritz in early '89. I think they were launching into "22 Going On 23" and the first few frames of the p*enis reconstruction film were flickering up on the screen. I'm not sure of the specifics but I do remember that the fun cartoons had ended and things were taking a turn towards the dark side)
Bill and Brian gave me the rundown on Gary Wilson's performance and I kept asking about the music. His LP is a cult item because it's really good, eccentric music--not because he wore two pairs of sunglasses and had someone sprinkling flour on him onstage. The fact that he had a backup band of young musicians playing his tunes (like the Wondermints doing Brian Wilson) while he did his stage schtick from 25 years ago doesn't bode well for him as a creative force.
I forgot to update this. I heard Wilson and his new backup band on WFMU last year and my fears were largely unfounded. Yes, a lot of it was older material but played (and sung) in a fresh way, and there were good new tracks (the opening instrumental reminded me of the theme from the '60s TV show Ironside). I just ordered Wilson's 25-years-later followup CD Forgotten Lovers and am greatly looking forward to hearing it.
|
A google search on for GW and the BD's provides this solitary and pathetic account of them opening for the Tom Robinson Band back in the day:
"I still remember sitting in the theatre in the near dark waiting almost and hour for the opening act a horrible synthesizer band called Gary Wilson and the Blind Dates. They came out with flour sprinkled all over themselves and played with a dim blue light on. Very depressing. Finally they cleared off the stage and roadies hauled away their gear. More waiting."
- bill 5-18-2002 8:57 pm
I always think of Laurie Anderson whenever the term "high performance art" get's slung around. (not that it ever does)
- steve 5-19-2002 7:02 am [add a comment]
I thinking more of Karen Black.
- bill 5-20-2002 6:25 pm [add a comment]
I thought they took pride in being low art.
- alex 5-20-2002 6:32 pm [add a comment]
Yeah, LA does have high hat proformance art covered, this dude is down and dirty, like KB.
- bill 5-20-2002 6:42 pm [add a comment]
When does a rock band's "stage show" become "performance art"? When it transforms the material into something beyond what the music delivers on its own? I saw a couple of Laurie Anderson multimedia shows in the early 80's and they were great; more interesting than her gallery-based performance pieces (which were properly boring in the good old minimalist-era manner), or her stand-alone musical recordings (which were never as good as real rock n roll). Does Wilson's performance go beyond the music, or is it shtick? Do Anderson and Lou Reed exchange pop for art credibility between themselves? And how does Kembra go from LES to Penthouse to American Fine Arts?
- alex 5-20-2002 7:25 pm [add a comment]
NY times article
letter to the arts & leisure editor at the times:
I was surprised to read that Adam Shatz had both professed fandom and disdain at musician Jim O'Rourke (5/19/02 Arts and Leisure Section's "Playing With Rock, Er, 'Rock'") for his so called "cheerful misanthropy" as exhibited on O'Rourke's recent release, and really must say it's unfair to sum him up as part of a pack of "sour white men" like David Foster Wallace, Neil LaBute and Todd Solondz without proper perspective of everything the man has done, and not even allowing him to explain his take on lyric-writing. Lyrically, some of O'Rourke's "puerile malice" (not to mention his "kinky" graphics) can easily be traced to his adoration for another musical/cultural oddity, the Frogs, a pair of brothers from Wisconsin who, through the 1980s and 90s released albums of pristene, perfectly arranged pop music with bizarre lyrics. Like O'Rourke (who has professed much love for the Frogs in interviews, even reissuing their first LP on his own label) they too exhibited a masterful reign over a very eclectic array of musical styles, and I believe that he and many of his fans totally indentify this band as a very high example of what pop and rock music can project at its most perverse.
It seems fruitless in describing, as Shatz did, O'Rourke's lyrical put-downs as lacking in the depth and meaning of Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan; clearly O'Rourke loves music so much that he is willing to allow other influences (meaningful to him) seep into his work, influences that haven't been so overtrodden through the years. To Jim O'Rourke, the worlds of top 40 pop, 70s rock, 20th Century Classical, experimental electronic music, folk and noise all coexist in one happy sandbox for him to apply parts of to his music at his leisure. I felt Shatz only really took a magnifying glass to a very small part of the picture in terms of defining what the "artistic statement" must be based on a few recent releases.
It seems to me like some of the best artistic statements have been made by those who left everyone scratching their heads.
Brian Turner
WFMU Radio
Jersey City, NJ
- bill 5-22-2002 12:22 am [add a comment]
From Musto in the Voice:
- alex 5-23-2002 5:58 pm [add a comment]
I saw Ms. Anderson's "Oh Superman" tour. I liked the album pretty well but the show was so good I couldn't bother listening to the record anymore.
Simmilarly, after seeing The Butthole Surfers around 20 times back in their hayday I find it difficult to enjoy their great albums.
Recording spectacle is tough.
(I recall Gibby calling Laurie Anderson "A grant sucking pig" at their show at The New Ritz in early '89. I think they were launching into "22 Going On 23" and the first few frames of the p*enis reconstruction film were flickering up on the screen. I'm not sure of the specifics but I do remember that the fun cartoons had ended and things were taking a turn towards the dark side)
- steve 5-23-2002 9:57 pm [add a comment]
Bill and Brian gave me the rundown on Gary Wilson's performance and I kept asking about the music. His LP is a cult item because it's really good, eccentric music--not because he wore two pairs of sunglasses and had someone sprinkling flour on him onstage. The fact that he had a backup band of young musicians playing his tunes (like the Wondermints doing Brian Wilson) while he did his stage schtick from 25 years ago doesn't bode well for him as a creative force.
- tom moody 5-23-2002 10:31 pm [add a comment]
- frank 5-30-2002 7:16 am [add a comment]
I forgot to update this. I heard Wilson and his new backup band on WFMU last year and my fears were largely unfounded. Yes, a lot of it was older material but played (and sung) in a fresh way, and there were good new tracks (the opening instrumental reminded me of the theme from the '60s TV show Ironside). I just ordered Wilson's 25-years-later followup CD Forgotten Lovers and am greatly looking forward to hearing it.
- tom moody 5-12-2003 6:46 pm [add a comment]