Nicholas
Reid reflects in essay form on general matters and ideas related to
literature, history, popular culture and the arts, or just life in general. You are free to agree
or disagree with him.
“LIVE” IS NOT LIVE
Let’s
imagine you are one of those people who attend rock concerts.
Let’s imagine that you are a
typical rock-concert attender – not one of the very tiny minority close to the
stage, who can see the performers sweat and watch their disdainful faces, de rigueur when rockers want to look
hip. No. You’re one of the vast majority so far from the stage that, with your
unaided eyes, all you can see are tiny figures in the distance, hopping around
and mainly obscured by the people in front of you. Face it. They could be
anyone.
But you’re really at the rock
concert, aren’t you?
Except that all you can hear of
the performance is what is artificially amplified (and distorted) by the sound
system.
The promoters might help you out,
however. They might put up huge television screens so that you can see the
performers in close-up.
Except that now you are both
hearing the music through an artificial medium and seeing the performance
through an artificial medium.
So are you really at a live event
at all?
Be honest now. How authentic, how
“live”, is your experience when you are not hearing with your own ears and not
seeing with your own eyes?
In reality, if you want to enjoy
your favourite band under such conditions, you might as well be at home
watching a rock-video or listening to some download of their music. That would
be no less “live” than you arena experience.
I know I could, at this point,
wander off into considerations of the psychopathology of rock-concert-attending
crowds, who are there as much for the ritualistic experience of being there,
and being part of a like-minded crowd, as they are there for the sake of
listening to music. But that would take me off my subject somewhat. What really
interests me is the fact that, as soon as television cameras and sound-systems
are introduced into a “live” event, they compromise and alter its “live”
status.
Let me walk away from rock
concerts to another sort of event.

The Great North Passion is of
course related to the Christian festival, but it strives to be as inclusive as
possible. Different communities around the north of England contribute
different reflections for each station, the official commentary goes out of its
way to note that the value of compassion is honoured in all the world’s great
religions, and while the performances contained some traditional hymns and
choral work, they were outnumbered by the pop, rock and blues performances.
This was for prime-time, populist TV, after all.
So how did I react to this event?
I couldn’t stifle some incidental
reflections on how the very idea of the Stations of the Cross – traditionally a
very Catholic devotion – would once have been scorned in non-Catholic England;
but in an age when public expressions of Christianity are hard to come by, it
is grabbed at enthusiastically for community performance.


And indeed there were big
monitors set up so that we could see the blues-singer and the hymn-singer and
the performance poet’s troupe and the clog–dancing lads from the mill (yes,
they were part of it) all in close-up. And we wouldn’t have to be bothered
looking at the real people with our own eyes, in the distance, tiny and
obscured over the heads of the crowd.
So put television cameras at a
live event and it ceases to be a live event. It becomes the adjunct to a
broadcast.
In this media age, to be
really there means to be looking at a TV screen.
No comments:
Post a Comment