Seattlest: The Rapture Inspires a New Theory on Seattle Crowds

donte

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:56:33 -0800

fanalyst/jason, you've both made interesting points. both demographics and the "right" show matter. i wouldn't expect much movement at a shoegazer show, and perhaps a caveat to the theory can account that it only applies to certain shows. regarding the fanalyst's comments about proximity and "trickle-forward" dancing, i think measures such as crowd density, proximity to dancers, and other such things could actually represent the "quantifiable" measures that describe the theory in action. this is hard science here - thanks for your contributions.

jason

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:12:34 -0800

some bands inspire more movement that others. the two times i saw them, mclusky had at least half the crowd moving from the start of the first song. demographics definitely play a key. i'd bet that the hipster ratio at the rapture was off the charts. location also matters - greg dulli doesn't change, but the crowd seemd more receptive at chop suey than at neumo's.

The Fanalyst

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:30:09 -0800

I believe that crowd stasis is affected by the demographic of the audience, the style of music, and the relationship that the band develops with the crowd. I've seen crazy freak-out bands that totally ignore their audience, making the crowd feel left out and drained of energy. I've also seen mild pop bands bore right into the psyches of audience members, giving them regular and explicit instructions (audiences love instructions) like DANCE NOW which the crowd reacts to. Seattle audiences also succumb to a trickle-forward dynamic. If they don't see people right in front of them dancing, they are sure as hell not going to dance. But it works the opposite way, as well. People dancing nearby = permission for you to dance too. The best kind of audiences are composed of people who are devoted to the band (see Toasters example above), energized by the music (see Rapture example in post), and are not yet too jaded and self-conscious to move their bodies. If the show won't provide this atmosphere, lower thine expectations of movement.

donte

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:26:38 -0800

the theory actually explains a lot. the thermals/cursive show is a perfect example. the crowd stood there during the thermals, but they were opening. then during cursive's set they didn't get moving until about 3 songs before the end. so the show ends, the crowd's pumped, but there's nowhere to go so everyone goes home. the part of the theory that never came together was that it was a buildup, which required the rapture afterparty to be truly witnessed.

JPF

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:34:59 -0800

Another data point: The Toasters, two-tone ska band, playing at Studio 7 on Sunday. I wondered with anticipation what the Unstoppable Force of eminently danceable ska would do with the Immovable Object of Seattle's Stasis. Evidence was not promising: even after three opening bands, the fourth ska band, The Phenomenauts, had a remarkably difficult time moving feet. But to my surprise, once the Toasters finally took the stage, they got an instant response: nearly everybody in the crowd started dancing! It may be telling that "skanking" is the only form of dancing where you can still gaze at your shoes.

Dan

Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:06:31 -0800

So it's a momentum thing, eh? Is this theory testable somehow in the clubs? I'd like to see these results repeated, but if we can continue to document this we might want to make a flyer for visiting bands: "We have high inertia. Imagine we are a boulder. Really put your shoulder into us right from the start of your set to get us moving and then push harder and harder until we're rolling down the mountainside with incredible force and velocity. Watch us crush the villagers below. Or, if you suck, we'll just sit there immobile."