Museum exhibits tend to be quiet. Not this one.

In “Play It Loud,” an exuberant show that can be heard as well as seen, the Metropolitan Museum of Art takes on the history of rock ‘n’ roll through iconic instruments on loan from some of rock’s biggest names. There are flamboyant costumes worn by Prince and Jimmy Page, videotaped interviews with “guitar gods,” even shattered guitars.

The show runs here from April 8 through Oct. 1 before traveling to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, in Cleveland, where it will be on view from Nov. 20, 2019 through Sept. 13, 2020.

“We’re looking at rock ‘n’ roll instruments as an art. They serve as muses, tools and visual icons, and many of them are hand-painted and lovingly designed,” says Jayson Kerr Dobney, curator in charge of the department of musical instruments at the Met. He organized “Play It Loud: Instruments of Rock and Roll,” with Craig J. Inciardi, curator and director of acquisitions at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

For anyone who ever dreamed of climbing onstage at a rock concert for a closer look, this may be your best shot.

“Instruments are some of the most personal objects connected to musicians, but as audience members we are primarily used to seeing them from far away, up on a stage in performance. This exhibition will provide a rare opportunity to examine some of rock ‘n’ roll’s most iconic objects up close,” says Dobney.

Highlights include Chuck Berry’s ES-350T guitar (at the entrance to the exhibit), John Lennon’s 12-string Rickenbacker 325, an electric 500/1 “violin” bass on loan from Paul McCartney, Keith Moon’s drum set, and the white Stratocaster played at Woodstock by Jimi Hendrix.

Interviewed Monday by The Associated Press, Page, the guitarist and founder of Led Zeppelin, said that when curators approached him and explained their vision of the exhibit — you approach it through the Greco-Roman art galleries and then suddenly come upon Berry’s guitar — he was all in. 

“My guitar was confiscated if I took it to the school field to play,” he says. “That’s the kind of respect given to guitars in those days.

“So to see guitars from people I listen to … it’s absolutely phenomenal. It’s humbling.”

Over 130 instruments are featured in the show, including ones played and beloved by the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Lady Gaga, Joan Jett, Metallica, Steve Miller, The Rolling Stones, Page and other rock ‘n’ roll greats. The collection spans 1939 to 2017. All the instruments are on loan, most by the musicians themselves, although Miller has promised to donate to the Met his 1961 Les Paul TV Special guitar, painted by surfboard artist Bob Cantrell.

The show features its own rock ‘n’ roll soundtrack and is organized in thematic sections.

“Setting the Stage” explores rock’s early days in the American South of the late 1940s and early 1950s, when pianos, saxophones and acoustic guitars were among the instruments of choice. Soon, Berry helped revolutionize the sound, establishing the electric guitar as the genre’s primary voice and visual icon.

Also featured is a setup like that used by the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show in 1964. After that performance, “thousands of rock bands were formed using that same lineup: two guitars, a bass and a drum set,” says Dobney.

The “Guitar Gods” section traces that phrase to Eric Clapton’s stardom and a piece of 1966 graffiti in London proclaiming, “Clapton is God.” Others dubbed guitar gods included Page, Jeff Beck, Pete Townsend and Hendrix. All exemplified virtuoso musicianship and awe-inspiring swagger. By the 1970s, women, too, were fronting bands and finding platforms for their own personae and skills, Dobney says.

“The Rhythm Section” explores the sources of the genre’s powerful rhythms, with accented backbeats created using a drum set and electric bass guitar.

Even as guitars were lovingly painted, and sometimes even built by the musicians who played them (like Eddie Van Halen’s red and white “Frankenstein” guitar, featuring a Fender-style body and neck with Gibson electronics), instruments were also famously destroyed by rock stars as part of their act.

“It may be the only musical genre where destruction of instruments became a part of the performance,” Dobney says.

Featured is a fragment of a Hendrix guitar that he set on fire and smashed onstage at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967; a Gibson SG Special guitar destroyed by Townsend during a photo shoot with Annie Leibovitz for Rolling Stone (and preserved in Lucite); and a modified Hammond L-100 organ used by Keith Emerson as a “stunt instrument,” which he would jump on, pull on top of himself, stick knives in and — in this instrument’s case — set ablaze during performances.

“Expanding the Band” explores the way the classic four-piece rock band was augmented by instruments like dulcimers, sitars and a range of experimental keyboards to expand the sound.

“Creating an Image” opens with an enormous, jagged electric piano housed in acrylic with built-in lights, owned by Lady Gaga. That section also includes Prince’s “Love Symbol” guitar and a dragon-embroidered outfit once worn by Page.

“Creating a Sound” explores the technical side of rock music, with the amps, guitars and rigs used by Page, Keith Richards, Van Halen and Tom Morello. Each of the four rigs is accompanied by a videotaped interview with the artist explaining how they created their unique sound.

The show ends with footage of some of rock’s most iconic moments, along with decades of posters advertising groundbreaking concerts.
…

your ads here!

Museum exhibits tend to be quiet. Not this one.

In “Play It Loud,” an exuberant show that can be heard as well as seen, the Metropolitan Museum of Art takes on the history of rock ‘n’ roll through iconic instruments on loan from some of rock’s biggest names. There are flamboyant costumes worn by Prince and Jimmy Page, videotaped interviews with “guitar gods,” even shattered guitars.

The show runs here from April 8 through Oct. 1 before traveling to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, in Cleveland, where it will be on view from Nov. 20, 2019 through Sept. 13, 2020.

“We’re looking at rock ‘n’ roll instruments as an art. They serve as muses, tools and visual icons, and many of them are hand-painted and lovingly designed,” says Jayson Kerr Dobney, curator in charge of the department of musical instruments at the Met. He organized “Play It Loud: Instruments of Rock and Roll,” with Craig J. Inciardi, curator and director of acquisitions at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

For anyone who ever dreamed of climbing onstage at a rock concert for a closer look, this may be your best shot.

“Instruments are some of the most personal objects connected to musicians, but as audience members we are primarily used to seeing them from far away, up on a stage in performance. This exhibition will provide a rare opportunity to examine some of rock ‘n’ roll’s most iconic objects up close,” says Dobney.

Highlights include Chuck Berry’s ES-350T guitar (at the entrance to the exhibit), John Lennon’s 12-string Rickenbacker 325, an electric 500/1 “violin” bass on loan from Paul McCartney, Keith Moon’s drum set, and the white Stratocaster played at Woodstock by Jimi Hendrix.

Interviewed Monday by The Associated Press, Page, the guitarist and founder of Led Zeppelin, said that when curators approached him and explained their vision of the exhibit — you approach it through the Greco-Roman art galleries and then suddenly come upon Berry’s guitar — he was all in. 

“My guitar was confiscated if I took it to the school field to play,” he says. “That’s the kind of respect given to guitars in those days.

“So to see guitars from people I listen to … it’s absolutely phenomenal. It’s humbling.”

Over 130 instruments are featured in the show, including ones played and beloved by the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Lady Gaga, Joan Jett, Metallica, Steve Miller, The Rolling Stones, Page and other rock ‘n’ roll greats. The collection spans 1939 to 2017. All the instruments are on loan, most by the musicians themselves, although Miller has promised to donate to the Met his 1961 Les Paul TV Special guitar, painted by surfboard artist Bob Cantrell.

The show features its own rock ‘n’ roll soundtrack and is organized in thematic sections.

“Setting the Stage” explores rock’s early days in the American South of the late 1940s and early 1950s, when pianos, saxophones and acoustic guitars were among the instruments of choice. Soon, Berry helped revolutionize the sound, establishing the electric guitar as the genre’s primary voice and visual icon.

Also featured is a setup like that used by the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show in 1964. After that performance, “thousands of rock bands were formed using that same lineup: two guitars, a bass and a drum set,” says Dobney.

The “Guitar Gods” section traces that phrase to Eric Clapton’s stardom and a piece of 1966 graffiti in London proclaiming, “Clapton is God.” Others dubbed guitar gods included Page, Jeff Beck, Pete Townsend and Hendrix. All exemplified virtuoso musicianship and awe-inspiring swagger. By the 1970s, women, too, were fronting bands and finding platforms for their own personae and skills, Dobney says.

“The Rhythm Section” explores the sources of the genre’s powerful rhythms, with accented backbeats created using a drum set and electric bass guitar.

Even as guitars were lovingly painted, and sometimes even built by the musicians who played them (like Eddie Van Halen’s red and white “Frankenstein” guitar, featuring a Fender-style body and neck with Gibson electronics), instruments were also famously destroyed by rock stars as part of their act.

“It may be the only musical genre where destruction of instruments became a part of the performance,” Dobney says.

Featured is a fragment of a Hendrix guitar that he set on fire and smashed onstage at the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967; a Gibson SG Special guitar destroyed by Townsend during a photo shoot with Annie Leibovitz for Rolling Stone (and preserved in Lucite); and a modified Hammond L-100 organ used by Keith Emerson as a “stunt instrument,” which he would jump on, pull on top of himself, stick knives in and — in this instrument’s case — set ablaze during performances.

“Expanding the Band” explores the way the classic four-piece rock band was augmented by instruments like dulcimers, sitars and a range of experimental keyboards to expand the sound.

“Creating an Image” opens with an enormous, jagged electric piano housed in acrylic with built-in lights, owned by Lady Gaga. That section also includes Prince’s “Love Symbol” guitar and a dragon-embroidered outfit once worn by Page.

“Creating a Sound” explores the technical side of rock music, with the amps, guitars and rigs used by Page, Keith Richards, Van Halen and Tom Morello. Each of the four rigs is accompanied by a videotaped interview with the artist explaining how they created their unique sound.

The show ends with footage of some of rock’s most iconic moments, along with decades of posters advertising groundbreaking concerts.
…

your ads here!

A biopic on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi by a Bollywood filmmaker that was due to hit the screens on Friday has been postponed as it lands in the midst of a raging political controversy.

 

Furious opposition parties have slammed the film, which critics say portrays the Indian leader in a larger-than-life, flattering light, as blatant propaganda and questioned why it was planned to be released days before India begins choosing a new government.  

 

Bollywood’s brush with Indian politics is not new – every election season witnesses a sprinkling of star power as a handful of actors either join politics or use their appeal on the campaign trail. But this is the first time that a film produced by the industry that has an outsized influence on Indian masses, is under the scanner.

 

From tea seller to PM

Tracing the Indian leader’s journey from a humble tea seller to the country’s top post, one of the most dramatic scenes in the trailer of “PM Narendra Modi” shows him waving a giant Indian flag yelling that “India will not fear terror, terror will fear India.”

 

These are themes that Modi has been reinforcing on the campaign trail: in the aftermath of recent hostilities with Pakistan he has projected himself as a leader who took a tougher stand on terrorism compared to previous governments and could protect the country.

 

Denouncing the biopic as a political venture and not an artistic one, the main opposition Congress party said it was meant to get some “extra mileage” in the elections. Although the Election Commission failed to intervene after the opposition said that its release should be deferred, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the plea of a Congress Party leader next week.  

 

As the controversy swirled, news of the delay came in a tweet from the film’s producer, Sandip Ssingh. “This is to confirm that our film ‘PM Narendra Modi’ is not releasing on 5th April. Will update soon.” The filmmakers gave no reason for its postponement but apparently the Censor Board has still to certify it for release.

 

No political agenda

Ssingh has denied any political agenda in making the film saying he only wanted to relate an inspirational story. He has also dismissed allegations that it was timed to coincide with elections saying that filmmakers, as businessmen, have the right to choose a suitable date.

 

Critics however point out that Vivek Oberoi, the actor who portrays Modi is his strong supporter and campaigned for him in 2014.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has told the Election Commission it played no role in the production of the film. “Independent artists, influenced by the lifestyle of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, created the film.” It says that banning the film will infringe on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

 

Senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley told reporters last week “when articles, writings, TV channels can influence voters, why can’t celluloid? I would like to understand the self-limitation created on free speech today.”

 

Film critics say it does appear to project Modi in a very favorable light. “By all that one gets to see in the trailer, obviously it is like a hagiography of sorts. You are not going to get like fine analysis of the politics over the years and the controversies that have surrounded the man,” says Namrata Joshi, a film critic with the Hindu newspaper. “And what really riles is the time it is coming. One feels that things are suspect.”

 

Political observers point to one scene in the trailer in which Modi looks disturbed and despondent in the midst of deadly anti-Muslim riots that gripped his home state Gujarat in 2002 when he was chief minister. Although he has been cleared of any involvement in the riots, critics have accused his administration of not doing enough to stop the violence.

 

Previous firestorm

This is not the only film to raise a firestorm. In January a movie about Modi’s predecessor Manmohan Singh raised another outcry as critics said it portrayed him in an unflattering light. The lead role was played by an actor who is a supporter of Modi.

 

Even as controversy dogs Modi’s biopic, the first half of a 10-episode web series based on him released this month on a video streaming platform without much fanfare.  

 

And Congress Party leader, Rahul Gandhi, seen as Modi’s main opponent, is not being left behind — a biopic on him, “My Name is Raga” plans to show his “inner life.” Its director, Rupesh Paul, said the movie has no intentions to glorify him but is “the story of a coming back of a human being who had been ridiculously attacked.” The biopic however is unlikely to face a challenge as it may not be ready until the polls close in India’s mammoth elections.

The polls open April 11 and continue through May 23.

 
…

your ads here!

A biopic on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi by a Bollywood filmmaker that was due to hit the screens on Friday has been postponed as it lands in the midst of a raging political controversy.

 

Furious opposition parties have slammed the film, which critics say portrays the Indian leader in a larger-than-life, flattering light, as blatant propaganda and questioned why it was planned to be released days before India begins choosing a new government.  

 

Bollywood’s brush with Indian politics is not new – every election season witnesses a sprinkling of star power as a handful of actors either join politics or use their appeal on the campaign trail. But this is the first time that a film produced by the industry that has an outsized influence on Indian masses, is under the scanner.

 

From tea seller to PM

Tracing the Indian leader’s journey from a humble tea seller to the country’s top post, one of the most dramatic scenes in the trailer of “PM Narendra Modi” shows him waving a giant Indian flag yelling that “India will not fear terror, terror will fear India.”

 

These are themes that Modi has been reinforcing on the campaign trail: in the aftermath of recent hostilities with Pakistan he has projected himself as a leader who took a tougher stand on terrorism compared to previous governments and could protect the country.

 

Denouncing the biopic as a political venture and not an artistic one, the main opposition Congress party said it was meant to get some “extra mileage” in the elections. Although the Election Commission failed to intervene after the opposition said that its release should be deferred, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the plea of a Congress Party leader next week.  

 

As the controversy swirled, news of the delay came in a tweet from the film’s producer, Sandip Ssingh. “This is to confirm that our film ‘PM Narendra Modi’ is not releasing on 5th April. Will update soon.” The filmmakers gave no reason for its postponement but apparently the Censor Board has still to certify it for release.

 

No political agenda

Ssingh has denied any political agenda in making the film saying he only wanted to relate an inspirational story. He has also dismissed allegations that it was timed to coincide with elections saying that filmmakers, as businessmen, have the right to choose a suitable date.

 

Critics however point out that Vivek Oberoi, the actor who portrays Modi is his strong supporter and campaigned for him in 2014.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has told the Election Commission it played no role in the production of the film. “Independent artists, influenced by the lifestyle of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, created the film.” It says that banning the film will infringe on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

 

Senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley told reporters last week “when articles, writings, TV channels can influence voters, why can’t celluloid? I would like to understand the self-limitation created on free speech today.”

 

Film critics say it does appear to project Modi in a very favorable light. “By all that one gets to see in the trailer, obviously it is like a hagiography of sorts. You are not going to get like fine analysis of the politics over the years and the controversies that have surrounded the man,” says Namrata Joshi, a film critic with the Hindu newspaper. “And what really riles is the time it is coming. One feels that things are suspect.”

 

Political observers point to one scene in the trailer in which Modi looks disturbed and despondent in the midst of deadly anti-Muslim riots that gripped his home state Gujarat in 2002 when he was chief minister. Although he has been cleared of any involvement in the riots, critics have accused his administration of not doing enough to stop the violence.

 

Previous firestorm

This is not the only film to raise a firestorm. In January a movie about Modi’s predecessor Manmohan Singh raised another outcry as critics said it portrayed him in an unflattering light. The lead role was played by an actor who is a supporter of Modi.

 

Even as controversy dogs Modi’s biopic, the first half of a 10-episode web series based on him released this month on a video streaming platform without much fanfare.  

 

And Congress Party leader, Rahul Gandhi, seen as Modi’s main opponent, is not being left behind — a biopic on him, “My Name is Raga” plans to show his “inner life.” Its director, Rupesh Paul, said the movie has no intentions to glorify him but is “the story of a coming back of a human being who had been ridiculously attacked.” The biopic however is unlikely to face a challenge as it may not be ready until the polls close in India’s mammoth elections.

The polls open April 11 and continue through May 23.

 
…

your ads here!

Dan Robbins, an artist who created the first paint-by-numbers pictures and helped turn the kits into an American sensation during the 1950s, has died. He was 93.

Robbins, whose works were dismissed by some critics but later celebrated by the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History, died Monday in Sylvania, Ohio, said his son, Larry Robbins. 

He had been in good health until a series of falls in recent months, his son said.

Robbins was working as a package designer for the Palmer Paint Company in Detroit when he came up with the idea for paint-by-numbers in the late 1940s. He said his inspiration came from Leonardo da Vinci.

“I remembered hearing that Leonardo used numbered background patterns for his students and apprentices, and I decided to try something like that,” Robbins said in 2004.

He showed his first attempt – an abstract still life – to his boss, Max Klein, who promptly told Robbins he hated it. 

But Klein saw potential with the overall concept and told Robbins to come up with something people would want to paint. The first versions were of landscapes, and then he branched out to horses, puppies and kittens.

“I did the first 30 or 35 subjects myself, then I started farming them out to other artists,” said Robbins, who mainly stuck to landscapes.

While the Craft Master paint-by-numbers kits weren’t embraced initially, sales quickly took off and peaked at 20 million in 1955. Within a few years, though, the market was flooded, sales dropped and Klein sold the company.

Together, Robbins helped create slices of Americana that are still collected and are found framed in homes across the nation. Palmer still sells at least two kits: one remembering the Sept. 11 attacks and the other depicting the Last Supper.

“We like to think dad was one of the most exhibited artists in the world,” said Larry Robbins. “He enjoyed hearing from everyday people. He had a whole box of fan letters.”

He noted his father’s accomplishments are still on display at the Detroit Historical Museum, “right down from Henry Ford,” his son said.

Robbins, who spent much of his life in the Detroit area, was modest about his work and didn’t get too bothered by those who mocked the paintings.

Critics came to view the paint-by-numbers kits as a metaphor for a commercialized, cookie-cutter culture and fretted that they far outnumbered the original works of art hanging in American homes, said William Lawrence Bird Jr., curator of the 2001 exhibition at the National Museum of American History.

Some within the museum questioned the idea of celebrating the paint-by-numbers craze and its impact on art, at least until the crowds showed up, Bird said.

“He would say, ‘I didn’t think of this, Leonardo did,’ ” Bird said. “He was amused that people were collecting them.”

When his paint-by-numbers days were over, Robbins continued to work in product development, including designing Happy Meal toys for McDonald’s, Bird said.

Robbins, who wrote a book, “Whatever Happened to Paint-by-Numbers,” said at the exhibition’s April 2001 opening in Washington that his creation survived despite the critics.

“I never claim that painting by number is art,” he said. “But it is the experience of art, and it brings that experience to the individual who would normally not pick up a brush, not dip it in paint. That’s what it does.”
…

your ads here!

Dan Robbins, an artist who created the first paint-by-numbers pictures and helped turn the kits into an American sensation during the 1950s, has died. He was 93.

Robbins, whose works were dismissed by some critics but later celebrated by the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History, died Monday in Sylvania, Ohio, said his son, Larry Robbins. 

He had been in good health until a series of falls in recent months, his son said.

Robbins was working as a package designer for the Palmer Paint Company in Detroit when he came up with the idea for paint-by-numbers in the late 1940s. He said his inspiration came from Leonardo da Vinci.

“I remembered hearing that Leonardo used numbered background patterns for his students and apprentices, and I decided to try something like that,” Robbins said in 2004.

He showed his first attempt – an abstract still life – to his boss, Max Klein, who promptly told Robbins he hated it. 

But Klein saw potential with the overall concept and told Robbins to come up with something people would want to paint. The first versions were of landscapes, and then he branched out to horses, puppies and kittens.

“I did the first 30 or 35 subjects myself, then I started farming them out to other artists,” said Robbins, who mainly stuck to landscapes.

While the Craft Master paint-by-numbers kits weren’t embraced initially, sales quickly took off and peaked at 20 million in 1955. Within a few years, though, the market was flooded, sales dropped and Klein sold the company.

Together, Robbins helped create slices of Americana that are still collected and are found framed in homes across the nation. Palmer still sells at least two kits: one remembering the Sept. 11 attacks and the other depicting the Last Supper.

“We like to think dad was one of the most exhibited artists in the world,” said Larry Robbins. “He enjoyed hearing from everyday people. He had a whole box of fan letters.”

He noted his father’s accomplishments are still on display at the Detroit Historical Museum, “right down from Henry Ford,” his son said.

Robbins, who spent much of his life in the Detroit area, was modest about his work and didn’t get too bothered by those who mocked the paintings.

Critics came to view the paint-by-numbers kits as a metaphor for a commercialized, cookie-cutter culture and fretted that they far outnumbered the original works of art hanging in American homes, said William Lawrence Bird Jr., curator of the 2001 exhibition at the National Museum of American History.

Some within the museum questioned the idea of celebrating the paint-by-numbers craze and its impact on art, at least until the crowds showed up, Bird said.

“He would say, ‘I didn’t think of this, Leonardo did,’ ” Bird said. “He was amused that people were collecting them.”

When his paint-by-numbers days were over, Robbins continued to work in product development, including designing Happy Meal toys for McDonald’s, Bird said.

Robbins, who wrote a book, “Whatever Happened to Paint-by-Numbers,” said at the exhibition’s April 2001 opening in Washington that his creation survived despite the critics.

“I never claim that painting by number is art,” he said. “But it is the experience of art, and it brings that experience to the individual who would normally not pick up a brush, not dip it in paint. That’s what it does.”
…

your ads here!