http://www.ocregister.com/entertainm...e-64162--.html
Diana Ross serves up satisfying nostalgia at Hollywood Bowl
Review: Four years since her triumphant return to performing, however, the iconic diva is showing signs of fatigue.
When Diana Ross returned to live performing four years ago, wowing critics and fans alike with a brief 11-date tour that included an indelible appearance at the Pantages Theatre, the result was nothing short of triumphant.
After more than a decade away, the Motown diva was suddenly in miraculously strong form, fully recovered from a stint in rehab two years earlier after a drunk-driving arrest and, two years before that, a botched Supremes reunion that went nowhere fast. Surely no one came away that night anticipating that Ross would restore any record-store bankability; she hasn't been a major seller since "Endless Love" at the start of the '80s, her ensuing work noticed only by staunch devotees, though "I Love You," her collection of rock covers from 2006, has pushed past the 100,000 mark.
STILL A CROWD-PLEASER: Diana Ross, 64, seen here performing in Zurich, Switzerland, on July 9, offered a pleasing 75-minute set stuffed full of Supremes smashes, '70s ballads and more recent covers Friday night at the Hollywood Bowl. [[Ms. Ross did not permit photographers at the Bowl.)
STEFFEN SCHMIDT, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MORE PHOTOS »
Diana Ross
•Where: The Hollywood Bowl
•When: July 25
•Next: The diva performs again at the Bowl Saturday night at 8:30
•How much: $10-$149
•Call: 714-740-2000
•Online:
www.ticketmaster.com,
www.laphil.org
Set list
Click here to find out everything Lady Supreme played at the Bowl.
What that show proved, however, was that Ross, having then just entered her 60s, still had a future as a cherished American icon capable of expertly reviving her '60s and '70s pop-soul gems while packing almost as much power [[if not elasticity) in her reedy purr as she exhibited at the time of … well, maybe not "Lady Sings the Blues," but certainly "The Boss." As had been the case with Barbra Streisand or Bette Midler or [[if you caught her on a good night) Aretha Franklin, Ross had reminded that she could still be a showstopper, one who relies on few frills.
Cut to her likeable but by no means spectacular performance Friday at the Hollywood Bowl, her first of two nights at the venerable venue this weekend - and now I just don't know what to think. My kinder side wants to view it as a pleasant evening of nostalgic entertainment. But my critical side can't help but notice the flaws - how hoarse she was in her mid-range, how many times her voice cracked, how it all felt like Vegas plastic, not the sort of crowning achievement one expects from a star of her caliber in such an auspicious headlining stint.
Granted, familiarity does indeed breed contempt, and the surprise of 2004 wasn't apt to be repeated. She performed then like a tarnished legend with something to prove; she performed here like an old pro merely seeing to it that people got their money's worth.
And, to be fair, they did, even from a 75-minute, four-gown show that should have been longer and started earlier. [[The L.A. Philharmonic was solid as ever on two jazzy symphonic pieces, Richard Rodgers' "Slaughter on Tenth Avenue" and Duke Ellington's "Harlem." But that appetizer wasn't entirely necessary.)
Announcing at the outset that she would journey through "my lifetime of music, starting with the good old days," Ross didn't miss many signposts. You wanted Supremes smashes? You got five effervescent heartbreakers right off the bat: "My World Is Empty without You," "Where Did Our Love Go?," "Baby Love," "Stop! In the Name of Love" and "You Can't Hurry Love." You prefer her big ballads? How about the sad affair of "Touch Me in the Morning" or the questioning "Theme from Mahogany"? [["Endless Love" was curiously absent, but I think it got cut on the spot when either Ross got the set list mixed up and started - and then stopped - the wrong song, or she failed to inform the band that time was short and she was skipping it.)
Or perhaps you dig it most when Diana does disco. No sweat - here's "Upside Down," there's an encore of "I Will Survive." Then again, maybe you're the sort who doesn't actually care what she plays, so long as she keeps her Cher-like parade of ridiculously skin-tight dresses moving. [[The first, red with billowing arms of tulle, was the most over-the-top. The last, canary-yellow with a plunging neckline, also had the longest train. The slinky one during the Billie Holiday sequence was the most appropriate, both for the music and her physique. All were so heavily drenched with sequins that the sparkle must have been visible from the dark side of the moon.)
Were I to have checked my thinking cap at the entrance, I, too, would consider Ross' revue a nice diversion, a fine summer's night out. Honestly, the crowd seemed so delighted by set's end, that's pretty much where I'd prefer to leave off my critique. Actually, I was so impressed by yet another contoured version of "Don't Explain," that kinda made it all worthwhile for me - and makes me wish she'd indulge an entire evening of such singing, where the rasp of later life adds nuances younger vocalists can't possibly achieve.
Still, I can't shake some reservations. You tell me: What does it mean when Ross belts the high notes of "More Today Than Yesterday" with more oomph and pizzazz than those of her own classics? That her perma-smile and poodle hair now hides the soul of a seasoned interpreter who wishes she were taken seriously as something other than a nostalgia merchant? Or is it that she's already growing tired of the routine again?
Contact the writer: 714-796-2248 or
bwener@ocregister.com
Bookmarks