does a great band need showy light effects? what do you think?

concert last night: amazing. What's that Victor Wooten? You think I'm a super trombone player and you want to tour the country showcasing our collective talents? Okay, sign me up. hehehe.

It's great to see musicianship like that on stage. Music that doesn't require words (although I did enjoy the songs that had lyrics) but relies solely on the power of the players, the virtuosity and ensemble tightness together. My question to you is: what do you think about flashy stage effects? Are they necessary for a band that so obviously can stand on its own? Or do they dumb down the audience, directing people's attention to a certain player or creating different "moods" that are already expressed in the music?

I appreciate the subtle effects at the beginning and ends of songs, and I did like the opening sequence with the lights when they weren't on stage. But during the songs, I thought the light effects were a little obsessive. Almost to the point of being annoying and distracting me from things I wanted to hear. For example, if the ensemble got soft, the lights would dim and add blues and pinks. If it was hot, fast, and intense, the lights got bright and danced around a lot. Lots of times if one player was soloing, the spotlights would cut off the other musicians. Or a hit in the music would be accompanied by hits in the lights, flashes.

I personally think this was stupid. Bela doesn't need that, his band works so tightly and perfectly to create moods and feature players that he is cheapened somewhat by the effects. For me, I want to see what ALL of the players on stage are doing at certain moment, and I don't want a lighting system to tell me when to look at someone. Sure, Jeff Coffin's playing a solo, but hey, isn't Futureman doing something different with that whatchamacallit, how does that thing work? Oh wait, I can't see it because they cut off the lights in that part of the stage.

I think you could also argue that the light effects are part of the artistry of the show. A gesamtkunstwerk, if you will. But I got the impression that it was more pandering to the audience's lazy side, the part that watches a lot of movies with intense visual effects and music tuning in at the right moment to let you know when the villain enters. Those kinds of movies, or any kind of movie, is gesamtkunstwerk too, no? A total work of art involving visual and aural effects in many combinations. But how far do we take such works? How far is too far, where you're simply handing emotions to the audience on a platter? I know that Wagner had something different in mind for gesamtkunstwerk; using a movie is the closest analogy of our present time I could think of.

So while the Flecktones stage effects were by no means crazy aerial stunts and fog machines, I can't help feeling cheated by the flashiness. A little insulted perhaps. Of course, I'm used to hearing music on its own, in concert halls and bars. Much of my perspective comes from a classical training and I have more concept of musical forms than the average Joe, I suppose. My dad and I had a conversation the other day about how, when he would go to see my band concerts, he always felt like the music was over his head, and that we should play more common tunes like marches and standards. While I shudder at this (what musician wants to play marches at every concert? Not me that's for sure) I can see that he is coming from a background with little to no musical experience or knowledge. Sometimes art music has to be understood to be appreciated fully. I agree with Davis that art music is lessened by its presence in commercials and movies, but I see it as part of the growing trend of caring only about music if it can be used to portray emotion when combined with a visual effect (or,as the case may be, sell beef). What is needed is more music education, more music appreciation, and less selling out. Hard enough to do as it is. Now throw in a little Britney Spears and stir. Sensationalism. Ye-haw.

An interesting side note though: think about a scene in a movie, say a horror film. The protagonist is entering a scary scene, it's dark, windy, the trees are all bent and twisty, etc. Cue a string bass. Low note, no vibrato. The music builds and builds, leading us to expect that at any minute a crazy chainsaw-wielding mass murderer will leap from a tree and commence bloodshed. Now imagine this same scene, without the music. You might still expect something freaky to happen, but without the characteristic low string note, you might not anticipate it quite so much. Now, take the music without the scene, and you still get the shivers, no? Because music has a power on its own that cinematic effects do not. Music will allow your imagination the full extent of possibility, while a visual scene is often limited to the meaning the director intended.

My conclusion: Music=awesome. Bela Fleck=awesome. Sensationalism=bad.