Albert King: Live in Sweden [DVD]

Peter Su

Albert King

Live in Sweden [DVD]

Label: Image Entertainment
US Release Date: 2004-02-10
UK Release Date: 2004-02-23

If you're a fan of King's, you'll no doubt appreciate seeing him at extended length (even if he doesn't perform "The Hunter", though he does do "Born under a Bad Sign"). Still, especially as an introduction, this DVD is rather disappointing. It's relatively short (just under an hour) and it only features only seven songs (albeit seven lengthy versions of those songs). It also intersperses an interview with Albert King between certain songs instead of putting it all together at the end (though, thankfully, the interview clips are listed as separate tracks that can be watched back-to-back or skipped). Indeed, he comes across well in the interview, as an unpretentious, straightforward entertainer not afraid to discuss his use of stage tricks or to admit some of his own weaknesses.

Mainly, I'd have to say that King's performance at this televised 1980 concert isn't as awe-inspiring as it might have been. The interview clips interspersed between the songs aren't as distracting as one might imagine, in part because there isn't a relentless momentum that carries and builds through the entire concert. And, of course, give the DVD's editors credit for not randomly inserting the interviews between songs. When one song picks up immediately after the other, there's no break. The interview clips come when King himself takes a breather and pauses for applause. Maybe if the performances themselves segued more unstoppably one into the other or were each more electrifying, I'd have more complaints about the weaving of interview and music and how the mood is broken each time that this happens. As it is, the performance itself doesn't fully undercut the impression that this is a documentary as much as it is a taping of a full concert.

King, of course, has a voice that most singers would envy. Moreover, he has stage presence, eyes closed and swaying to the raindrop notes of "The Sky Is Crying" or the poor man's dreams of a "Cadillac Assembly Line". Or even when he steps back from the mike, nodding and tapping along to someone else's guitar solo.

Which might be the root of the problem (the "someone else's solo", not the having stage presence): the solos and fancy work here are sometimes left to the fleet-fingered hotshots in King's band (a full band by the way, the kind you'd expect from a blues artist whose biggest hits had been at Stax). Sure, they do some keen fretwork, but what made King so influential and popular was his expressive minimalism. Indeed, King's influence and stature may be even greater among blues-loving rockers than among blues musicians themselves. While blues has always been -- and still is -- a genre filled with guitarists who (even if they never studied at Berklee) are virtuosos, rock has (in addition to Berklee-trained virtuosos) had more room for the non-technician.

So it was natural that King's use of dense, simple riffs should have become so popular. He was, before the formal birth of rock, a blues artist who drew from and magnified those elements of his chosen genre that later white fans would also draw from and magnify.

And, when he closes the show with some of his own fretwork, the appeal is obvious. While not as fast or note-for-note dense as the solos from the young guns in his band, King's work is the more powerful for the very way that note after note is sustained and built one on top of the other. If technically much simpler, King's best work uses this building tension to make the whole piece seem as unchangeable and perfect as the bricks cemented together to make a wall. They feel inevitable, inevitable in a way that, say, Yngwie Malmsteen's solos are not: because the simple riffs and notes are allowed to build, there is a direct power that sheer sped-up virtuosity of rhythms and counter-rhythms could never match. I just wish that he'd given more proof of those abilities here. Because, though he talks about feeling tired from years of touring in the interview, he still could work some of his trademark magic, even if it was only to close out a relatively sedate show!

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.