Roger Water's The Wall & Anti-War Preaching??

Don't worry consumerism is alive and well at the Waters gig, 30$ tee's telling ya to Fuck The Government! 
 

SeventhSon

XeRocks81

I see what you're saying, your problem is more with activism in general.

Or even more specifically, passing activism off as art and then profiting from it.      

See, this, to me, is the root of the problem.
 
I don't see it this way AT ALL.  I have the EXACT OPPOSITE point of view.
 
It's not "passing activism off as art and then profiting from it."  It's creating/performing art, charging a lot for it, and using the opportunity to promote your agenda.  So, the activism is a by-product of the show, not the other way around.
 
FWIW, I generally share Waters' political views, but I'm sick about his whining about WWII and how he lost his daddy.  There are a bazillion things in this world that you can write about, and you've already beaten that horse to death.

Personally, I think Waters' message fits in fairly well with the whole concept of the Wall.  And in fact, your choice to reject his political commentary is kind of what started things in the first place - Waters' entire - ENTIRE artistic oeuvre is about him wanting to 'be him', say what he wants, think what he wants, and the dichotomy of that concept of 'self' vs. the audience's want of "Play Dark Side of the Moon!!!"   I know that sounds pretentious and boiling it down too simplisticly, but that's pretty much it.
 
Anyway, I look at his shows as an amazing spectacle and a supreme example of how great this country is - the First and Ninth Amendments specifically.  Even if you dont' agree with it, Waters is STILL getting to say how much he thinks the government should change, get better, stop being so hypocritical and focus on [what Waters thinks are] the critical issues.  Not every country can say that, and I think it's amazing that he - and ANYONE - can.  Even Ted Nugent :)
 
Anyway, it doesn't dominate the show, you should be fine with it. 

sarcophage


Personally, I think Waters' message fits in fairly well with the whole concept of the Wall.  And in fact, your choice to reject his political commentary is kind of what started things in the first place - Waters' entire - ENTIRE artistic oeuvre is about him wanting to 'be him', say what he wants, think what he wants, and the dichotomy of that concept of 'self' vs. the audience's want of "Play Dark Side of the Moon!!!"   I know that sounds pretentious and boiling it down too simplisticly, but that's pretty much it.

 
 
Well said.  And who ever said that Waters isn't pretentious?!!!

The way I see it, what Waters is doing by infusing current events into the production is just giving The Wall a context for the present day. It has a greater chance of resonating with the audience on more levels than just "hey watch me play this material from 1979 in its original form." If people have a chance to relate it to issues that are current, then the piece has a chance to be a more powerful experience. In the end, it is art. One of art's major functions (for many) is to challenge. 
 
I would say you are overreacting. 

This also points to another topic that could be (and has been) another thread: the role of the artist in society. A lot of people seem to think that artists are just supposed to entertain you with their work: Waters is just supposed to play the music you want to hear the way you want to hear it. If that is your expectation, then purchase the album and put on your own laser light spectacular. People make it seem like Waters is duping people by throwing in a bit of politics in the show, as though he told you it was going to be something else entirely. History is littered with artists and musicians using their art to help promote their agenda (Shostakovich, anyone?). This is because art is such a personal endeavor for anyone who does it. Waters' art is about personal and social subjects. Any extra imagery and politics he throws into the show just helps create a more complete context for his art. It would be entirely different if all of his songs were about gratuitous sex or slaying dragons, but in between songs launching into anti-consumerism rants. That is sort of akin to calling the plumber to come out to fix the toilet, and when he gets there he just launches into a soapbox tirade about unions and sex trafficking. 
 
To separate one's self from his output is just an aesthetic choice that any artist is free to make. 

I'm a little confused about what you are wanting/expecting.

You state you have listened and seen The Wall multiple times, but you don't want to hear any anti-war "preaching"? If you go see Roger's performance you will see a performance of The Wall, nothing more. Roger has very little dialogue with the audience. He let's the experience speak for itself. The latest presentation moves beyond The Wall's we build individually to The Wall's we have built as a society. War (or violence) is the ULTIMATE consequence of the human species' action of building walls between each other.

It is a beautiful experience. When I saw it last year I wept multiple times throughout the performance. I even started a thread about it. I have 12th row seats for this summers tour and can't wait.

That being said, if you are going and expecting NOT to hear "anti-war preaching", in my opinion you don't understand what The Wall is all about and you shouldn't go.

gmoneymcfly2k

People make it seem like Waters is duping people by throwing in a bit of politics in the show, as though he told you it was going to be something else entirely.

 
This is what I don't understand.
 
This is what Waters is all about!

gmoneymcfly2k


The way I see it, what Waters is doing by infusing current events into the production is just giving The Wall a context for the present day. It has a greater chance of resonating with the audience on more levels than just "hey watch me play this material from 1979 in its original form." If people have a chance to relate it to issues that are current, then the piece has a chance to be a more powerful experience. In the end, it is art. One of art's major functions (for many) is to challenge. 

I would say you are overreacting. 

Excellent point! 

Isn't the concept of war, and the effect thereof, the background to the whole story of the wall?

Isn't it the background to everything Waters does?

SeventhSon

I didn't say that I don't care about these things.  I just don't care about what Water's thinks about these things or activism in general.  When activism starts actually solving problems then I'll get on board.  

I just...
wow.
I truly have no words.

Don't take the bait - it will probably get the thread closed.

Yeah, if you want to get into activism and its efficacy, please make a new thread.

gmoneymcfly2k


This also points to another topic that could be (and has been) another thread: the role of the artist in society. A lot of people seem to think that artists are just supposed to entertain you with their work: Waters is just supposed to play the music you want to hear the way you want to hear it. If that is your expectation, then purchase the album and put on your own laser light spectacular. People make it seem like Waters is duping people by throwing in a bit of politics in the show, as though he told you it was going to be something else entirely. History is littered with artists and musicians using their art to help promote their agenda (Shostakovich, anyone?). This is because art is such a personal endeavor for anyone who does it. Waters' art is about personal and social subjects. Any extra imagery and politics he throws into the show just helps create a more complete context for his art. It would be entirely different if all of his songs were about gratuitous sex or slaying dragons, but in between songs launching into anti-consumerism rants. That is sort of akin to calling the plumber to come out to fix the toilet, and when he gets there he just launches into a soapbox tirade about unions and sex trafficking. 

To separate one's self from his output is just an aesthetic choice that any artist is free to make. 

All points well taken.  And many of the others posting before and after you.  I'm more excited about attending the show after starting and reading this thread.  Thanks for sharing your viewpoint on the matter.  It's been enlightening.

For those of you who have posted things like "what do you expect, this is what The Wall is about" you need to listen to the album and watch the movie again because it is about so much more than the ugliness of war.  It's also about things like mental illness, alienation, societal decay, and the trappings of materialistic thinking.  It really is a deep and beautiful work of multimedia art that deserves to be presented free of too much embellishment by the artist.  Artists are granted license to extend, expand, and even change their works, but they shouldn't do it at the audience's expense.  I agree that updating some of the imagery will bring the concept of The Wall into this generation so I'm 100% cool with it. 

SeventhSon


  ...[The Wall] is about so much more than the ugliness of war.  It's also about things like mental illness, alienation, societal decay, and the trappings of materialistic thinking.

This thread could've had your first post and then this one, just posted by someone else, and that would have been a good answer to why you should go and see the show
 
I still think it's great you started this thread and feel excited about going to the show.
 
Just one thing about your last post, I would say that artists are granted license to extend, expand, and even change their works, even if it's at the audience's expense. It's their works and they don´t owe us anything. If the audiences don't like it, then there won't be any audiences, you can be sure of that. At least that's what I think.
 
But don't worry. With this show, you don't have to worry about that

lalolampara

SeventhSon


...[The Wall] is about so much more than the ugliness of war.  It's also about things like mental illness, alienation, societal decay, and the trappings of materialistic thinking.

Just one thing about your last post, I would say that artists are granted license to extend, expand, and even change their works, even if it's at the audience's expense. It's their works and they don´t owe us anything. If the audiences don't like it, then there won't be any audiences, you can be sure of that. At least that's what I think.

In general, I agree with this. But, in this particular instance, people are buying tickets to see The Wall. I don't think it would be right to drastically change the original version of The Wall, while advertising it as The Wall.

lalolampara

Just one thing about your last post, I would say that artists are granted license to extend, expand, and even change their works, even if it's at the audience's expense. It's their works and they don´t owe us anything. If the audiences don't like it, then there won't be any audiences, you can be sure of that. At least that's what I think.

 

I respect your opinion, but I have to totally disagree.  What if you went to see Dream Theater and they decided to play their set on out of tune banjos, would you grant them that right?  I wouldn't.   I would demand my money back.  In business it's called a "bait and switch" scam, and you can be sued for doing it.  I also believe that with art you can't change it after public consumption much without cheapening it.  Greedo firing his blaster first is a great example.  Sorry, I'm sticking to my guns on this one.  If you sell me your art, the impression I get from it is mine.  If you change your art around too much and it changes my impression, then I'm essentially cheated at that point if you haven't clearly warned me that you have changed your art.  Roger Waters has indeed made it clear that the show is infused with his political messages, so I have no issue with that because he's being up front about it.    

SeventhSon

lalolampara

Just one thing about your last post, I would say that artists are granted license to extend, expand, and even change their works, even if it's at the audience's expense. It's their works and they don´t owe us anything. If the audiences don't like it, then there won't be any audiences, you can be sure of that. At least that's what I think.

 

I respect your opinion, but I have to totally disagree.  What if you went to see Dream Theater and they decided to play their set on out of tune banjos, would you grant them that right?  I wouldn't.   I would demand my money back.  In business it's called a "bait and switch" scam, and you can be sued for doing it.  I also believe that with art you can't change it after public consumption much without cheapening it.  Greedo firing his blaster first is a great example.  Sorry, I'm sticking to my guns on this one.  If you sell me your art, the impression I get from it is mine.  If you change your art around too much and it changes my impression, then I'm essentially cheated at that point if you haven't clearly warned me that you have changed your art.  Roger Waters has indeed made it clear that the show is infused with his political messages, so I have no issue with that because he's being up front about it.    

 
Well that's how freedom works. You're free to do what you feel like, even with art, but always within a set of rules. You break the rules and you get sued or go to jail.
 
So what I'm saying is, I'm sticking to my guns as well, while also agreeing with what you're saying. Artists still have the right to tamper with their works, even if it's at the audience's expense, as long as they are honest with it, which is the case here (as you said it yourself).
 
As for Dream Theater playing banjos, I would defenitely pay to see that

lalolampara

As for Dream Theater playing banjos, I would defenitely pay to see that

Hehe, as wrote that I realized that I'd pay to see that too.

I'm hoping to see the show in Chicago. I think what Roger is doing by using the screens to get his point across is a unique alternative to people soap-boxing on stage. He's giving you a mind-blowing spectacle, but with a message. And all he has to do is sing the songs. 

SeventhSon

lalolampara

Just one thing about your last post, I would say that artists are granted license to extend, expand, and even change their works, even if it's at the audience's expense. It's their works and they don´t owe us anything. If the audiences don't like it, then there won't be any audiences, you can be sure of that. At least that's what I think.

 

I respect your opinion, but I have to totally disagree.  What if you went to see Dream Theater and they decided to play their set on out of tune banjos, would you grant them that right?  I wouldn't.   I would demand my money back.  In business it's called a "bait and switch" scam, and you can be sued for doing it.  I also believe that with art you can't change it after public consumption much without cheapening it.  Greedo firing his blaster first is a great example.  Sorry, I'm sticking to my guns on this one.  If you sell me your art, the impression I get from it is mine.  If you change your art around too much and it changes my impression, then I'm essentially cheated at that point if you haven't clearly warned me that you have changed your art.  Roger Waters has indeed made it clear that the show is infused with his political messages, so I have no issue with that because he's being up front about it.    

Dude...WTF are you talking about?
 
Your ticket says "Roger Waters - The Wall."  That's what you're going to get.  There's no "bait and switch."
 
In your scenario, your ticket says, "Dream Theater."  If they bring out the banjos and overalls, you're getting what your ticket says you're getting.
 
I saw Dream Theater on their 1998 tour - the 12/28 show in Philly.  I bought the ticket expecting the "full Dream Theater show" - "Take the Time," "Pull Me Under," etc.  When I got to the show, there was a sign on the door that this was going to be an evening of acoustic versions, rare B-sides, etc.  Your argument is that this is "bait and switch."  My ticket only said "Dream Theater."  Dream Theater is who took the stage - I got exactly what I paid for.  Well, truth be told, I was completely thrilled to be at such a rare show, so I got much, much more than I paid for, but you get my point.

SeventhSon


For those of you who have posted things like "what do you expect, this is what The Wall is about" you need to listen to the album and watch the movie again because it is about so much more than the ugliness of war.  It's also about things like mental illness, alienation, societal decay, and the trappings of materialistic thinking.  It really is a deep and beautiful work of multimedia art that deserves to be presented free of too much embellishment by the artist.  Artists are granted license to extend, expand, and even change their works, but they shouldn't do it at the audience's expense.  I agree that updating some of the imagery will bring the concept of The Wall into this generation so I'm 100% cool with it. 

 
I don't think anyone is saying that it doesn't have those things. I am saying (and I believe Roger is saying) that WAR (and violence) is one of the ULTIMATE consequences of all of those things you listed above.
 
Again, what exactly are you expecting and why? Does Roger say "war sucks" during "young Lust"? No. Does he "say it" during ABITW Pt. 1, Vera, or BTBBH? Yes.
 
The bottom line is, The Wall has "anti-war preaching". If you son't see it (or do and don't like it) while listening to the album or watching the movie you likely won't see it (or won't like it if you do see it) in this performance. What you will experience will be a complete immersion into The Wall. Nothing that you could ever experience from listening to it or watching the movie. EVERYTHING attacks all your senses at the show. I would suggest that if you don't want to be immersed in the underlying anti-war message (or every other message that you listed above) in The Wall, don't go. 

Bails

SeventhSon

lalolampara

Just one thing about your last post, I would say that artists are granted license to extend, expand, and even change their works, even if it's at the audience's expense. It's their works and they don´t owe us anything. If the audiences don't like it, then there won't be any audiences, you can be sure of that. At least that's what I think.

 

I respect your opinion, but I have to totally disagree.  What if you went to see Dream Theater and they decided to play their set on out of tune banjos, would you grant them that right?  I wouldn't.   I would demand my money back.  In business it's called a "bait and switch" scam, and you can be sued for doing it.  I also believe that with art you can't change it after public consumption much without cheapening it.  Greedo firing his blaster first is a great example.  Sorry, I'm sticking to my guns on this one.  If you sell me your art, the impression I get from it is mine.  If you change your art around too much and it changes my impression, then I'm essentially cheated at that point if you haven't clearly warned me that you have changed your art.  Roger Waters has indeed made it clear that the show is infused with his political messages, so I have no issue with that because he's being up front about it.    

Dude...WTF are you talking about?

Your ticket says "Roger Waters - The Wall."  That's what you're going to get.  There's no "bait and switch."

In your scenario, your ticket says, "Dream Theater."  If they bring out the banjos and overalls, you're getting what your ticket says you're getting.

I saw Dream Theater on their 1998 tour - the 12/28 show in Philly.  I bought the ticket expecting the "full Dream Theater show" - "Take the Time," "Pull Me Under," etc.  When I got to the show, there was a sign on the door that this was going to be an evening of acoustic versions, rare B-sides, etc.  Your argument is that this is "bait and switch."  My ticket only said "Dream Theater."  Dream Theater is who took the stage - I got exactly what I paid for.  Well, truth be told, I was completely thrilled to be at such a rare show, so I got much, much more than I paid for, but you get my point.

I think that's a bit different.  It was still a Dream Theater show.  Them playing out of tune banjos is not a Dream Theater show.  They've released albums of their works, performed and produced a certain way and if their live shows don't represent that then it *is* bait and switch.  Doing an acoustic show is within the realm of artistic license and a rare treat, but if they got up there with acoustics and did nothing but Monkees songs you would probably be like WTF?  I don't think that what Roger Waters is doing is bait and switch but it could be if The Wall was not well represented in the show.  Like if he only performed 2 songs from The Wall as they were written, then had unrecognizable arrangements and new material for the rest of the show.  That would suck and I'd feel ripped off.  I'm not worried about that happening, and I'm excited about the show as it is.  You have to remember, I'm paying several hundred dollars per seat to see a couple of hours of live music.  I actually swore off of live shows because the ticket prices are so stupid and this is my falling off the wagon so to speak.  I have been listening to The Wall for decades, it's pretty deeply imprinted in my soul at this point.  I'd hate for that long standing impression to be tarnished by a bastardization of it.  --Like I said though, I'm not worried about this at all--  I just wanted to get other people's perspective on it.

SeventhSon




I think that's a bit different.  It was still a Dream Theater show.  Them playing out of tune banjos is not a Dream Theater show.  They've released albums of their works, performed and produced a certain way and if their live shows don't represent that then it *is* bait and switch. 

 
If it's JP, JR, JM, JLB, & MM on stage, it's a Dream Theater show.
 

SeventhSon
You have to remember, I'm paying several hundred dollars per seat to see a couple of hours of live music.  I actually swore off of live shows because the ticket prices are so stupid and this is my falling off the wagon so to speak.  I have been listening to The Wall for decades, it's pretty deeply imprinted in my soul at this point.  I'd hate for that long standing impression to be tarnished by a bastardization of it.  --Like I said though, I'm not worried about this at all--  I just wanted to get other people's perspective on it.

 
Well, he's going to perform every note of The Wall.  You're also going to get some current political commentary.

Bails

If it's JP, JR, JM, JLB, & MM on stage, it's a Dream Theater show.

 
 
Right, I get that, but if the ticket reads "John Myung Presents Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence" he better damn well be playing SDOIT!!  The ticket I purchased says "Roger Waters: The Wall".  It doesn't say "The Wall & Commentary on Current Political Topics by Roger Waters".
 
I've talked to several people who have seen the show and they all say that the visuals used are poignant and mixed up well enough not to point fingers at any one nation or culture.  This is important, because some of the people I'm going with have family in the US military and others are from the Middle East.  If Waters is using The Wall to draw a line between WW2 Germany and the US now, that would be inappropriate and hurtful to many people.  My understanding is that he shows the effects of violence on everyone from historical figures to NYC Firefighters to modern activists who have been persecuted.  I think that's a great way to put the message into a common thread without pointing fingers.  

My solution when he talks about anti consumerism is to take the opportunity to buy a 30 dollar tshirt and 20 dollar program, if I have enough money after already buying the 100 dollar ticket.