-Chron.com: Pogues stir up a big fiesta (Houston review)

[Zuzana]

Pogues stir up a big fiesta

Andrew Dansby
October 30, 2009
blogs.chron.com

FULL URL

The band was tight and the frontman, at least when singing, was largely cohesive. Nearly 20 years after earning a reputation as a crapshoot on stage the Pogues have become reliable. The band didn't exude perfection last night at House of Blues. Perfection and the Pogues fit as well as modesty and Rolex.

Frontman Shane MacGowan - the only one drinking something other than a tumbler of water - got lost on a lyric or two. But I've seen the guy in pretty much every state, from a show where he was borderline lucid to a another where he tripped before the first song, spilled his margarita, screamed an expletive and stormed off stage. Reunited with his old band and in Houston for the first time, I believe, since they played Numbers in 1989, MacGowan largely kept it together, spitting his marvelous songs with a semi-sloshed sneer that gradually stirred up an enthusiastic crowd that ranged from those who remember the band from its 1980s heyday to others not born at that time. It might not have been the best show I've seen this year, but it was a visceral thrill to see this beloved band so functional. If not the best, sentimentality made it my favorite.

I'd read an account from an earlier tour stop in Kansas City written by a disappointed concert-goer who said MacGowan was unintelligible. Last night MacGowan seemed fine when immersed in song. It was only the between-song banter that was indecipherable. Occasionally it involved Napoleon.

Often slow to get the wheels turning, MacGowan seemed on the beat from the outset with a feisty three-song opener: Streams of Whiskey, If I Should Fall From Grace With God and The Broad Majestic Shannon.

Then he took a one-song break. The breaks - there'd be a few more - were a little awkward, but Terry Woods, Phil Chevron and Spider Stacy admirably stood in for turns at the mic. MacGowan seemed to fall back on his heels on Boys From the County Hell, but after a second break he gained energy as the evening rolled on. The backstage visits are a necessary concession to a life lived a certain way. I've seen the guy look worse, hanging to a mic stand for dear life. He now walks like an elderly woman after a hip replacement. But unlike the overly blitzed nights of the past he sang with gritty purpose. His yeearghs remain among rock's finest primal screams. As for the rest of the Pogues, they have the look of gleeful survivors. Gone are the full heads of curly hair, but in their place is a clear-eyed zeal for playing this music.

He tripped up a bit on A Pair of Brown Eyes, a moot point as the lovely song is unbreakable. And from Sunny Side of the Street on, he sang, drank and smoked with persistent purpose, adding the requisite disdain to Dirty Old Town, and stirring up revelry with Irish Rover and Bottle of Smoke. He got lost on the second verse of the latter, but it hardly mattered: The chorus is the deal-closer.

A show-closing Fiesta was an apt summation for the whole thing: a celebration of people and places and drink, from con leche to brandy, shaken up into a multi-lingual froth inspired by a film shoot and a wedding, dappled with ill translations, references to Coleridge and the most joyous instrumentation (including a baking sheet) that punk orthodoxy would allow.

MacGowan then baptized himself by pouring half a bottle of wine down his gullet and the other half down the front of his shirt. The act drew hoots and hollers but was a grim reminder of how committed he is to this dubious existence, a house poet and jester and tortured entertainer. He's a weathered 51; if the band takes 20 years to come back to Houston, it seems unthinkable he'd be coming along.

So it mattered more than ever that one could understand his singing. As much as MacGowan's oceanic drinking is celebrated, it's the byproduct of what he does. The lyrics and the vocals -- smart, angry, defiant, funny, poignant and sometimes sentimental -- are what makes him a compelling and great artist with a deep catalog of memorable songs. They're the reason for the whole fiesta.

----------------------------------------
Copyright © 2009 The Houston Chronicle

[DzM]

"something something drunk singer something something wandered off stage and the others awkwardly filled in something something tragic genius something something"

[philipchevron]

"something something drunk singer something something wandered off stage and the others awkwardly filled in something something tragic genius something something"

And not a word about the Famine.

[DzM]

"something something drunk singer something something wandered off stage and the others awkwardly filled in something something tragic genius something something"

And not a word about the Famine.

He may not have got the template and had to improvise.

[Sam's Cross]

"something something drunk singer something something wandered off stage and the others awkwardly filled in something something tragic genius something something"

I think that the fatuous responses to the reviews from people who haven't seen the Pogues on a regular basis and are reporting what happened accurately seem useless. It may be that you are tired of these reviews that say the same thing, but the reviews say the same thing because they are true. A basic portion of the review of a band should be the performance of the lead singer, and consistently the performance of the singer is reported as drunk, incoherent and poor. That's because it's true. It is tiresome to have Shane's performance reviewed in this way, I quite agree, but it's tiresome that Shane's performance is so often poor. As you have seen in this forum there are many people excited to see the Pogues for the first time, or the first time in decades. For many of them the performance of Shane actually is a surprise, and a disappointment. Accurately reviewing the concert is a service that the media is supposed to provide. I'm not someone who thinks I have any business telling Shane how to live his life, but if he sucks (and I've seen him be the worst live performer I have ever seen, including local karaoke) it should be OK to say he sucks, and he should be told it too. If Shane wants to be a sad parody of himself he can then choose to be so.

[philipchevron]

"something something drunk singer something something wandered off stage and the others awkwardly filled in something something tragic genius something something"

I think that the fatuous responses to the reviews from people who haven't seen the Pogues on a regular basis and are reporting what happened accurately seem useless. It may be that you are tired of these reviews that say the same thing, but the reviews say the same thing because they are true. A basic portion of the review of a band should be the performance of the lead singer, and consistently the performance of the singer is reported as drunk, incoherent and poor. That's because it's true. It is tiresome to have Shane's performance reviewed in this way, I quite agree, but it's tiresome that Shane's performance is so often poor. As you have seen in this forum there are many people excited to see the Pogues for the first time, or the first time in decades. For many of them the performance of Shane actually is a surprise, and a disappointment. Accurately reviewing the concert is a service that the media is supposed to provide. I'm not someone who thinks I have any business telling Shane how to live his life, but if he sucks (and I've seen him be the worst live performer I have ever seen, including local karaoke) it should be OK to say he sucks, and he should be told it too. If Shane wants to be a sad parody of himself he can then choose to be so.

The point is not whether Shane's performance is fairly reviewed, it's that the same old tiresome cliches get trotted out regardless of how he performed. He is "drunk" whether or not he was, "incoherent" whether or not he sang like an angel. I've seen Shane get poor reviews for exceptional performances and raves for dreadful ones. Nobody has a problem with an objective critique, but all too often, the writer has formed his/her own take on the Pogues before the show takes place and the review is then tailored to that point of view.

[RICHB]

"something something drunk singer something something wandered off stage and the others awkwardly filled in something something tragic genius something something"

I think that the fatuous responses to the reviews from people who haven't seen the Pogues on a regular basis and are reporting what happened accurately seem useless. It may be that you are tired of these reviews that say the same thing, but the reviews say the same thing because they are true. A basic portion of the review of a band should be the performance of the lead singer, and consistently the performance of the singer is reported as drunk, incoherent and poor. That's because it's true. It is tiresome to have Shane's performance reviewed in this way, I quite agree, but it's tiresome that Shane's performance is so often poor. As you have seen in this forum there are many people excited to see the Pogues for the first time, or the first time in decades. For many of them the performance of Shane actually is a surprise, and a disappointment. Accurately reviewing the concert is a service that the media is supposed to provide. I'm not someone who thinks I have any business telling Shane how to live his life, but if he sucks (and I've seen him be the worst live performer I have ever seen, including local karaoke) it should be OK to say he sucks, and he should be told it too. If Shane wants to be a sad parody of himself he can then choose to be so.

The point is not whether Shane's performance is fairly reviewed, it's that the same old tiresome cliches get trotted out regardless of how he performed. He is "drunk" whether or not he was, "incoherent" whether or not he sang like an angel. I've seen Shane get poor reviews for exceptional performances and raves for dreadful ones. Nobody has a problem with an objective critique, but all too often, the writer has formed his/her own take on the Pogues before the show takes place and the review is then tailored to that point of view.

There is part of journalism that tells the people exactly what they think they want to hear. Not trying to drift away from the subject but being a Liverpool fan at present is an example of that. Half the reports are written before the bloody match kicks off. A local journalist who I know recently told me that at the Manchester United game some of the bigger named journos had written their reports, minus the facts about hte actual game, before the game kicked off. It was a given to them that lIverpool would be beaten as we were in a poor run of form and Man Utd are champions. He told me it was funny to see them stugling to get their actual match reports out after the game because they had to start from scratch due to us winning. Its the same in relation to the Pogues. Shane, the band and their history with alcohol is always going to be mentioned in every review even if it isnt slagging off the performance. Instead its from hte point of view Mcgowan has drank himself through three decades to be herre blah blah blah. The point is if the singer ruins the show by the condition he is in then fair enough thats fair game but as Phil states half the time its just because hes got a dirnk in his hand or maybe he has mumbled in between songs. Its the equivelant to painting by numbers if you ask me. So yeah maybe two out of ten reports that all say the same thing maybe right becaue Shane hasnt performed well (and im not saying thats true because I havent been to every single gig so I cant comment) due to his condition but that doesnt mean the motives for the journalist who wrote it is right.