leonardcohenforum.com

It looks so unnatural when artistes look into the camera when they're singing. Then when the camera angle changes they turn their heads and look into the number two camera so they're still glaring at you in your front room. There must be a little red light or something shining on top of the camera that the control room switches to, for otherwise the singer wouldn't know when the change occurred. It's much better when the artiste ignores the camera altogether, because it makes them so conscious of it and you become aware of the different cameras yourself and it spoils the atmosphere. You notice how the singer is trying to make a good impression and the falsity of it all becomes so apparent to the viewer. This is what happened with Jørn Hoel's two performances of 'Hallelujah' on Norwegian TV this weekend. The one where he was amidst some guests he looked only at them and the viewer felt it was real and spontaneous - it flowed so naturally. The one where he sang into the cameras gave a far inferior impression. The trouble is that the viewer may not realise why they didn't get as much pleasure from the performance as they could have done, because camerawork is insideous. You have to be objective or else you don't even realise it. My advice to Leonard, if he is to sing on TV, is to pretend the camera's not there.

And another thing I've just thought of, is that the singer mustn't keep looking down to the song text rolling down a hidden screen. Because we viewers are not daft. We know why they keep looking at exactly that same spot every time their eyes leave the camera. Even though the cameramen are always careful to never let the screen with the rolling song texts be seen we know it's there wedged between some speakers. The least the singer can do is learn the words. To tell you the truth, I don't even like it when I see them cellotape the song-list to the upper side of their guitars. I know their minds can go blank when they're doing a live show and standing in front of the spot-lights and there's lots of people and all, but if they're serious professionals and experienced and confident and have rehearsed then it's not necessary. A song has to be performed convincingly.

I love the songs where Leonard closes his eyes and is clearly lost in the song. I've never noticed Leonard playing to the cameras or appearing to use crib sheets. I've noticed him interacting with his back-up singers and musicians, but not with a particular area of his guitar or speakerdom. He's generally in such heavy concentration regarding his songs that the cameras seem to be non-existent to him. Hopefully, this advice is moot.

~ Lizzy

LC doesn't like cameras on shows, and when he rarely put them in, they had to be hidden. Rasky was keeping his cameras under and behind curtains. I think it's obvious - even 1988 shows which were recorded (three or four of dozens of them!) he seemed like he's not aware there's camera on. In 1993, only extracts of one or two shows were filmed, plus Austin City Limits! Also, I can swear that close shots of Leonard were actually made from distance, with zoom! (I am 100% sure about it in San Sebastian recording) - so he didn't see the camera near him.

That's why there's no DVD yet - those few shows are too old, and too old fashioned (San Sebastian or Austin 1988 being shot with 2-3 cameras). That will mean that one of main purposes of new tour will be the making of new DVD. That means that shows will be covered extensively with cameras. I am not quite sure how will Leonard act with that. I can bet he will let only 2 or 3 shows to be shot entirely, and that by few cameras, with someone he knows in charge (Lian Lunson seems to be person #1 at this moment).

Hi Lizzy and Tom. Thank you for your input. Yes, Leonard is generally very good when in front of those circling cameras, and that is appreciated. I just wanted to reiterate their importance and power, and give an opinion as a viewer. When he was doing a concert in Norway he secretly glued a piece of paper to his guitar so that it would nudge his memory every time he looked down. If you look carefully you can see it here. Why does he have to do things like that then?

viewtopic.php?t=5493

Hi Geoffrey ~

Are you talking about what's on top of the small curve of his guitar? I can't make it out... perhaps, it's his set list vs. lyrics.

Why does he have to do things like that? Because he writes 78 verses for every song ? I know my former husband has written the majority of the songs he sings and he says it's amazing how, even though you wrote them yourself [and he has an excellent memory], you've gone through so many revisions and possibilities, that it's easy to forget what you finally ended up with, and to remember all the words on the spot. Add to this that Leonard has never claimed to have a good memory, much less an excellent one. When he sang Suzanne [was it the Isle of Wight concert?], he lost his way midstream in the song . Perhaps, he vowed never to let that happen, again. During those days, there was also a certain amount of varying drugs and alcohol... want to talk about great impediments to memory ?


~ Lizzy

I thought it's the white piece of wood, on which that side of strings is attached... Otherwise, I never heard about Leonard having the licycs, quite contrary, John Lissauer said when he was taking Anjani to Leonard in 1985 something like "He doesn't forget any of his lines. And you have still to HEAR his songs to see what I mean!" - Maybe it was setlist, yes. Doesn't look like piece of paper to me.

It doesn't really look like paper to me, either, Tom... I'm not all that familiar with guitars, but I've never seen something stand out like that, either, in such a place... your explanation could be right, though. I need to reread the article Anjani wrote about the Key of C to see if she's ever commented on her first meeting and impressions of Leonard. I have to laugh thinking about what John Lissauer had running through his mind as he spoke of Leonard, and how Anjani had absolutely no idea of what she was about to encounter.

~ Lizzy

Same tour, same guitar. I think it's simple white part of wood or something with which the strings are attached, as I said.

Yes, it has a hardware look to it, with regular, raised edges and bolt-looking spots. Not paper at all.

Leonard plays an electro-acoustic gutar. What you can se on the top of the body of the guitar is the 'on-board' control by which he can adjust volume levels etc. Certainly not a set-list.

... and if not a set list, certainly not lyrics .

Thank you Davido. That's what I was looking for - I knew it's some part of the guitar. I am total ignorant about the instruments:-)

It's a volume control - electro acoustic.
Forgive me but I find this kind of analaysis of everything to do with Leonard and his work very tedious and then take the -aysis out of analysis.
Please....the world goes on.....life goes on...death cuts people down...kids starve.... it's a plug, in a photo.

Hi Red Poppy ~

and then take the -aysis out of analysis.

You mean the -ysis, right? ... and you a writer .

~ Lizzy

Lizzy lizzy ever busy
picking up the pieces,
yes it's true, true for you,
there's a wand'ring "a" lodged there in my thesis.
But if you twist my mental wrist
I say the thing's too banal (you'll have to work on the rhyme here lizzy)
and going on for far too long,
and much of it is anal!
I'm a writer not a typer,
it's what I do for my few bob,
but in the end the point, my friend,
is that the thigy in the photo is still just a bloody knob!!!!!