What's with Van Morrison?

If you want a real insight in Van's art try and get hold of the UK Arena documentary from 1991 which has him collaborating with various influences/peers including John Lee Hooker and Dylan - seminal stuff!

 

That's a great documentary.

 

And that partially explains the conflicting impulses regarding live performance, and his abhorrence of the trappings of fame, the album covers, the interviews, et cetera.
What people often interpret as contempt may be, in reality, the manifestation of his stage fright and self-consciousness. Just my opinion. No one but Van knows for sure.

 

For me, he a great artist because he's one of a handful of people (Dylan, Morrissey, Lennon, Waits) who can actually reach and communicate with the latent artist lying underneath the skin of the listener....

 

Kinda like Voldemort?

 

I think its really funny that people who go to the Woodlands Pavillion were angered by the fact that the supply of NINE DOLLAR beers was cut off.

I think Van did me a favor... not only did I not have the temptation to spend money on alchohol... I didn't have to deal with the parade of people wandering around in search of another beer, the restroom, or their seat.

The beer crowd does more than distract the artist... it distracts those who are there to see a concert...

Plus its not like he banned it completely - they just cut the sales off 10-15 minutes prior to the concert start.

My only complaint with the Woodlands show was it didn't match the Hollywood Bowl shows (which were two of the best I have ever seen by any artist). And I wouldn't say the Woodlands show was as fun as the Austin City Limits show - where he recorded the double CD in Zilker park.... but it was a great performance nonetheless.

I've been going to Van shows since 1986... seen him 8 times (if I'm counting correctly)....

I thought each and every one of the shows were great - but I heard grumbling as people walked out - at each and every concert.

And sometimes the grumbling is because people didn't read the ticket. Case in point... the first two Beacon theater concerts in March 1989 (on Sunday) were a charity benefit - with Van as a guest artist... Van's name wasn't even mentioned on the ticket.... But he did a great five song set with a 40 piece big band behind him... I loved it... even knowing that a lot of people left the place angry....

 

Spector picked up the award for Ike & Tina who skipped out for different reasons.

 

Must account for the high number of views. This thread was also mentioned on the Van-L mailing list (referencing the expectingrain site).

 

I could forgive just about anything Van ever did, with the exception of making his representatives harass the owners of a few "unofficial" websites enough to make them shut down the sites. Those sites were harmless and probably did Van a lot of good. They made it possible for his hardcore fans to share opinions about his music and spread information about upcoming records and concerts.
I still love his music, but his behavior in regards to "unofficial" websites p***ed me off big time. I'm glad no other major artist I know of is mad enough to do something like that.

 

>"Why? He can live comfortably on the airplay for "Brown Eyed Girl" alone.

He doesn't get anything from that song. He lost rights to it in the settlement with Bang Records. Which is not to say that he isn't wealthy from many, many other songs for which he owns full rights. Take "Have I Told You Lately That I Love You", worldwide top 10. Most of us could live comfortably on the royalties from that alone.

I've seen him, many, many times since 1975. As a general rule, avoid going to see him in outdoor venues. He is at his best in smaller venues with a roof. (there are many exceptions to his rule, but it's a good rule of thumb).

Unfortunately, he has cut back his performing schedule, so one doesn't get much of a choice right now. He has done only 10 shows this year, with only 5 more scheduled. A lot of the shows he has done or has scheduled in 2010 are at outdoor festivals or large indoor arenas.

 

I agree with you on that 100%. What happened to Michael Hayward's site was a tragedy.

Coupled with the fact that the official Van site went from not much to basically nothing shows what little understanding he has of his fan base. The whole Web Sheriff affair was nothing but bad for him. No positive upside at all.

 

That Hayward site It was a great website for fans and helped promote Van's music. Fortunately for Van fans, the Internet never forgets: the wayback machine website allows you to access that site if you really need it as a resource.

 

My first personal encounter with Van "the Man" was back in 1969...and he was a "young fart" back then...seems nothing's changed.

 

I'm not doubting the validity of your impressions of Van in the slightest, except that I must take issue with your reckless use of the word "young". Van already looked 40 when he was in Them.

 

I agree with Craig and Solitary Man, Van's choice to send lawyers after Hayward was a kind of last straw to me. The man keeps writing songs about "big time operators" with "lawyers" picking on him when he was powerless. Now he is old and rich and, fearing not he will become his enemy, he sends his legal goon squad to crush some fans.

The Hayward site was done in a very scholarly way with attributions, and a glossary. An artist like Van that wants to be taken seriously by academics should have loved that site, instead he forced it to close.

Control freaks like Van and the Zappa Family Trust have done nothing but punish their loyal fans on the internet. How can it hurt the artist if someone builds a virtual shrine to them on line? I just don't get it.

 

He has made some great music and that's what matters.

 

I'm not sure to what degree Van "wants to be taken seriously," but I can confirm, from first-hand experience, that a few scholars of American/English poetry, who were genuinely interested in working on a study or studies of Morrison's lyrics, were dissuaded by the Hayward affair.

Allowing most of his catalogue to drift out of print has further damaged his legacy. He is very close to having most of his interesting work forgotten. He doesn't care about his legacy, which I guess is his prerogative.

 

I seem to remember that the artist previously known as the artist previously known as Prince has done something similar.

 

Yes - Prince also used Web Sherrif to ensure his legal rights were not infringed.

I never really get the "you owe us something" sentiment because we deign to be loyal fans position. Get out into the sunshine and enjoy life - he's not begging you to be his fans, and doesn't demand anything from you...

 

Van's never really come to terms with the responsibilities of fame (or 'fim', as he would say). One issue, for instance, that he hasn't seemed to contemplate is how a musician would get away with charging $300.+ for tickets without an intensely loyal, even fanatic, fan base.

And really, he brings some attention on himself. My guess is he could walk down the streets of most of our neighborhoods and few except the most dedicated fans would even recognize the guy. In Ritchie Yorke's "Into the Music" book he mentions that Van wasn't even recognized as he walked through the crowd before his own press conference started. Kind of like someone loudly yelling 'don't pay any attention to me (except when I release a new product). I Am A Sensitive Artist!

That said, it must be incredibly frustrating for Van when, for instance, some in the audience talk or hoot when he's trying to get into a more meditative piece like "Fair Play". Maybe he could just ask the audience "do you want to take a trip? Then please be quiet and listen." Rather than scowling and muttering.

 

I always found it intriguing when Van sang at Roger Waters' THE WALL concert in 1990. Can you imagine the two of them together?

 

Amen, brother (or sister), amen!

 

I've been a fan since the late sixties howevere he has never been a personable, just check out his expressions from American Bandstand in the sixties. Guess that's what makes some artists great.

 

I say that he wants to gain acceptence from the academic world because he did show up to receive an honorary degree, but he snubbed the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

I personally don't blame him for not showing up to the HOF, the whole thing is so absurd. Plus Van has said for years that he is not a Rock and Roll artist. I agree with him on that point as well.

An artist doesn't owe his audience anything except his best work. However suing people for posting a detailed chronolgical record, critical analysis, and dialogue about your work is hostile.

Many artists now desire to control all aspects of their media coverage. That is insane and unrealistic.

 

I saw him in 1990, touring behind Enlightenment: I'd been aware of his cantakerousness and had read some bad reviews (along with more than a few raves). And he was briliant: in a good mood, smiling, even cracking jokes with his band (the one with Georgie Fame on keys and Andy Fairweather Low on axe). 'Here's your elocution lesson!' he shouted, when he reached the chorus of Gloria.

Wouldn't see him again, as I reckon I got lucky seeing him one one of his inspired nights.