Polarization

There's no middle ground with some bands out there. You either love 'em or hate 'em. These are most likely bands that do something risky with their music. To me, it's tough to love or hate a band that really plays it safe - that keeps its performance and songwriting within the expected norms of a rock band. As the girl says at the end of CKDU-FM's "zit remedies" station id, "They're ok, I guess".

I think some of the most interesting music has been made under divisive conditions, with the Velvet Underground being an obvious example. If you look at rock history, many of the most important bands had this effect on people when they first started out. Some overcame it and became famous; others became important only after their breakup; others became cult oddities or just faded away altogether. Whatever the case, I think it can be said that the further a band strays outside the norms of contemprary music, the clearer the line between those who like them, and those who hate them a lot.

Where this schism begins is difficult to say. Are there particularly sensitive aspects of a performance that run a high risk of alienating the listener? Some people will write off a band that looks weird. Or, more likely, looks weird in the wrong way. Maybe their music is just too out there, too different from what they're used to. GS is a band that aims to involve the audience in our performances. Maybe some people resent this; "the band should be here and the audience should be there". I dunno.

The first time I saw ____ was a good example of the audience-divide phenomenon. It was at a ____ event, and the band's first public appearance. They had jammed for the first time just hours earlier; friends of the band (and there were quite a few) all knew this and knew what to expect; casio-key garage rock played by a band in the first several hours of its existence. The singer, a friend of mine, was quite nervous before they began, despite the epic drinking session that prefaced their set. I advised her to just give us a show. With four barely-learned songs and next to no instrumentation (keys, drums), that's about all you could have asked. My friend isn't what I'd call "shy" so I knew she had it in her to entertain the masses. The set was fun; oh sure, it was sloppy and chaotic, but the couple-dozen people who watched from up close had a blast. The chaos is what we were there to see, and in the end I think the audience really helped fuel it and make the show memorable. The line between band and listener became blurred.

Friends of the band spoke highly of the show afterward. It was a fun time! It was interactive and silly, which from my perspective was the whole point. The point could not have been to make slick music because that's just not possible with so little time to prepare. No, the people simply wanted a show... and that's what they got. They were even in it.

The band was not without its detractors. "The show" is not universally valued; it was an issue on which the audience was clearly divided. I found this oddly satisfying, and it made the band that much cooler in my eyes. I think if a band is hated by everyone in the room, odds are they're either in the wrong element or they just plain suck - but being part loved, part despised raises a band to another level in my eyes. They must be doing something right. They're certainly not compromising or trying to suck up and make friends. This is the embodiment of everything I've learned about punk rock over the past 18 years or so.

I seem to find my way into bands that polarize audiences. The majority of the bands I've been in have done this. It hasn't been by design. It's more likely due to the fact that I value an impactful show over all else. Play what you want to play, and play it hard as fuck. People watching, even if they hate your music, will have to admit that you're passionate and unafraid of alienation. These two traits on their own can be enough to carry a performance. They are, to me, what punk rock is all about.

...which, after no less than seven paragraphs of self-indulgent philosophizing, brings me to last night's out-of-province show. Our friends "I-dot" and "B-dot" came along for moral support and the prospect of a fun road trip. That's what we got, and that's what they got.

We were playing a campus bar. Campus bars are not so much designed to showcase far-out rock bands as they are to provide students with a place to enjoy a cold beverage after class. They need to appeal to the student body at large - a highly diverse group that is in some ways a microcosm of society itself (and in other ways, a microcosm of the part of society that can afford a college education). For this reason, I had some worries about how well we'd go over. As passionate as I feel about our band, I think we appeal to a rather small niche at present. I was hoping this niche would be represented at the show, and it was.

We were on last. People (and there were quite a few) were filing out long before we started playing. I believe a lot of them were headed to other bars closer to the center of town. I don't remember how many people came up front when we played. Maybe a dozen? I also don't remember how many more people bailed once we started playing. It could have been a lot. I couldn't see because I either wear prescription sunglasses when I play, or no glasses at all.

We played decently; I'd say I was 80% happy with our playing. The guitar was apparently not loud enough. Maybe I'll run the twin through my bass cab next time. The dozen or so people up front seemed super into us. They got it. They knew about "the show". Staff, on the other hand, didn't seem to approve of crowd interaction. Like audience members tackling band members and vice versa, band members moving into the audience with their instruments, etc. I could only speculate what they must have thought of our music. I did talk some sports with a bouncer after the show. See? We're not that weird.

I would say this: if patrons or workers at the bar are being hassled physically or otherwise, staff should intervene. If the venue's property is being misused or laws are being broken, staff should intervene. Otherwise, staff should not intervene. If the mutual hassling between band and audience, or audience and audience, is clearly consentual, staff should not intervene. Let the band play their show. Let the audience join in. Of course, I don't have the legal burdens associated with running a bar, so this is easy for me to say.

The organizer of the show (who had been kicked out for his innocent exuberance, but found ways to remain on the premises) told me that this venue was not accustomed to punk rock shows. They must not have realized that people jumping on each other is normal at an event such as ours. They're just Riding The Pink Tiger.

I had some great conversations about music with B-dot during the drive home. He hid his extreme drunkenness quite well. Not so for I-dot and Poison. I think they had a rough ride. Uber's back seemed to hold up, and he moved around quite a bit during the set. I went home happy. We did our thing, and did it fairly well. I'd drive the 3 1/2 hours again to play for those dozen people up front. We'll be doing just that in a few weeks.