Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Lucinda Williams made me cry

129 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Steve Barnes,

    What does "guitar scorched" even mean?

    I'm glad you asked Sacha.
    Well. I would deconstruct that as a Metaphorical Simile.
    As in being similar to something that has been on the less temperate end of a hot, or scorching, guitar lick, If you will.
    Touched by the glowing ember of an emotively chorded crescendo.
    Or something equally pretentious in a seventies kind way.
    :-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Tony Parker,

    Ticket to Lucinda-$80
    Petrol Napier-Welly-$60
    Comfort Hotel on Cuba-$95
    Used Vinyl at Slowboat-$40
    Breakfast with son-$20
    Being able to see what the bass player was doing cos no one was standing up-Priceless
    (as a bass player this is what I tend to do at concerts)

    Napier • Since Nov 2008 • 232 posts Report Reply

  • Roger,

    But of cource Sacha there is no 'and'.

    If I have paid for a seat and I don't want to, or can't stand up and dance, and the person in front of me does, I have two choices - see nothing or leave and when I have spent something around $200 to be there it kinda pisses me off. Particularly when a venue has provided dancing and seated areas.

    The 'and' is for those people who do not care who is behind them.

    Hamilton • Since Jun 2007 • 179 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I can understand for some that that implies some movement, but I fail to see why "They shouldn't have been at a friggin' Stones show if they didn't want to dance" is seen as justification for behaviour that impinges on other people's right of enjoyment.

    Standing up at a rock 'n' roll show is "behaviour"? WTF?

    Mark, it was a general admission area, with no seats, on a fairly steep slope. The fact that some ninnies got there early and carefully laid out their picnic rugs DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MEAN THAT NO ONE ELSE AT THE CONCERT IS ALLOWED TO STAND UP WHEN JUMPIN' JACK FLASH IS PLAYED.

    Sorry for shouting, but really ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22839 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    I can understand for some that that implies some movement, but I fail to see why "They shouldn't have been at a friggin' Stones show if they didn't want to dance" is seen as justification for behaviour that impinges on other people's right of enjoyment.

    I thought Mark meant the behaviour of those demanding people sit down. ?

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Roger, there's only no "and" because the concert promoters, venue designers, etc have made it that way. Things will change, whether they like it or not.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19728 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    The way the last Rolling Stones show at Western Springs was sold was bloody scandalous. It was half-empty in the premium circle down in front,

    'ang on a min.....Our entourage took up entirely Row 2, which was excellent for visual and all the bouncers dealt with the row in front who were leaning over the barrier thus leaving us ample room, 'cept for the off their trolley ecstatic girls a little too close for my liking (gettin' all jiggy with it) Point being sorry is, scandalous you say!Wes paid er good monies I think :)

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    Standing up at a rock 'n' roll show is "behaviour"?

    All right, if you want it in words of less than three syllables: Don't be a selfish prick and think of other people's enjoyment as being as important as your own.

    Yes, standing up is "behaviour". What else could you possibly call it? Whether it is "good" or "bad" behaviour was not mentioned - what I said was "behaviour that impinges on other people's right of enjoyment."

    Try not to see it as a personal attack, Russ, and more of a societal statement, mmmkay?

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    there's only no "and" because the concert promoters, venue designers, etc have made it that way. Things will change, whether they like it or not.

    Sacha, there's only no "and" because some choose to behave in a way that doesn't permit it. Promoters could think harder, but that doesn't excuse behaviour.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Mark, if venues are set up with both dancing and seated areas, no problem. Without, friction. Bugger all that individual punters can do about that on the night - the decision is up to those who run the event and design the venue.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19728 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    Mark, if venues are set up with both dancing and seated areas, no problem. Without, friction. Bugger all that individual punters can do about that on the night - the decision is up to those who run the event and design the venue.

    So, you're saying that people aren't responsible if their behaviour is not suitable to a venue?

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Stuart Coats,

    I wish Those In Charge would pull their heads out of their asses and refurbish it. What's the latest plan, anyway? Closed forever, soon to be demolished?

    By sheer chance: I was walking past the St James yesterday and saw a notice pinned up on the door. It said that the theatre was closed until major structural strengthening work (among other things) had been done. That notice was dated 2007, so I guess that isn't happening any time soon :(
    Personally I'd like to see the St James turned into the home for the Auckland Theatre Company. Make the main auditorium a 500 seat theatre and put a 150-200 seat theatre in one of the smaller rooms (there's one that I rehearsed in once which was up the left hand staircase as you walked in off Queen St). This would mean no more gigs there, except maybe all-seater ones......

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 192 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Don't be a selfish prick and think of other people's enjoyment as being as important as your own.

    I'm confused now. Do you mean "if you think other peoples enjoyment is as important as your own then you are a selfish prick"? or "Don't be a selfish prick, think of other people's enjoyment as being as important as your own.
    </pedantic grammar Nazi>

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Promoters could think harder,

    Some do actually. You may be surprised to find that often there is consideration for disabled.A specific entrance to specific seating. Thing is, ASK!.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    This would mean no more gigs there, except maybe all-seater ones......

    Not necessarily. You can get auditorium seating that is relatively easy to clear. It's a question of design.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    It's Design Bro.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    All right, if you want it in words of less than three syllables: Don't be a selfish prick and think of other people's enjoyment as being as important as your own.

    I'm not being a selfish prick. I'm simply wondering why one group of people that chooses to sit down in a general admission area at a rock concert has the automatic right to make everyone else there sit down too. It's a ludicrous proposition.

    Yes, standing up is "behaviour". What else could you possibly call it? Whether it is "good" or "bad" behaviour was not mentioned - what I said was "behaviour that impinges on other people's right of enjoyment."

    And sitting down (and, in this case, throwing sticks and things at people who don't comply with your desires) isn't "behaviour"?

    Honestly Mark, that's absurd. If you go to a rock concert and you want to sit down and have no one stand up in front of you, buy a seat that guarantees that right. Otherwise, you're shit out of luck and probably shouldn't have come in the first place.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22839 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    I'm confused now.

    Sorry, Steve, I forgot how easily that happens for you. ;-)

    Do you mean "if you think other peoples enjoyment is as important as your own then you are a selfish prick"? or "Don't be a selfish prick, think of other people's enjoyment as being as important as your own.

    Quite right, there should have been a semi-colon instead of a comma between "prick" and "think". THere is alsays some separation between pricks and thinking.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    /always

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Some do actually. You may be surprised to find that often there is consideration for disabled.A specific entrance to specific seating. Thing is, ASK!

    I think this is extremely important, and it took too long for it to be properly done at the Big Day Out -- but they do do it now. I blogged about a young woman with cerebral palsy (and a blog of her own) for whom it made all the difference this year.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22839 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    So, you're saying that people aren't responsible if their behaviour is not suitable to a venue?

    Let's not go either/or on this one too. Environments affect the choices people can and do make. That approach underpins crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) and its injury prevention sister, IPTED.

    That doesn't relieve people of responsiblity for their behaviour but it is entirely predictable that friction will arise in the situation described above. It's a gig. People have been known to dance at them. That will piss off people seated behind and around them.

    Blame the munterish promoters. I have very little tolerance for such preventable stupidity, especially when ticket prices suggest you're buying a professional service not an amateur hoedown in a woolshed (not that there's anything wrong with those). It's one reason I haven't been back to the Big Day Out for a long time - inconsiderate organisers.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19728 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    And sitting down (and, in this case, throwing sticks and things at people who don't comply with your desires) isn't "behaviour"?

    Of course it's behaviour. You seem to think that the word "behaviour" is pejorative. Take two dictionaries and call me in the morning. I would class throwing sticks and things as bad behaviour, but that's my subjective view. Their bad behaviour doesn't exclude anyone else's behaviour, and they have as much right to enjoy the show as you. Why should your enjoyment be paramount.

    Honestly Mark, that's absurd. If you go to a rock concert and you want to sit down and have no one stand up in front of you, buy a seat that guarantees that right. Otherwise, you're shit out of luck and probably shouldn't have come in the first place.

    See, that's what selfish pricks always resort to, because you want it your way and no other. "If you don't want to rock out LIKE ME, you shouldn't be here". Wow.

    What's absurd, Russell, is that you focus on (your perspective of) one concert and miss my point that self-centered behaviour is the problem here, not venue design or disability.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

  • Stuart Coats,

    This would mean no more gigs there, except maybe all-seater ones......

    Not necessarily. You can get auditorium seating that is relatively easy to clear. It's a question of design.

    Ah, see that was my little joke.
    But you are right, you can get auditorium seating that is easy to clear, and ATC would want something like that as it makes the auditorium a more flexible performing space.

    Mind you, you wouldn't want the seats to be too easy to move

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 192 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Conflict between two self-centred motivations is guaranteed in some situations. Nothing wrong with the motivations, though I agree the subsequent behaviour can be problematic.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19728 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Harris,

    That doesn't relieve people of responsiblity for their behaviour but it is entirely predictable that friction will arise in the situation described above. It's a gig. People have been known to dance at them. That will piss off people seated behind and around them.

    While I agree that people have been known to dance at gigs, my point is that their desire to do so is untempered by any recognition of the effect their behaviour has on people around them. Hence, "selfish pricks"

    Blame the munterish promoters. I have very little tolerance for such preventable stupidity, especially when ticket prices suggest you're buying a professional service not an amateur hoedown in a woolshed (not that there's anything wrong with those). It's one reason I haven't been back to the Big Day Out for a long time - inconsiderate organisers.

    No, I blame people for their behaviour, if their behaviour is inappropriate. In my book, blocking the view of people at a show is inappropriate, just as blocking the view of other people at an art exhibition is inappropriate. What pisses me off is some people's belief that they have a right to be inappropriate, just 'cos their rocking out, man.

    Waikanae • Since Jul 2008 • 1343 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.