by Eric,
on 12/15/2006.

PAUL AND I AGREE: Minneapolis rock concert crowds are bored an complacent. They lack some energy and enthusiasm. Are they jaded and apathetic? Are they too "artistic" and "cerebral" to cut loose? Or are they simply unexposed to such carnal rocking? What do you think?

Cyn Collins of the Twin Cities blog howwastheshow.com back up the assessment made by Paul and Myself. It's no suprise that a Gogol Bordello show made her realize this. The end of the review states the following:

"I was bereft for days after, wandering listlessly and wistfully from show to show, seeing audiences standing and sitting, expressionless listening to tight bands with restraint. This is Minnesota. A few nights later, I heard someone scraping a plastic dishtray, in rhythms that reminded me of Gogol’s washboards and was sad that they’re no longer here. This was the most uninhibited physical show I’ve ever been to, and I wish that there were more of its ilk here."

Blogger Paul said,

Coming from seeing shows from stadiums and small theaters in Chicago, to medium to tiny venues in iowa, Minneapolis crowds are appallingly lame. So much so that i'm kinda suprised a band wouldn't just announce, "god i hate this town, i don't know why they book us, this is like fucking a fat dead woman."

Blogger Eric said,

HA! Hahahahaha!

Anonymous ellen said,

So, at this show, did you flout the boring minnesota crowd and dance your little heart out? Probably not. I have another hypothesis; maybe it's not minneapolis crowds that are boring, maybe it's gogol bordello fans in minneapolis that are boring. Or gogol bordello fans in general. Doesn't that band kinda suck? Have you ever been to a doomtree show here? The Faint, Arcade Fire....there's been more super high energy shows... Though, it's true, I have seen these restrained crowds you speak of. But maybe we're not going to lift our skirts for every Tom, Dick, and Harry that plays a show here. We're not so easily swayed.

Anonymous ellen said,

wait...i didn't read far enough to catch that you said the gogol bordello show was actually good, and then everyone realized that all other shows have been bad. that band still sucks. and, p.s. Paul-- what shows have you been at to make this minneapolis crowds assessment?

Blogger Paul said,

did you read the article? (or the review 2 posts below) cause the point is just the opposite.

Blogger Paul said,

Hold Steady, IQU, ....Trail of the dead, and some warehouse indie rock party. I'm sure eric has been to many many more.

Truth be told, it was the hold steady that made this point painfully obvious. But the idea that you'd even think "we're not going to lift our skirts for every Tom, Dick, and Harry that plays a show here" is kinda the point. I like to lift my skirt for anyone that is going out of their way to help me rock. and after i lift my skirt i like to dance around.

My hypothesis is that maybe minneapolis crowds have to conserve energy and control sweat due to the temperatures. My other hypothesis has to do with all the layered hipser clothing, it would rip too easily if they did decide to get crazy.

Blogger Paul said,

I also went to a social d concert, and that was not tame.

another hypothesis is that when a band rocks, then the people do. And when a band makes sweet, complex, introspective music the audience stares (and contemplates).

Blogger Eric said,

From my perspective, it has little to do with the band being "good" or "sucking" because that is all subjective. I made my opinion based on energy in the room during the shows. Minneapolis crowds just don't seem to reciprocate what is coming from the stage the way I have seen in the past. This is most true of groups that I have seen at Gabes in Iowa as well as in clubs in Minnesota. Gabe's Oasis shows were almost always more intense, even with half the people attending.

Anonymous ellen said,

I think it does matter. If you're goal as a band is to get people moving, and you can't do it, then you haven't accomplished your goal. output of energy from the stage doesn't necessarily create output from the audience. it's more to do with beats, builds, breaks, etc. i could get up on stage and run and jump around and yell, but it probably wouldn't make an audience do the same. but, here's another side: have you ever been so awed at a show, that you physically can't move? all you can do is sit there and take it in because you don't want to miss anything? i have. i think that's fun, too.

Blogger Paul said,

obviously a better performance = better audience. But we're saying given an equal performance here and somewhere else, the crowd would be 'lamer' here.

I think it comes down to how you express yourself at the show. And i think Minneapolis crowds do more "taking in" than "taking out [the guy next to you". Which form of expression you choose is subjective (getting too excited could be considered just as lame as standing still).

Personally, i like to express myself outwardly, and save the 'taking it in' for headphones. And before Minneapolis, i assumed this was the norm.

Blogger Eric said,

I agree. It comes down to preference and self expression.

I like to express myself outwardly at a show and would prefer others in attendance do the same. That is my preference, though. It's the same reason why I don't want to attend a show where I have to sit in a seat. I have romanticized the "show" experience from my punk/hardcore days. I look forward to the shoving, to gang shouts from a frenzied crowd, to spilled beer, sweat, spit, bruises, hoarse voices, and stage diving that are result. I am fully aware that this kind of experience is not for everyone.

BUT... I have gone to shows up here where the above mentioned behavior is the expected experience, and have noticed that the crowd is less lively.

...except for the Slayer show in St. Paul. I didn't want to get close to the stage during that one.

Write a
Comment.

Archive

11/06 12/06 01/07 02/07 03/07 04/07 05/07 06/07 07/07 08/07 09/07 10/07 11/07 12/07 01/08 02/08 03/08 04/08 05/08 06/08 07/08 08/08 09/08 10/08 11/08 12/08 01/09 02/09 03/09 04/09 05/09