Después de haber vivido casi dos años fuera de México y haber escrito este blog completamente en inglés, y después de tomar la decisión de que a partir de este verano me convertiré una vez más en residente de la Gran Ciudad de México, este espacio se convertirá en uno bilingüe. Todavía habrá posts en inglés pero empezaré a incorporar algunos en español y con temas más mexicanos (si, la política es uno de esos temas, ¿qué chiste tendría hablar de México si no hablas de su chiste más grande?)
Por lo pronto, ojalá y gane la selección mañana.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Why CD's matter(ed)
Last Sunday I heard a Depeche Mode song I hadn't heard in years. It was Personal Jesus. Yeah, I know, the typical Depeche Mode song, but nonetheless a good one.
The song triggered a trip down my memories to remember how I got really into the band after buying a CD during a trip to Phoenix when I was about 15 years old (I'm talking about a compilation, the original song was included in "Violator", 1990.)
It got me thinking on how the CD culture, or the album culture, something we are losing if not lost already, was an enhancer of people appreciating and knowing about music. I wonder if generations who start getting into music today will be as musically savvy as past, since they always seem to get a surface glance at bands by downloading only the songs they like and missing out on the album experience.
It got me thinking about how when I listened to the song I instantly thought about that Phoenix trip. Maybe I can't remember when I and where I bought ever album I'd ever bought in my life, but there's not a chance that I could remember at least when I downloaded a certain song.
It got me thinking about how because I bought that album I got into the band and went back and bought their past albums.
I am guilty. Up to this point I have gone mostly digital. I uploaded a large part of my musical collection to my computer and that is now my musical source. But I have to say, the album experience was an essential part of my musical education. And it's something that we cannot afford to loose.
The song triggered a trip down my memories to remember how I got really into the band after buying a CD during a trip to Phoenix when I was about 15 years old (I'm talking about a compilation, the original song was included in "Violator", 1990.)
It got me thinking on how the CD culture, or the album culture, something we are losing if not lost already, was an enhancer of people appreciating and knowing about music. I wonder if generations who start getting into music today will be as musically savvy as past, since they always seem to get a surface glance at bands by downloading only the songs they like and missing out on the album experience.
It got me thinking about how when I listened to the song I instantly thought about that Phoenix trip. Maybe I can't remember when I and where I bought ever album I'd ever bought in my life, but there's not a chance that I could remember at least when I downloaded a certain song.
It got me thinking about how because I bought that album I got into the band and went back and bought their past albums.
I am guilty. Up to this point I have gone mostly digital. I uploaded a large part of my musical collection to my computer and that is now my musical source. But I have to say, the album experience was an essential part of my musical education. And it's something that we cannot afford to loose.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Curious Enough.
I finally went to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Maybe a coincidence, that same morning I had a breakfast conversation with a friend about how it's fine for some movies to just entertain. Not all of them have to be extremely artistic and not all of them have to be groundbreaking. Some of them can just entertain. Which is the first thing any movie should do anyway.
In that spirit I went to see Benjamin Button, and I enjoyed it. There's an interesting story (about a man living life from old to young) and there's good acting. Some might say it's a bit long, I agree. But the movie keeps the viewer engaged for the most part.
SPOILER ALERT- If you have not seen the movie, stop reading.
Now there's one thing that the movie is missing. A good ending. Or a better one. It actually has that better ending embedded in the film, except that it's not the ending.
Generally a good ending is based on the fact that the pinnacle of the movie has just happened. After that all you need is a resolution, and that can be as quick as Casablanca or as long as The Return of the King.
I think the ending in this film came when the daughter is reading the postcards Benjamin sent after he left. That was the most emotional part of the film. She's reading the birthday cards and you're seeing the images of him traveling around the world. A good resolution after that could have been when he visits Daisy for the last time, narrated by Daisy herself and finally ending with the fact that they found a boys back pack with a book that had her name on it. And we never see him as a little boy. Actually, that's when the movie lost me, those last 10 minutes of seeing him go younger. We know that, we know he's going to die as a baby, we might as well not seen that and end the movie at the pinnacle. With the boy sequences the audience cools down from that emotional moment. You can even feel it inside the movie theater, the way people react by the end and the feeling in the ambient is not the same as when that emotional moment happens.
A good ending is hard to get, and most movies usually have it in there. It's all about editing or knowing when's a good time to stop.
In that spirit I went to see Benjamin Button, and I enjoyed it. There's an interesting story (about a man living life from old to young) and there's good acting. Some might say it's a bit long, I agree. But the movie keeps the viewer engaged for the most part.
SPOILER ALERT- If you have not seen the movie, stop reading.
Now there's one thing that the movie is missing. A good ending. Or a better one. It actually has that better ending embedded in the film, except that it's not the ending.
Generally a good ending is based on the fact that the pinnacle of the movie has just happened. After that all you need is a resolution, and that can be as quick as Casablanca or as long as The Return of the King.
I think the ending in this film came when the daughter is reading the postcards Benjamin sent after he left. That was the most emotional part of the film. She's reading the birthday cards and you're seeing the images of him traveling around the world. A good resolution after that could have been when he visits Daisy for the last time, narrated by Daisy herself and finally ending with the fact that they found a boys back pack with a book that had her name on it. And we never see him as a little boy. Actually, that's when the movie lost me, those last 10 minutes of seeing him go younger. We know that, we know he's going to die as a baby, we might as well not seen that and end the movie at the pinnacle. With the boy sequences the audience cools down from that emotional moment. You can even feel it inside the movie theater, the way people react by the end and the feeling in the ambient is not the same as when that emotional moment happens.
A good ending is hard to get, and most movies usually have it in there. It's all about editing or knowing when's a good time to stop.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
What I learned from Super Bowl 43.
There's a funny thing about the Super Bowl, it's the moment in which everybody seems to like and care about advertising. Not only that, but it's the moment in which everyone turns into an ad critic.
I've never been a die-hard football fan, I used to follow football much more about 8 years ago, but I still watch the Super Bowl every year. The only difference now is that I actually get to see the "famous" commercials, since back in Mexico we don't get to see the same commercials.
This year I went to a Super Bowl party. But it was a non-ad people Super Bowl party, which I thought could be interesting. It was. I could see first-hand how people react to ads. Real people, real ads. No over-analyzing, no judging, no awards, just reactions that take a second, gut reactions, which I think are the ones that count the most.
This is a dangerous thing, to see what people really like, and maybe even disappointing. You realize that they don't like the same stuff ad-people like, and they like the stuff that we would right away condemn.
Last year, the Brandcenter brought the people from the USA Today Ad Meter to speak, we all realized (and they made it clear too) that comedy is mostly what works at a Super Bowl. And animals seem to work pretty good too. Maybe it's the Super Bowl's environment (friends, TV, beer, guacamole) that makes people pay more attention and hence react better to funny stuff. We would say, "it's the same kick in the groin joke", and it is, but funny enough the Ad Meter was topped by an ad featuring, yes, a groin joke, which by the way was consumer generated. Now, I don't really want to get into the whole "shit, consumer generated advertising is better than..." because it's a quick judgement and even the idea of having a contest to make consumer generated ads to go into the Super Bowl came from an agency.
It reminds me of that FedEx commercial that listed the top 10 things you need to have in a Super Bowl commercial, of course kick in the groin and animals where there (bonus points for dancing animals.)
Everyday we break our heads thinking how to make things different, and every time we see something like the stuff that people like in Super Bowl ads we say it's all been done before and that no one wants to see it again. But in the end we find out that people do want to see it again. And here lies a dilemma, and I don't think we should keep doing the same stuff over and over, but then you realize what people like and... well, are we speaking the same language?
Here's that FedEx commercial.
I've never been a die-hard football fan, I used to follow football much more about 8 years ago, but I still watch the Super Bowl every year. The only difference now is that I actually get to see the "famous" commercials, since back in Mexico we don't get to see the same commercials.
This year I went to a Super Bowl party. But it was a non-ad people Super Bowl party, which I thought could be interesting. It was. I could see first-hand how people react to ads. Real people, real ads. No over-analyzing, no judging, no awards, just reactions that take a second, gut reactions, which I think are the ones that count the most.
This is a dangerous thing, to see what people really like, and maybe even disappointing. You realize that they don't like the same stuff ad-people like, and they like the stuff that we would right away condemn.
Last year, the Brandcenter brought the people from the USA Today Ad Meter to speak, we all realized (and they made it clear too) that comedy is mostly what works at a Super Bowl. And animals seem to work pretty good too. Maybe it's the Super Bowl's environment (friends, TV, beer, guacamole) that makes people pay more attention and hence react better to funny stuff. We would say, "it's the same kick in the groin joke", and it is, but funny enough the Ad Meter was topped by an ad featuring, yes, a groin joke, which by the way was consumer generated. Now, I don't really want to get into the whole "shit, consumer generated advertising is better than..." because it's a quick judgement and even the idea of having a contest to make consumer generated ads to go into the Super Bowl came from an agency.
It reminds me of that FedEx commercial that listed the top 10 things you need to have in a Super Bowl commercial, of course kick in the groin and animals where there (bonus points for dancing animals.)
Everyday we break our heads thinking how to make things different, and every time we see something like the stuff that people like in Super Bowl ads we say it's all been done before and that no one wants to see it again. But in the end we find out that people do want to see it again. And here lies a dilemma, and I don't think we should keep doing the same stuff over and over, but then you realize what people like and... well, are we speaking the same language?
Here's that FedEx commercial.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The Jesus and Mary Chain reborn.
I have not made a post in over two months. It's been a busy semester. And I could not help writing about something this morning, even if it is a short entry (there will hopefully be more over the winter break.)
I don't know how late I am to this band, I have not been up-to-date in musical development in the last months but I just discovered how great Atlas Sound is. And from the fist moment I heard a lot of The Jesus and Mary Chain in them. It's worth giving it a try. If you have you can call me out for not keeping up, if you haven't, do so.
I don't know how late I am to this band, I have not been up-to-date in musical development in the last months but I just discovered how great Atlas Sound is. And from the fist moment I heard a lot of The Jesus and Mary Chain in them. It's worth giving it a try. If you have you can call me out for not keeping up, if you haven't, do so.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The many faces of irresponsability, part II.
A few months ago, right after Cannes to be more accurate, I wrote a blog entry with the same title exposing the oh-so-talked-about issue of JC Penney’s “Speed Dressing” ad.
Today, after the scandal, we are shocked (well, not really) again to hear the news about a Lion being taken away from TBWA/Paris for an Amnesty International print ad against the Chinese Government (Olympic themed.) The reason? Media buying. Apparently the ad only ran once, with the intention to be entered at the festival. Only that the running date was after the Cannes entry deadline.
Again, the issue of “fake” or “ghost” ads strikes back. Ads that are only produced to be entered in award shows. Agencies have been doing this for years, and now even clients do it. Cannes Lions 2008 “client of the year”, Procter and Gamble, has used award shows to test creativity. The ad dubbed “interview” by Tide (where a guy in a job interview is interrupted by a talking stain in his shirt) was a winner in the 2007 edition of the festival, and had a minimal media buy then, it was until it won the award that the client decided to run it with more frequency until it reached the Super Bowl and became very popular. Apparently P&G did the same thing this year with Crest’s “You can say anything with a smile.” Expect the TV ads to be seen on more popular media after they won awards.
The controversy around “fake” ads only gets worse. Leo Burnett India won a Gold Lion for an ad for a brand that wasn’t even on their client roster, Luxor Highlighters.
Is it enough to run an ad once in a cheap place where no one will see it to believe it’s legit and submit it to award shows?
Saatchi & Saatchi’s ad for JC Penney almost cost them the account. The ad was apparently made and submitted by a production company, Epoch Films, although it credited Saatchi people including ECD Gerry Graff.
How stupid are we as an industry (and our industry is conformed not only by agencies, but by third parties such as, yes, production companies) that in the middle of a credibility crisis from both the public and our clients, we play around with brands just to get an award. Gawker.com makes no mistake when calling advertising an "award-obsessed" industry.
The problem is that we let other people play with brands. In the Saatchi case, Epoch Films is a production company that has worked with them in the past. Probably at some point, either the director or somebody from the creative team had ideas that could “look cool” and not be presented to the client. That is, they're meant to be done for the following things: a) Use it in the directors reel/portfolio, b) Use it in the creatives portfolio, c) Use it in the production company's reel, and d) submit it to award shows. The latter carries a certain amount of risk due to client interference. Now there's two ways to deal with this.
1. Since most awards shows require "approval from the client" for every submitted piece, you can go to your client and say in a very political way, "look, we bust our asses here doing everything you ask us to do, and we have this ad that we took the liberty of shooting, it didn't cost you anything, in fact we split the costs with the production company because they really liked the idea, and we want to submit it to award shows, you only have to sign and run the ad once in the cheapest media space possible."
That client may or may not sign the release, depending on his conscience levels. If the client is honest and smart he'll say "no, stick it up your ass, you're fired, you don't give a damn about the brand, you only care about award shows." Which by the way, is what most clients think about creatives. The other type of client would say "what the hell, I already have you do everything I want, go win your stupid awards, I don't give a damn about them, go kiss each others asses and when you come back I'll have you doing the same stupid stuff that I've always asked for."
2. You can skip the client part, talk to a buddy at the award show or create some fake release form and "ta-dah", you've got yourself a shortlist and most likely a winner, because if you're going through the trouble of creating a ghost ad with no client approval it better be as good as to win something. Then you can have the bad luck Saatchi had when a little thing called YouTube spread the ad online until it reached some guy in Texas who works for JC Penney and went, WTF?
There's a third way, which is never to do ghost ads. But that's stupid isn't it, how would we get those awards?
Our industry can be hugely irresponsible, we play around with brands like it has no consequences. Whether we like it or not, when we are empowered with brands we are given a huge responsibility. And I'm not saying we should do what the client says, but we have to be honest about our job, which by the way is not winning awards. Awards should merely be a consequence of great work, not an objective.
Everybody has bad clients and everybody has to get through them, and a campaign that wins awards despite everything is a million times better than the one created as a ghost. It is a very dangerous thing that with the industry being so unpopular there's people gambling with brands. These actions have consequences.
There is light at the end of the tunnel, go trough this years Titanium and Integrated Lions winners. Go through the work of agencies like Droga5, Crispin, Goodby (who has the policy of not entering work to award shows), and others who care more about good work and less about Lions, One Shows, Clios, et al. Awards are not wrong. They are a necessary thing for agencies seeking new business and for creatives seeking career moves. But an award is no longer enough to judge work, it’s the whole story, where it came from, how it came to be and how it is delivered that matters. In the words of Mark Fenske “Our job is to make clients and brands famous for the right reason.”
Today, after the scandal, we are shocked (well, not really) again to hear the news about a Lion being taken away from TBWA/Paris for an Amnesty International print ad against the Chinese Government (Olympic themed.) The reason? Media buying. Apparently the ad only ran once, with the intention to be entered at the festival. Only that the running date was after the Cannes entry deadline.
Again, the issue of “fake” or “ghost” ads strikes back. Ads that are only produced to be entered in award shows. Agencies have been doing this for years, and now even clients do it. Cannes Lions 2008 “client of the year”, Procter and Gamble, has used award shows to test creativity. The ad dubbed “interview” by Tide (where a guy in a job interview is interrupted by a talking stain in his shirt) was a winner in the 2007 edition of the festival, and had a minimal media buy then, it was until it won the award that the client decided to run it with more frequency until it reached the Super Bowl and became very popular. Apparently P&G did the same thing this year with Crest’s “You can say anything with a smile.” Expect the TV ads to be seen on more popular media after they won awards.
The controversy around “fake” ads only gets worse. Leo Burnett India won a Gold Lion for an ad for a brand that wasn’t even on their client roster, Luxor Highlighters.
Is it enough to run an ad once in a cheap place where no one will see it to believe it’s legit and submit it to award shows?
Saatchi & Saatchi’s ad for JC Penney almost cost them the account. The ad was apparently made and submitted by a production company, Epoch Films, although it credited Saatchi people including ECD Gerry Graff.
How stupid are we as an industry (and our industry is conformed not only by agencies, but by third parties such as, yes, production companies) that in the middle of a credibility crisis from both the public and our clients, we play around with brands just to get an award. Gawker.com makes no mistake when calling advertising an "award-obsessed" industry.
The problem is that we let other people play with brands. In the Saatchi case, Epoch Films is a production company that has worked with them in the past. Probably at some point, either the director or somebody from the creative team had ideas that could “look cool” and not be presented to the client. That is, they're meant to be done for the following things: a) Use it in the directors reel/portfolio, b) Use it in the creatives portfolio, c) Use it in the production company's reel, and d) submit it to award shows. The latter carries a certain amount of risk due to client interference. Now there's two ways to deal with this.
1. Since most awards shows require "approval from the client" for every submitted piece, you can go to your client and say in a very political way, "look, we bust our asses here doing everything you ask us to do, and we have this ad that we took the liberty of shooting, it didn't cost you anything, in fact we split the costs with the production company because they really liked the idea, and we want to submit it to award shows, you only have to sign and run the ad once in the cheapest media space possible."
That client may or may not sign the release, depending on his conscience levels. If the client is honest and smart he'll say "no, stick it up your ass, you're fired, you don't give a damn about the brand, you only care about award shows." Which by the way, is what most clients think about creatives. The other type of client would say "what the hell, I already have you do everything I want, go win your stupid awards, I don't give a damn about them, go kiss each others asses and when you come back I'll have you doing the same stupid stuff that I've always asked for."
2. You can skip the client part, talk to a buddy at the award show or create some fake release form and "ta-dah", you've got yourself a shortlist and most likely a winner, because if you're going through the trouble of creating a ghost ad with no client approval it better be as good as to win something. Then you can have the bad luck Saatchi had when a little thing called YouTube spread the ad online until it reached some guy in Texas who works for JC Penney and went, WTF?
There's a third way, which is never to do ghost ads. But that's stupid isn't it, how would we get those awards?
Our industry can be hugely irresponsible, we play around with brands like it has no consequences. Whether we like it or not, when we are empowered with brands we are given a huge responsibility. And I'm not saying we should do what the client says, but we have to be honest about our job, which by the way is not winning awards. Awards should merely be a consequence of great work, not an objective.
Everybody has bad clients and everybody has to get through them, and a campaign that wins awards despite everything is a million times better than the one created as a ghost. It is a very dangerous thing that with the industry being so unpopular there's people gambling with brands. These actions have consequences.
There is light at the end of the tunnel, go trough this years Titanium and Integrated Lions winners. Go through the work of agencies like Droga5, Crispin, Goodby (who has the policy of not entering work to award shows), and others who care more about good work and less about Lions, One Shows, Clios, et al. Awards are not wrong. They are a necessary thing for agencies seeking new business and for creatives seeking career moves. But an award is no longer enough to judge work, it’s the whole story, where it came from, how it came to be and how it is delivered that matters. In the words of Mark Fenske “Our job is to make clients and brands famous for the right reason.”
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Lollapalooza 2008 Review.
Lollapalooza is a great festival. Idiots complain about its corporate backup and stuff, I guess there's some people that just can't see anything good in life. If you have over 100 bands in three days of music, located exactly in downtown Chicago, why again is it that you are whining about?
The great thing about Lolla is not only the fact that it has a great environment and very well organized but its very well located. You are close to anything you need in the city like hotels, restaurants, nightlife, public transportation. That's what makes Lolla the most convenient of the large music festivals.
As for the bands, this is what I saw.
Day 1. Friday, August 1st.
I first entered the gates of Lollapalooza 2008 on Friday around 3:15 PM having missed both Rogue Wave and The Go! Team (I still regret not going to the latter) because I couldn't leave work as early as that.
The 1st band on my list was The Black Keys. Pure rock n' roll, one guitar, one voice, and a drum set. That's it. After overcoming a bit of trouble with the voice in the 1st song (which was curiously Girl On My Mind, one of their biggest hits), which we couldn't really hear, the set was pretty good. The sun was up, it was very hot, but the Black Keys managed to pull it off. They played the Bud Light Stage on the north side of the festival, that I have to say, was the stage with the best sound.
The Black Keys. From there I was ready to fulfill my dream of finally seeing the great Chan Marshall (AKA Cat Power) play live. And I was disappointed. She had it all, the Playstation 3 stage, one of the nicest in the festival, a large group of people (which sadly shrank as the set went by), good sound and a good band. I don't think her set was well chosen. Even though she opened up with Naked If I Want To, included in her latest Jukebox, but also part of 200's The Covers Record. From there she went downhill, playing only a few old songs which included Lived In Bars. She sang two lines of The Greatest before the band went jamming wild to finish off the set. She has a great voice, she has the songs, but that day she didn't have the audience. I'd rather see her perform a solo set.
Chan Marshall AKA Cat Power (in red) playing at the Playstation 3 stage. After that it was back at the Bud Light stage for more guitar-powered rock and roll with The Raconteurs. Does everything that Jack White does has to be so good? Pure energy, while the sun was starting to hide behind the buildings of downtown Chi-Town, The Raconteurs rocked with perfect live versions off their two albums. Steady As She Goes and a kick-ass version of You Don't Understand Me with Mr. White on the piano while Brendan Benson took care of the guitar, stood out from the rest of the set which was energetic and overall good.
The Raconteurs. Brendan Benson (left in green) and Jack White (right, wearing black).Quickly drag your ass from the Bud Light stage all the way to the other side (about a 10 to 15 minute walk) to grab a good spot (if possible) to see Radiohead. Even though I wanted to be there as quickly as possible I couldn't help stopping in the Citi stage to see CSS (Cansei de Ser Sexy) who were leading a massive party. I was lucky 'cause I got to see them play Music Is My Hot Hot Sex. Enough to dance for a while and continue my pilgrimage to the AT&T stage.
Radiohead is the best band in the world. Having said that, everything in this festival cannot be compared directly with Radiohead because they compete in a different league. It wasn't the best show or set I saw during the weekend, but it was the best band I saw during the weekend, if it makes any sense. About 80,000 people witnessed what was the biggest headline of the festival. Even though I got there about 20 minutes before the show and considering that there were people sitting down to grab a spot since like 2PM, I wasn't bad located. In a very British way at 8PM sharp Radiohead opened up while the crowd went mad. The set was great overall, they played 2 hours, and not a lot of shows these days surpass the 90 minute line. Sometimes it was a bit slow, but hey, that's just the way In Rainbows works. Speaking of which, they played the album almost entirely. I enjoyed the show very much but, I would have loved much more power in the sound. I could hear the guy behind me talk, and he wasn't even yelling. Maybe that didn't help the crowd to really connect with the band. Highlights included The Bends, Fake Plastic Trees and Everything In It's Right Place played while a firework show went on, There There, Optimistic, Idiotheque, Paranoid Android, No Surprises and Lucky. Weird Fishes, Bodysnatchers and Reckoner were probably the best songs out of the new album. Even with the low sound, it was a great show.
The crowd before Radiohead started playing with Chicago's skyline at the back.
Radiohead.
Radiohead.Very tired after the 1st day of Lolla, I go t a good night sleep and rested enough to hit the second day of beer and music.
Day 2. Saturday, August 2nd.
I kicked the day off with en vogue MGMT. It was surprisingly crowded, I know they are the cool band of the moment, but I never expected this many people. The good thing is, they delivered. Unfortunately the sound didn't. Again with the sound. Nevertheless, MGMT is powerful and goo on-stage, and as my festival-buddy said about Andrew VanWyngarden, "he has a lot of Wayne Coyne in him." Which is funny, since David Friddman (Flaming Lips' producer) was behind Oracular Spectacular.
MGMTA funny thing that tends to happen in almost every festival is how surprised you can be about a band that you are only going to see because "it's what's playing at the time." And that was the case with me and Explosions in the Sky. We grabbed a couple of beers and laid back at the Bud Light stage, where there was a lot of people laying on the grass listening to 3the perfectly executed post-rock instrumental music of Explosions... It's one of the moments I enjoyed the most, and I never expected it. They are awesome live, if you ever have a chance to see them don't miss it.
The crowd listening to Explosions in the SkyUrge Overkkil is a great band that plays good, simple music. No pretensions, just plain simple. And I did enjoy their show, especially when they played Our Life Is Not A Movie Or Maybe and
The Latest Thought. And although my companion didn't agree, I saw some of Jarvis Cocker in Will Sheff.
Okkervil RiverBack in the Bud Light Stage it was the moment to experience one of the finest musical moments in the weekend. In fact, it wasn't going to get any better than this. Broken Social Scene is amazing when they play live (and on record). I personally consider Kevin Drew and Brendan Canning (along with producer Dave Newfeld) to be some of the biggest musical geniuses of our time. They brought along the large crew, about eleven musicians on-stage, Amy Millan (from Stars) included. They opened up with the instrumental Pacific Theme followed by a sick version of Cause=Time. The set was heavy on Brendan Canning's album, part of the Broken Social Scene Presents series, and there was some of the previous album from the same series, the Kevin Drew one. It didn't really matter what they played, when the music is so good you enjoy whatever they throw at you. I would have loved to see a longer set, since they only gave the band an hour. A longer show would have given us the chance to listen to Superconnected, Almost Crimes, Lover's Spit, Stars and Sons, Ibi Dreams of Pavement and other greats from You Forgot it in People and their eponymous third album. But in the end, they were definitely one of the best three acts I saw in the whole festival.
The whole gang. Broken Social Scene at the Bud Light stage. We killed an hour drinking beers after immersing ourselves again through the crowd gathered in the Bud Light stage to see Wilco. While the south part of the festival was in the middle of mosh pit crisis with Rage, the north side was enjoying a nice, smooth and friendly Wilco show. A good show I might add. People were enjoying it and having a great time, and really, it's Wilco. They remind you how simple (at least on the surface) music can be enjoyable and made to sing-along to. I am trying to Break Your Heart made an unexpected early set appearance and was very well received, although the high point was Shot In the Arm. By the time Wilco was finished I realized I was a bit drunk and had to go rest it to avoid having a hangover on Sunday.
Wilco suited in Nudie (even though it's hard to tell in this picture)Day 3. Sunday, August 3rd.
The final day of a festival has this vibe of people not wanting to let go of it, but at the same time too tired to keep going. And I guess that in paper the last day was the least attractive, at least for me. But the festival closer Kanye was something I was expecting since the beginning. And no, I didn't care missing Nine Inch Nails for Kanye. More on that later.
Tired and aching I started the day splitting between the Black Kids and Perry Farrell. Now, why Perry Farrell you might ask? Because while I was still in the Citi stage watching the Black Kids my friend calls me and tells me Perry is playing Jane Say's with... Slash. And I couldn't really miss that. Plus, the stages were next to each other.
Perry & Slash play Jane Says.
The man himselfBack to the Black Kids, they are good, I really hope the keep it going and deliver a good second album (I know they just released the 1st, but the 1st is always easier), and they do it really good on stage. Of course, I'm Not Going To Teach Your Boyfriend How To Dance With You turned the place into a big party. Really cool.
The Black KidsWe then headed to the Bud Light stage for a nice and kind of flat Iron & Wine show. Not too many highlights but not too many low points as well. Enjoyable and not too much to talk about this one.
Walked all the way back to the south stage, AT&T for Gnarls Barkley. The options were that or Love & Rockets who probably not a lot of people knew and I only know three songs of. So we made the decision to see what Gnarls had. And they don't have a lot. OK, they are good on record, good for partying. But that's it, there's nothing more they bring to the party when playing live. Nothing ever happens. Still, I had a good time while dancing to Crazy and Gone Daddy Gone.
Gnarls BarkleyWe headed back north to see the National and we did see the last two Love & Rockets songs which were rather good.
The National have a great album. But they still need to learn the stage. Especially Matt Berninger, who sometimes thinks he's Ian Curtis. But he's not. And he's not Paul Banks (Interpol) either, so he has to build a charisma of his own. They need a strong frontman. Nevertheless the music was good. The sound took a while to get there, but it did. If they keep it up we might be looking at one hell of a band in the next few years.
The NationalAgain, walked all the way south.
On the journey to see how Kanye was going to take over the world we passed by the MySpace stage where Mark Ronson was playing. Now, you can say all you want about Mark Ronson. But live, he's nothing but about having fun. And that's good. He had a very big band playing, plus inviting different vocalists to sing. Kanye, by the way, was backstage. I got there right when they were performing their version of Just (from Radioheads' The Bends), and the vocals were by Alex Greenwald from Phantom Planet. Yes, the ones from that song California. Yes, the one from the O.C. Yes, Mark Ronson invited the whole band on-stage. Yes, they played the O.C. theme song. And it was so funny and weird, that it was amazing. People went crazy, partly because they thought it was ridiculous and partly because (and you should accept it too) they really like the song. After that Mark Ronson and his band returned to perform Valerie (by the Zutons) while people danced and had fun. A lot of people were walking by at this point, it was only like 15 minutes before Kanye began. The sound of Mark Ronson's band was amazing, and even though I was having a good time I had to leave to grab a good spot for Kanye, so I left shortly after their rendition of The Smiths' Stop Me.
Mark Ronson and (part of) his gigantic band. And then the magic began.
I have never been big on hip hop. It's not that I don't like it, it's that I don't know a lot about it. I know the basics, but nothing too deep. But I know Kanye, and for that you don't have to be an expert.
This was probably one of the best shows I've seen in my life. The man is amazing in front of a crowd, he really knows how to manage the stage and the people and his intensity and energy are unbeatable. With a 90-minute hit-packed set Kanye ruled Lollapalooza. And the idea of regretting being there and not north with Nine Inch Nails never crossed my mind.
Kanye does hip-hop like a rock band. There is a DJ, but there's also a band, and a large one. Needless to say is that the best moment of the gig was when they sampled/played a version of Don't Stop Believing by Journey (which by the way must have been the most covered band in the weekend, Gnarls Barkley gave their rendition of the same song andGirl Talk sampled Faithfully for a wrapper.)
When Kanye was done we were all left wanting more. You can't get enough of this guy.
Kanye closes Lolla at the AT&T stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)