The Eagles aren't Live Anymore and Real Music Doesn't Sell

[Joe Guy]

You don't need to watch the entire video below to get the point. The Eagles, or at least Don Henley's vocals, are being lip-synched at their concerts. Some people are claiming that the band isn't even playing their instruments on at least some songs.

Would you pay hundreds of dollars to see that?

And a lot of music now being released digitally - even rock & roll classics from the past - have pitch corrected vocals. Just think, you can now find comfort in the fact that if you buy a current release of an old song from your favorite vocalist, chances are that you will hear a perfect electronically corrected vocal.

Can you imagine buying something by Enrico Caruso or even someone like Janis Joplin and getting pitch corrected vocals?

Could happen...

[Jarlaxle]

Modern technology has ruined music.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Interesting. I'm convinced.

On a similar note, I noticed that there was a Tutankhamun exhibition in Washington DC in a month or two. That stuff rarely leaves Egypt and I still kick myself for missing it when it was in London in the 70s if memory serves. I was to the point of booking a ticket - $30 or so which I thought wasn't bad - plus of course flight and hotels which would easily take it well into four figures when I took another look at the web site - it's all reproduction! To their credit I have seen this sort of thing before where they try to hide the fakery in the small print, and this one was more up front about it. But there is a tendency to be seduced by the images of the golden mask and the chair and all that and I would not be surprised if there are some people who think they are seeing the real thing.

And in a sense there is a debate to be had. Go to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa and you'll be lucky to get within 50 feet and even that is obscured by camera waving tourists. A faithful reproduction by a skilled artist might be more interesting. (Or, IMO, go to the Leonardo in the Smithsonian - you can stand inches from it and again IMO, it's a better picture. But don't tell the French.)

[Burning Petard]

A decade or so back I had a friend who was old and hated to drive. He was also a serious painter with training at the art school near Carnegie Hall that he sort of told was actually run as a student collective. I bribed me by paying parking and entrance fees (he knew how to get discounts) at museums and galleries in NY City, Baltimore and DC.and good meals if I would drive him. I did stand in front of the Leonardo Andy mentions above. My friend just about swooned in ecstasy just be in its presence. He also convinced me that 'good reproductions' somehow are absent the soul and spirit of the creator, it really makes a difference to see the real thing. I am pretty much an art philistine, but I have been exposed to some nice stuff that I liked. In 1963 I was in a museum in Venice Italy that was showing some real paintings by Hieronymus Bosch, all on small slabs of wood. There were plastic sheets mounted on pedestals in front of each of them. There was not much of a crowd there and I could get my nose right up next to the plastic--and I could still see very little of the main figures, let alone all the detail that makes his stuff so wonderful. The light was just too low, and perhaps the color had faded. In this particular case, good art books were much better.

snailgate

[BoSoxGal]

One of the reasons I chose DC for law school was the Smithsonian and all the other museums and memorials and monuments that I would spend my free time (ha!) visiting.

I found out that I really hate crowds of people when trying to contemplate art and history. One of the worst experiences of my life was finally after years getting to tour the US Holocaust Museum and being there along with lots of school kids on spring break who failed to engage their humanity as they joked and horseplayed in front of the piles of shoes and eyeglasses of dead Jews.

When the global shutdown happened at the start of the pandemic, seeing all the photos from all over the world of historic places and works of art and architecture empty of crowds of people made me truly yearn for travel to those places as I never had before and don’t since.

It’s too peopley out there.

[BoSoxGal]

Wait, I just watched some of this video.

Is this guy seriously suggesting that the nearly identical recordings of the same song repeatedly over months and years proves the band is lip synching?

Am I missing something?

Music is all about timing and precision. I’m sure my acapella choir made recordings in high school that were nearly identical to other performance recordings of the same pieces. We drilled those pieces for months and months and months until we had the timing and pitch in precise control.

After singing and playing Desperado for decades, wouldn’t the band have more performances than not which were nearly identical in timing and pitch?

[Joe Guy]

Wait, I just watched some of this video.

Is this guy seriously suggesting that the nearly identical recordings of the same song repeatedly over months and years proves the band is lip synching?

Am I missing something?

Music is all about timing and precision. I’m sure my acapella choir made recordings in high school that were nearly identical to other performance recordings of the same pieces. We drilled those pieces for months and months and months until we had the timing and pitch in precise control.

After singing and playing Desperado for decades, wouldn’t the band have more performances than not which where nearly identical in timing and pitch?

He compared the vocals from two separate live concerts with pitch monitoring software and it shows they are identical, which is impossible to achieve with a live voice. Instruments can be tuned identically but human vocal chords will always have a variance, no matter how slight.

I've been to many live concerts and I've never heard a singer sing a song where his/her voice sounded exactly like the record.

[Jarlaxle]

That.

[Sue U]

I go to live performances specifically because I expect them to be different from the recording, and I expect each performance to be different from all others. That's the whole point of ephemeral art, and it's where the fun is. Will the band break out into a cover of an old Chuck Berry song, just because they'd been fooling around with it before the show? What are the solos going to be like this time around? Are they going to take a rocking banger and slow it down to a waltz, or vice versa? What kind of energy will there be between performer and audience? I'm planning to see Hilary Hahn next May in a recital playing three of Bach's six Sonatas & Partitas for unaccompanied violin. I have her recordings, which I have studied intensely, some to the point of memorization. As good as the recordings are (and they are sublime), I'm going for the thrill of the live performance, to see what nuance and color and texture she adds or removes, what changes she makes in tempo and phrasing, and to hear what she may have to say about all of it. I would be severely disappointed if she just came out, played exactly what was on the record and left.

As for visual arts, my younger daughter took me to the Barnes Foundation museum in Philadelphia last month, where they have the most amazing collection of (largely) French impressionist paintings. Cezannes, Matisses, Monets, Van Goghs and Picassos no one has ever seen outside of the museum, since the collection doesn't travel and is not reproduced in art books. They have 181 Renoirs alone. To see the real thing up close and personal was truly breathtaking.

[BoSoxGal]

The Art of the Steal is a very interesting documentary about how the Barnes collection came to live in Philadelphia. I haven’t been to Philly since I saw the film, but it’s been on my bucket list to see that collection someday. Lucky you!

[Sue U]

The Art of the Steal is a very interesting documentary about how the Barnes collection came to live in Philadelphia. I haven’t been to Philly since I saw the film, but it’s been on my bucket list to see that collection someday. Lucky you!

Despite living here in metro Philly almost my entire life, I had never been to the Barnes before. It was a pain in the ass to get to its original location in suburban Lower Merion; it had really inconvenient hours of operation and (as I recall) limited admission. I had always planned on going at some point, but just never got around to it. (Meanwhile, I had been to the Met and MOMA and the Guggenheim numerous times; apparently, NYC is a lot easier for me to get to than the Main Line suburbs.) Of course I lived through all the local news stories and courtroom drama of breaking the Barnes Trust and moving the collection downtown, but the new facility has been open a dozen years now and I only just got there. But had I known what was actually in the collection, I would have gone decades ago and been a frequent repeat visitor. If you like art, it is really a must-see museum.

[Burning Petard]

My friend the old painter could really get on his high horse about the Barnes collection. He said it was assembled and displayed originally as a teaching tool. Pictures were grouped by some particular visualization problem and showed how different painters handled the same problem-- NOT the same subject. It was also located and managed to discourage people from just wandering around looking. There were lots of real classes offered and few 'exhibits.' Then the people running the foundation that took over after Dr. Barnes death, found a judge who was happy to let them abandon the instructions in the Barnes last will and testament. Much more benefit to the public to put it where the foundation managers could justify much higher salaries

snailgate.

[Joe Guy]

.....On a similar note, I noticed that there was a Tutankhamun exhibition in Washington DC in a month or two. That stuff rarely leaves Egypt and I still kick myself for missing it when it was in London in the 70s if memory serves. I was to the point of booking a ticket - $30 or so which I thought wasn't bad - plus of course flight and hotels which would easily take it well into four figures when I took another look at the web site - it's all reproduction! ....

At least they've revealed that it's a reproduction.

It's pretty sneaky for a band to fake vocals at a "live" concert. It's not like the Eagles show is a highly visual production with dancing and band members swinging from the rafters. That would at least give them an excuse.

[BoSoxGal]

My friend the old painter could really get on his high horse about the Barnes collection. He said it was assembled and displayed originally as a teaching tool. Pictures were grouped by some particular visualization problem and showed how different painters handled the same problem-- NOT the same subject. It was also located and managed to discourage people from just wandering around looking. There were lots of real classes offered and few 'exhibits.' Then the people running the foundation that took over after Dr. Barnes death, found a judge who was happy to let them abandon the instructions in the Barnes last will and testament. Much more benefit to the public to put it where the foundation managers could justify much higher salaries

snailgate.

You would appreciate the documentary I mentioned, Art of the Steal. After I watched it, I was very sad that I could never visit the Barnes Museum the way the founder had intended, and inspired that the vision had ever existed. And frustrated by the legal manipulation that had occurred.

Here’s a link to the full film: https://youtu.be/opOczQeFIb4?si=b9oEnviMZ4YpuH0f

Here’s a trailer:

[Big RR]

I'm actually of two minds on this; I have been to the Barnes twice, once in the old location and the other in the new, and have enjoyed both. i thinlk I have a little bit of a leaning toward the old location, but then that may be just because it was the first time I saw all that artwork. Also, unlike BP's painter friend, I enjoy the wandering in art museums and seeking out what inspires me at one time or another--not everything has to be a lesson (although i have heard great lectures on fine arts as well). I would like to see the documentary when I get a chance.

However, I do think that we cannot freeze everything as a tribute (or shrine) to the benefactor; IMHO, art is meant to be experienced and not to be curated in an immutable way. To make the art more accessible (and Sue is right, the old location was pretty inconvenient; I don't know if public transportation was avaialble, but I recall driving there) is a good end IMHO. And, FWIW, I seriously wonder how many artists would have been supportive of exhibiting their art in the manner it was in the old Barnes (or the new one for that matter). Art is something that is living and the impressions change over time.

Personally, I do think the manner in which art is displayed can greatly change the impressions given; I am reminded of the statue of the charging bull in NYC and the placement of the "Fearless Girl" statue in front of it which, as the artist of the bull statue argued, seriously changed the impression conveyed to the observer. While I personally thought the message of the two together was much more profound, I do think the artist (or failing that, the owner) of the sculpture should have some say. But this should not be dispositive, not r should it be perpetual.

[Sue U]

My friend the old painter could really get on his high horse about the Barnes collection. He said it was assembled and displayed originally as a teaching tool. Pictures were grouped by some particular visualization problem and showed how different painters handled the same problem-- NOT the same subject. It was also located and managed to discourage people from just wandering around looking. There were lots of real classes offered and few 'exhibits.' Then the people running the foundation that took over after Dr. Barnes death, found a judge who was happy to let them abandon the instructions in the Barnes last will and testament. Much more benefit to the public to put it where the foundation managers could justify much higher salaries

snailgate.

You would appreciate the documentary I mentioned, Art of the Steal. After I watched it, I was very sad that I could never visit the Barnes Museum the way the founder had intended, and inspired that the vision had ever existed. And frustrated by the legal manipulation that had occurred.

I think the current museum has done a tremendous job preserving Dr. Barnes's vision and approach to art education/appreciation. The gallery walls and groupings have been duplicated and arranged exactly as they were in the original building, meant to illustrate Barnes's ideas of the four principal elements of painting: line, color, light and space. The staff was great at pointing out some of the things Barnes meant to show with the groupings and leaving us to discover others on our own. They still offer classes -- in fact, more than were available previously. And there is an additional space devoted to telling the life story of Dr. Barnes and his educational mission.

The story of the move is not a mystery or a thriller -- although I see how it could be told that way -- but a saga of legitimately competing interests in preserving the collection, furthering its mission and honoring the founder's intent under current conditions (Barnes had died half a century before the move was even proposed; as I recall it, the foundation was facing financial difficulties, complaints from its neighbors, had a deteriorating building and risked damage to the collection). I am glad for the new facility and its improved accessibility; it is a lovely addition to the other fine arts institutions on the Parkway.

ETA:

I've watched the first 15 minutes of the film and look forward to seeing the rest. Its characterization of the collection as "jaw dropping" is absolutely accurate: that was exactly my reaction, I couldn't believe what I was seeing both in quality and quantity.

[Big RR]

I honestly cannot recall my first visit enough to comment on how much the displays of the art were changed, but my one impression when I visited the second location was that you could get a lot closer to the paintings in the original museum. That was nice, but in light of how some people treat museum exhibits, it may have be much better for maintaining the art. Personally, preventing the paintings from being damaged and amking the venue more accessible are positive things.

[Sue U]

OK, I watched the film (Art of the Steal) and it was kind of fun in terms of storytelling, but it primarily featured a bunch of cranky old men lamenting the transformation of the Barnes from a spiteful poke in the eye of elite Philadelphia society to a publicly accessible institution integrated into the city's cultural landscape. I'm not at all sure that anyone was actually cheated along the way or the collection "stolen," but I am not generally inclined to let the dead dictate to the living anyway. It's been a century since the slights, grievances, grudges and acrimony that lead to Barnes's self-imposed isolation, and I don't see any need to perpetuate hard feelings of the past, especially when all the actual parties are long gone. As I said above, Barnes's arrangements and his ideas of experiencing art are well preserved, his personal socio-political mission is well represented, and exponentially more people can now learn first-hand about both him and his magnificent collection.

[BoSoxGal]

That’s all good to hear. I’ll keep it on my bucket list if I ever get back to Philadelphia.

That and another visit to the terrific Indian restaurant not far from the art deco hotel I stayed in when I visited in the early 2000s while at a legal services conference in Philly. Hopefully the restaurant is still there!

I do hope some good use was found for the lovely buildings and grounds of the Barnes foundation.

And I’m glad more people can see the art now!