interesting article in sunday's globe, even if it's out of step by about 17 years: 'the incredible shrinking frontman'
surely there's been a paradigm shift when it comes to music frontmen, but it's dubious to assume, just because they don't exude machismo, that today's rock stars are shrinking, or that they identify any better with the masses than their predecessors did.
on the first notion, let's be frank: you don't need pyrotechnics or walls of marshalls or complicated, oversized props to engender a sense of grandiosity. all you need is a stage and spectators. and when both happen to be sharing space inside a stadium or an arena, not even a dose of earnest humility or fame-spurning (uh, wtf?) on the part of the performer can ground a billowing larger-than-lifeness.
and on to the second: you lose something essential that you had in common with the masses when you step onto a stage and spectator becomes spectacle. remember how pink floyd wrote 'the wall'? this idea isn't exactly a new one.
there's no greater nobility in winning attention with your heart worn on your sleeve* than there is in winning attention with your pants around your ankles. in fact, the argument can be made that at least the latter is more honest.
* i actually do like (not love) both radiohead and wilco, and while i'd be happy if i never heard another coldplay song in my lifetime, chris martin seems like he is actually a decent person.
