"When Every Year We Hear The Birds Of Summer Sing" Part One - Spinning The Story Threads Of A GBS Show (Asheville Orange Peel Photos)
Asheville, in my own microcosmic subjectivity. (Alan Doyle, Run, Runaway Singalongs)
***************************************************************************************************************************
One of my very first journalism assignments was to cover the weekly meetings of a local elected council; when in my rookie enthusiasm I asked the reporter who had this beat before me what I needed to know to do a good job, his advice was drinking a large cup of strong coffee before each meeting and picking up a copy of the minutes afterwards for transcribing word-for-word into my story, since that's all he ever wrote about the meetings. When he went to the meetings. At times, he confessed, he just came by after to pick up the minutes and wrote it up from those.
Not the sort of advice that sits well with rookie enthusiasm, even less so when I scoured back issues and found that, sure enough, his prior stories were each and all the same: A brief paragraph of summary, then a long list of council actions that read, not surprisingly, like meeting minutes. Thinking perhaps that story length might have been a limiting factor (size always matters in journalism), I went to my News Editor and asked him if there was space for a longer council story than had been the norm. He raised a sardonic eyebrow and me and told me I had as much space as I thought the story required. I was so green I missed the subtext of that comment.
I went to my first council meeting that week, and I found it fascinating in a very weird way, in a stuff and nonsense sort of way. The stuff of what was going on - agenda item after agenda item coming up in relentless succession, each being perfunctorily discussed for a few minutes then summarily voted on before moving on to the next - was indeed mind-numbing, worthy in and of itself of creating the need for a strong caffeine fix. But the nonsense of what was going on - the personal dynamics of the council members as they went through the paces of their usual weekly routine - immediately caught my interest.
One council member openly slept through most of the meeting, his burbling snore heard quite clearly during conversational lulls. This was obviously a normal state of affairs - each time it came time to vote, the member to his left would elbow the sleeper awake, and the now-awakened one would blearily vote "No". To every single item. Then he drifted straight back off to sleep again eachtime. Not a one of the rest of them seemed to think there was anything odd about this; it had the appearance of a long-standing circumstance (which, I would discover at subsequent meetings, it most certainly was).
Two other council members were clearly steadfast allies and even more clearly steadfast opponents of the beleaguered and somewhat bumbling council president. The two comrades would agree with each other on cue - a perfectly timed duet of mutual support - and they attacked as a duo as well, sometimes with utter and vituperative scorn, directing insults toward the other members, even casting aspersions on the spouses and children of the other members. The fifth member was idealism's masochist, throwing himself diligently into every fray, diligently arguing the merits and demerits of each agenda item. And being mostly ignored by the others, all of whom would roll their eyes and take turns making motions to end the solo debate and vote on the matter, provoking yet another exasperated sigh from the diligent one. Again, the reactions of all the members gave the distinct impression that this was all part of the same dance that took place every week (and again, time would show me that it was).
I looked around the empty council chambers within which I was the only spectator at a meeting that was open to any member of the public, to any person who had cast a vote for or against the members now behaving in such a fascinatingly foolish manner. I thought about how I'd sure be interested in hearing about how my elected representatives went about governing my affairs.
So I went back and wrote it all, being careful to start my start my story with the expected summary paragraph. In good "cut from the bottom" journalism style, I put the usual minutes-summary next. Then I added several paragraphs of description, written as best and as descriptively as I possibly could within the alloted time, about how the council members had gone about dealing with all those listed agenda items. I took a deep breath, handed my story over, and crossed my fingers.
The next day, the paper came out and there was my story, intro paragraph and minutes-summary only, all the rest edited into oblivion. I took my wounded pride into the News Editor's office and asked him what I'd done wrong. He told me what I'd written was great, that he'd loved reading it, but that the subscribers of this paper were the kind of folks who don't want to know what fools they had elected; what these readers wanted to hear was that their duly elected officials were hard at work and they wanted to see a tangible summary of that hard work. He said I'd told an excellent story - and a true story as well - but it wasn't the story this audience wanted to hear. This audience wanted the other story - also true in its own way, he pointed out, sardonic eyebrow dancing once again - told by the final, edited version of what I'd written.
I was young, I was naive, I was idealistic. Truth be told, I suppose I was somewhat stunned. "But it's only a partial truth!" I sputtered back at him. "It doesn't show how things came about. It doesn't show the context of what happened."
He shook his head and sighed, not unkindly but with some exasperation. I could see him trying to keep his dancing eyebrow on the straight and level. And then he taught me something more valuable than anything I'd ever learned in Journalism 101: "People, most people, don't want context. They don't want to know how or why something happened. What they want to know is what happened and what they want even more is for what happened to be the way they think it should have happened. Your job is to tell them what happened and make them think it happened the way they wanted it to happen. That's what they want from you and what they expect from you, whether they admit it or even know it; that's the way they want you to spin if even if they call that spin "Reality". If you want to write about the whole truth and context and causes, you've got to find people who want to hear about those things because that's how they want things to be spun in their version of reality. "
Yeah, I wrote down what he said at the time, diligent little journalist that I once was. And I kept those words, decent writer that I hope one day to be. After quite a long time had passed, I even came to understand what those words were saying.
****************************************************************************************************************************
We all - except perhaps for the most doggedly literal among us - indulge in the fine art of Spin, most often the self-serving version of that art, and occasionally the result of considerate kindness for others. Remember the first time you told your mother about something you did that you know you weren't supposed to do, but in telling her you managed to make your part in the illicit activity sound way less significant than it really was? Spin. The thoughtfully approving essay you wrote about the novel you detested but that your professor thought the greatest-ever work of literature in the history of mankind? Spin. The "You look great in that colour!" response to your friend's question about how she looks in a horribly ill-fitting dress? Spin.
For some people in some professions - any endeavour with an audience, an audience of one or dozens or thousands, be it stage performers or writers or politicians or sales people - dealing with Spin, the persuading-others version of the art, becomes a part of their daily life, no matter whether they want it to or not, no matter whether that connection is a conscious choosing of or a stubborn rejection against.
And Spin goes beyond words - spoken or written. As familiar as I've subsequently become with Word-Spin over the years, it's only been recently that I am beginning to understand how photography can be used to shape perception, not only in the obvious ways of such alterations to reality as air-brushing and digitally enhancing (or crude and all-too-often tacky amateur efforts at photoshopping) but also in terms of selection and emphasis. One secret to Spin is to be found in playing fast and loose with context: Everything you say or write or show can be absolutely true, but by choosing to say/'write/show only certain things - even by choosing to put a focus on only certain things - you can take those things out of their original context and create a perception considerably removed from the actual event in question. Sometimes that's done deliberately - spin intentionally directed outward for the purpose of persuasion - and sometimes it might be done less consciously, yet another version of self-serving spin, this time a wish-fulfillment attempt to restructure reality along preferred lines.
Though some will say there is no "reality" per se, that all that exists is indvidual perception. No greater significances, only isolated and manipulable subjectivity, an infinite number of stories, each as fundamentally meaningful (and meaningless) as the other. Those are the people who say anyone is a fool for trying to understand such nonexistent things as larger truths and context and causes, even more of a fool for trying to weave those threads of individual perceptions into a bigger story.
Then there are the ones who chastise those of us who resort to "scrutiny" and "documentation" in our hope for a clearer understanding, some saying such efforts interfere with their own need for an emotional response "unfettered" by examination, that thinking about it spoils the happy fun of their simple story. Others object apparently out of concern for what such scrutiny and documentation might possibly reveal, a worried reluctance to know where such understanding could lead, perhaps even a deeply-rooted pessimism about what story-threads could be spun and what tale woven from the vantage point of that understanding.
Welcome to the World Of Great Big Sea, a place I find terrible wonderful, a place of inspiration and determination and occasional heartbreak, a place of awe and anger, frustrating disappointment and abiding affection. For others, it's their Happy Fun Place Of Escape. To each the story they most want to hear, and to each the spin that sends them in their chosen direction.
On with The Story - with The Stories - Of The Asheville Show.
I've seen many day-after-the-show newspaper stories about Great Big Sea. It's usually a short blurb about how much fun the show was and that blurb is usually accompanied by a solitary photo, a photo that is invariably one of Alan either pouring it on with fierce intensity or smiling with beatific satisfaction. A photo that leaves a lasting impression/perception of what that show was like, an impression/perception that is absolutely true in that the photograph documents a genuine show moment and absolutely consistent with what I'd venture to guess most readers want to believe all GBS shows are like.
Kind of like these genuine show moments from the Asheville Orange Peel show:
Or maybe, just once, an isolated and non-contextual Genuine Moment with Sean might be the summarising photo of choice:
All four moments are certainly true: Alan's When I'm Up was intensely powerful and his Captain Kidd charmingly persuasive; Sean's Sweet Forget Me Not was touchingly tender. But none of these four photos comes close to approaching a summary or encapsulation of what the Asheville show was like overall, or at least the impression and effect of that show on me. The single photo I began this entry with comes closer to that impression and effect, though even it still falls short of what I saw as being a complicated show. If I'd come across a post-Asheville-show paper with any such photo as one of these latter four and the usual "it was lots of fun" blurb, I'd be none the wiser about what had actually taken place at the Orange Peel that evening, although for some it might be that what I read and saw could have made me feel as if I'd been told that things had gone the way I thought they should go, perhaps telling some people exactly the story they most want to hear.
Then there's how fans display show photos (including myself in this since I've done some of this too). The photo albums on various sites (Photobucket, Image Shack, Flickr, etc., and of course blogs as well) can sometimes be interesting and even informative, at least when the photos are of decent quality, since they can give some clue of the larger sequence of events during a show, though I've learned from my own experience that even the most carefully crafted and thoroughly contextualised set of show photos can be (and likely will be) quickly unravelled into individual, isolated pictures in subsequent Image searches, photo saving, and website postings.
Next are the photoessays/photo threads that use specific photos to establish a particular point of view - what kind of show the photographer thought it was and/or how dancey/dreamy/desirable one or more band members was that night. This option seems to be when context is at its most dispensable, since individual "droolworthy" photos wind up being saved by admirers of a given individual and/or posted in separate Hot Photos Of My Favourite Band Member threads, thus removing the photo from much if any sense of which song was being performed where or with whom under what circumstances. Yet another story winds up being told in that approach.
The story told by the fan who wants the focus to be on her own dreamy most-preferred fellow to those seeking a drool-and-thud-emoticon-inducing tale might include such photos as these Asheville shots:
Alan Doyle & Sean McCann (And because context is always going to matter to me: Consequence Free, 2 John Barbours, Gideon Brown, and 5 Living-Room Sea Of No Cares, respectively.)
Those who instead want to tell - as well as those who expect to hear - the They Were All Smiley/Dancey And Having Great Fun At The Show Where There's No Other Place They'd Rather Be Instead story might very well go with these Asheville photos (and use your imagination to pretend I actually got some pictures of Dancing Bob At The Back Of The Stage too):
Alan Doyle, Sean McCann, Bob Hallett
Alan Doyle (Charlie Horse's "stalwart men", 3 from Scolding Wife, Captain Kidd, 3 between-song "banter moments" - including Murray's spot-on Sean-provoked Sam The Eagle impersonation - a much-envied Kris gives a more-deserving Alan a hug during Excursion, and 2 from the pre-Run, Runaway Singalong's Bohemian Rhapsody.)
Again, all of these pictures show genuine moments from the Asheville show, one as real as the other. Every single photo is true - small, individual truths that are each a part of the larger truth of the whole show. Or, for those content with the story told by any one photo or any group of photos - those who find in such photos what they think should have happened at this show, what they expected would happen at this show - as much of the truth as is wanted.
Because this entry is getting long and rather graphics-laden, I think I'll wait for the next entry to tell two more stories from the Asheville show, the first being a confession of my own favourite tale (homophonic pun intended) to tell - the one where Alan Doyle is the most impressive and compelling performer/songwriter I've ever encountered, along with being the most gorgeous, sexy, expressive, and endearing too (might as well be honest about my own version of reality, after all) - the second being the story of a much more challenging Asheville show (a bit more dizzying spin) than has been apparent in all of the preceding photos. And maybe, just maybe, with the hope of weaving all of the disparate story-threads - the separate genuine moments and the small individual truths - into a story that comes close to approaching those notions of whole truths and context and causes.
Still naive and idealistic - and somewhat stunned as well - after all these years.
Back for Part Two in a few days.


































Alan Doyle











































































