(note: this may not seem to be typical "guitar lesson content", but actually it is....)
I saw - saw - David Bowie for the first time as a co-headliner with Nine Inch Nails.
It
was a very clever show, one of the most brilliant ideas I’ve seen. As
his set progressed, Trent Reznor came onstage to sing with Bowie. Then
another song, but one of Bowie’s band would leave, then one of Reznor’s
would come onstage.
This
progressed until it was Nine Inch Nails, but with Bowie singing
Reznor’s songs. Bowie bows out, and it’s just Nine Inch Nails.
Very clever, completely dispenses with standard operating procedure at a
concert. Executed flawlessly, in a very naturally evolving way. That
his music could flow so seamlessly into Reznor’s is a testament to his
oeuvre. Bowie’s music spanning my entire lifetime, through a “set” that
documented how he stayed on top of trends, and set trends, all the way
up to the Modern Era.
What
I remember most from the experience is how captivating a presence he
was in reality. Everyone knows of his theatrical delivery, combined
with kinesthetic/dance motifs. Veritably Madonna before Madonna, always
changing his “look and feel” in brilliant and novel ways.
But live, a few feet in front of you, it’s different. There is an X
factor at play. Things come across that a camera does not resolutely
pickup, that lens distortion and depth of field conspire to obscure.
He did a cross section of his characters that night, Thin White to Ziggy. His facial musculature as he sang, it’s composure, for each song was different. The
timing of how his brow fell on a sentence, the tension in the cheek
muscles. His posture made his clothes fall in a very particular way,
and depending on the character, it might be perfectly still, or
unsteady. Very subtle movements you can’t see on television.
The net effect was two things. One, “this person is completely
committed to this character”. Not evidenced by a coarse stage acting of the raising of the
eyebrows, but in the gravitas of the tension - or lack of - in the
facial muscle movements. On the movie screen, you get a hint of this
on a tight closeup with a narrow lens with some star actors. Though as part of that you don’t
see the poise of the person. It’s not the same effect.
When it’s in front of you, it’s extremely compelling; like an exotic
animal, it’s art. This guy stalked around the stage as different
personas for an hour, for each song, illustrated a different
“animal”, a blend of effects he physically created. This was
educational for me, because you read anecdotes from people talking about
the “physical presence” of a famous or historical person, and you think
it’s hyperbole - it’s not. Some people on the planet have what I might
call an “extroverted kinesthetic high I.Q.”, and awareness of what
their physicality is conveying in conjunction with being able to
manipulate it for effect. When people talk about Bill Clinton’s
“personal charisma”, or Elvis’ “charm” - as if it’s something you don’t
know, they’re saying it because they realize perhaps it really is
something you don’t know.
Just
like having a high musical I.Q., or verbal intelligence, I think this
can be a phenomena that is a top-percentile bracket that one just does
not commonly experience. In turn, being aware of such a thing could be
completely off your radar.
In this sense I think seeing Bowie live is actually something akin to
seeing history in front of you: a rare, unique individual. I can
imagine how someone with this subtle control of personal affect could
become famous in other ways, for better or worse. He used it to maximal
effect for art.
Two (yes, I remember I wrote “two things”) - that character-induced
effort to control facial musculature was having an impact on his vocal
delivery.
It sounds silly, but when you talk with a smile on your face you sound
different, even if you think you are being neutral in your delivery,
than if you frown. With Bowie, jutting out the angle of his chin,
holding it there, or holding a sideways frown - while singing imparted a
subtlety to the sound of the delivery. It yielded the conviction
required to sell the character. It imbued color and character.
Something that is mostly lacking in 21st century vocal delivery, with
it’s perfectly-mediocre, staid execution.
I’m not the biggest Bowie fan, apart from a handful of songs I like
greatly. I thought his show would be interesting, but I did not expect
captivating. Something akin to enjoying watching Nicholson flip out,
or Walken simply be “Walken”, except in 3D in front of you; but with
much more potency than is conveyed through secondary media.
It
makes me wonder what it’s like to see someone like a De Niro, Dustin
Hoffman, 6 feet in front of you in real life portraying a character. Is
it a similar potency, that while diluted through a lens still comes
across? A thought I would not have pondered prior to seeing - literally -
David Bowie.
