In the court of R&B royalty with Chaka, Patti, Gladys and Stephanie
Near the end of an evening ruled by queens, a king was keeping Chaka Khan waiting.
'Stevie Wonder's in the house tonight,' Khan said late Sunday as she stood in the spotlight at Inglewood's Kia Forum. 'I don't know where he is.' The veteran soul-music star wandered over to the edge of the stage, the black fringe of her bedazzled cape swaying with every step, and peered out into the crowd. 'Steve, you over there?'
Khan was in the middle of her set to close Sunday's installment of a traveling R&B revue called 'The Queens' that launched last week in Las Vegas and has her on the road through the fall with three fellow lifers in Patti LaBelle, Gladys Knight and Stephanie Mills. (One longs to have been in the room when they decided who plays last.) She'd come out singing 'I Feel for You' — saucy, casual, effortlessly funky — then glided through 'Do You Love What You Feel' and 'What Cha' Gonna Do for Me.' Now her would-be special guest was nowhere to be found.
'Stevie Wonder!' she said again, attempting to summon him to the stage. 'We go back a long, long way. I remember once we did a tour, he and I — must have been back in the '80s, the '70s or something. It was that long ago. We were on tour for dang near two years. Two friggin' frack years.' Khan went on for a minute about a vexing old record deal then seemed wisely to think better of that. 'Call him,' she instructed the crowd, which started up a 'Stevie' chant.
'What?' boomed a voice at last over the sound system. It was Wonder, shuffling out from the wings wearing his signature shades and beret to join his old friend for — well, for what? Khan had set up Wonder's cameo by saying they should do 'I Feel for You' again since Wonder played harmonica on the original record in 1984. But Wonder didn't appear to have gotten that note: After clasping hands with Khan, he started telling the story of writing 'Tell Me Something Good' a decade earlier for her group Rufus, which led Khan to cue her backing band on that number instead.
And what a number it was. That slinky up-and-down riff still a marvel of rhythmic ingenuity that inspired Khan and Wonder to go off in a volley of ad libs like the seasoned pros they are.
Signs of life such as that one are precisely the reason to go to a concert like 'The Queens,' in which the vast experience of the performers — Mills was the youngest at 68, LaBelle the oldest at 80 — serves not as a safeguard against the unexpected but as a guarantee that whatever might happen is fully roll-with-able.
Mills got up there Sunday and discovered an unwelcome climate situation — 'I wish they would cut that air off,' she said, 'it's blowing so cold on me' — but went ahead and sang the bejesus out of 'Home,' from 'The Wiz.' LaBelle put out a call for willing men from the audience — 'Black, white, straight, gay,' she made clear — then presided over an impromptu talent show as each guy did a bit of 'Lady Marmalade' for her. And then there was Knight's handler, who seemed to show up a few beats early to guide her offstage after 'Midnight Train to Georgia.' No biggie: He could just stand there holding her arm gently for a minute while she traded 'I've got to go's' with her background singers.
Another reason to go to 'The Queens,' especially on Mother's Day, was to behold the finery displayed onstage (and in the crowd). Knight wore a crisp red pantsuit with glittering figure-eight earrings, Mills an off-the-shoulder mermaid gown. LaBelle showed off two outfits, emerging in a silky blue suit before changing into a long tunic-style dress. During 'On My Own,' she kicked off her heels, sending them hurtling across the stage; later, she spritzed herself from a bottle of fragrance then spritzed the front row for good measure.
As a three-hour program — Knight opened at 7 p.m. on the dot — Sunday's show moved quickly, with a rotating stage that whirred to life after each woman's set. And of course nobody stuck around long enough to offer up anything but hits. The musical pleasures were the ripples of detail in all those familiar tunes: a little ha-ha-ha Knight used to punctuate 'That's What Friends Are For'; LaBelle's frisky vocal runs in 'When You Talk About Love,' which she sang as a stagehand came out to help put her in-ear monitor back in; the way Khan toyed with her phrasing in 'Through the Fire,' slowing down when you thought she'd speed up and vice versa. (Nobody wants to start a fight here, but Khan was undoubtedly the night's best singer.)
After bringing the Mother's Day audience to its feet with 'I'm Every Woman' — somewhere out there was Khan's own 91-year-old mom, she said — she started to make for the exit when her band revved up the throbbing synth lick from 'Ain't Nobody.'
'Oh, one more?' she said to no one in particular. 'S—. One more!'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Yahoo
WWE vs. AEW: Who's winning 2025's wrestling war?
If there's one thing that titillates wrestling obsessives, it's when one of the major promotions — WWE or AEW — makes an explicit reference to the other. These days the digs and attacks tend to be much rarer than in the past, but that doesn't stop them from being thrilling when they happen. Witness the social-media flutter this past May when an enterprising journalist used AEW's Double or Nothing press huddle to ask Tony Khan his opinions on WWE's none-too-subtle tactic of booking NXT premium live events against AEW's most important pay-per-view shows — one of the most aggressive competitive moves WWE has made against Khan's company. Advertisement That the AEW founder delivered an impeccably diplomatic answer did little to quell the excitement of those who spend their hours musing on the state of competition between WWE and AEW. Of course, here at Uncrowned, we have much less reason to mince our words on these things. So here's an analysis of the status of the battle between the two big promotions. The valuation gap Before making any kind of comparison between the two promotions, you need to acknowledge the 10-ton elephant that squats over this topic. Whatever you make of the rival products, WWE is objectively a much larger company than AEW in terms of money in the bank (no pun intended). Advertisement Even the most flattering estimates value AEW at around $2 billion, which is still less than a quarter of what TKO paid for WWE two years ago. And that latter number was before WWE finalized its massive Netflix deal, which has helped add some billions to TKO's overall market cap in the past year. None of this means there aren't specific areas where the numbers are closer (television viewing figures, for example), but it would be silly to pretend WWE doesn't have a massive edge due to its size and history. Media rights and viewing figures For all the focus on live shows, the modern pro-wrestling game is a television business: Both WWE and AEW make most of their money by selling their product to television and streaming networks. Advertisement For a rough comparison, WWE's various deals (Netflix, Peacock, NBCUniversal, etc.) bring in somewhere in the region of $1 billion per year. By contrast, AEW's recent media deal with Warner Bros. Discovery is valued at around $185 million per year — so less than a fifth of what WWE brings in. The big prize here is the Netflix deal, which was rightly hailed as a bit of a game-changer for wrestling when it was confirmed last year. The slight wrinkle on that front is WWE's Netflix viewing figures haven't been as huge as some expected, prompting some whispers about whether the streaming giant paid too much. As for viewership, AEW's U.S. television audience is around half of WWE's. 'AEW Collision' typically draws around 600,000 viewers in the U.S., compared to 1.2 million for 'WWE SmackDown.' That said, AEW's numbers have dipped over the past year or so, but now appear to be stabilizing. (Hat tip to the excellent Wrestlenomics, who publish detailed numbers on this.) The verdict: Advantage WWE John Cena and CM Punk face off during "WWE Raw." (Craig Ambrosio/WWE via Getty Images) (WWE via Getty Images) Live shows and ticket gates As much as we get tired of TKO's obsession with announcing all these record gates at every PLE, there's no denying WWE's audience revenue is seriously impressive at the moment. It just did $3 million for 'WWE Raw' in London, for example. Advertisement On top of that, TKO's current focus is persuading cities to pay hefty 'site fees' for the right to host bigger events — like New Jersey paying $7 million to host this year's WWE SummerSlam double-header. That's almost certainly a big factor in why WrestleMania is heading back to Las Vegas in 2026. On the other hand, AEW's gate revenue is much lower. Double or Nothing made $600,000 last month, for example. That said, their overseas events are still big league: All In at London's Wembley Stadium made $9 million and $6 million in 2023 and 2024, respectively. Gate revenues are one thing, but what about the crowds? On average, AEW's weekly shows draw around one quarter of the WWE audience (around 3,000 compared to 11,000 fans) — a ratio that has gotten steeper in WWE's favor over the past two years. AEW's bigger shows are still drawing decent crowds (in the 10,000 range) that are on par with the smaller WWE PLEs. At the end of the day, though, there's one wrestling promotion that can fill giant American stadiums like Allegiant in Las Vegas or MetLife in New Jersey — and it isn't Khan's. Advertisement The verdict: Advantage WWE The talent Defining a great wrestler is always going to involve subjective judgments. But on a business level, I'd argue that it usually boils down to one particular metric: the strength of the personal brand in terms of drawing viewers. If we're taking stock of the two promotions, there's no question both have some massive talents. But does AEW really have anyone who matches the Hollywood-level star power of The Rock, John Cena and Rhea Ripley? I'd venture not. It's that kind of clout that allows WWE to poach talent from its rival when it wants to. Just look at Mariah May and Jade Cargill, for example. Both had plenty of momentum in AEW and were likely making decent wages, but when the bigger brand came knocking, they were happy to make the jump. Advertisement That said, we shouldn't fully discount AEW's tagline of being 'where the best wrestle.' It's a good insight into how Khan sees his brand — and plenty of wrestling aficionados would agree that he's doing a great job on that front. Just look at the rave reaction to 2025's Double or Nothing show, for example. The verdict: Advantage WWE Kenny Omega's return has bolstered AEW's roster. () (Etsuo Hara via Getty Images) The product In many ways, this is the big question: Is the product any good? Television deals, gate revenue and site fees might bring in the bacon, but, at the end of the day, they're all downstream from the quality of the product. So how do the promotions compare right now? Let's start with WWE. Going into 2025, the company was widely regarded to be on fire — particularly with the Netflix deal incoming and the anticipation of John Cena's retirement tour. But there's a growing sense the product has been losing steam over the past few months. Advertisement Perhaps the success of the Bloodline/Cody Rhodes era gave us unrealistic expectations, or maybe we're all overreacting to the anticlimactic payoff to this year's WrestleMania. But it doesn't change the fact there's been a significant vibe shift from the fan base. And what of AEW? It's had some rough moments, for sure, but the most recent shows have begun to turn a corner. Double or Nothing was an absolute slam dunk and seems to be setting things up nicely for their biggest show of the year with July's All In. On a long-term view, though, the fundamentals haven't changed: WWE is still the granddaddy of pro wrestling. But if we're talking strictly about momentum — i.e. where things are moving right now — then AEW's lines are pointing in the right direction, while WWE's are floundering slightly. The verdict: (Slight) advantage AEW
National Geographic
11-06-2025
- National Geographic
How the Old Masters painted animals: dragonfly wings and butterfly dust
A first-ever collaboration between the National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian examines the birth of natural history. Jan van Kessel the Elder. Noah's Family Assembling Animals Before the Ark, c. 1660 oil on panel. Photograph courtesy of The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, Maryland The National Gallery of Art and the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum have been next-door neighbors in Washington, DC for nearly 90 years—but until now, they've never shared so much as a cup of coffee across the fence. That all changes this summer, as the two institutions collaborate to create a cross-pollinated art and natural science exhibition featuring selections from the art gallery's centuries-old paintings of birds, bugs, and exotic critters … along with actual examples of those creatures drawn from the Smithsonian's enormous collection of animal artifacts. The exhibit, called 'Little Beasts: Art, Wonder, and the Natural World,' focuses on a period beginning in the 1500s when artists in Northern Europe—inspired largely by strange specimens that had found their way to Antwerp, Belgium, aboard merchant sailing ships—were creating exquisitely detailed, and unprecedentedly accurate, images of creatures from the smallest insects to the largest mammals. One display case features the Smithsonian's own specimen of a Central American elephant beetle, the size of a baby's fist but armored and horned in a most terrifying (if harmless) manner. Next to it is mounted Flemish painter Jacob Hoefnagel's 1592 painting of the same species, meticulously rendered with brushes that at times consisted of a single hair bristle. An insect tableau created for the National Gallery of Art exhibition Little Beasts by the Department of Entomology at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History with specimens from the collection. Photograph by James Di Loreto, Smithsonian Institution Jan van Kessel the Elder. Insects and a Sprig of Rosemary, 1653 oil on copper. Photograph courtesy of National Gallery of Art, The Richard C. Von Hess Foundation, Nell and Robert Weidenhammer Fund, Barry D. Friedman, and Friends of Dutch Art Nearby is 17th-century Czech artist Wencenslaus Hollar's etching of a Tasmanian vasum ceramicum shell, impossibly spindly and surreally suspended in midair, joined by a spectacular real-life specimen from the Smithsonian's vast shell collection. And there is Hoefnagel's life-sized painting of a Southern Hawker dragonfly, highlighted with gold paint, seemingly ready to fly off its parchment page—accompanied by a real dragonfly, temporarily freed from its drawer in the Smithsonian's climate-controlled archives. (Recent studies have revealed that Hoefnagel, obsessed with accuracy, sometimes fastened actual dragonfly wings to his paintings.) From scuba diving to set-jetting These and the rest of the exhibition's works embrace a historic moment when artists—many wielding magnifying glasses—became obsessed with capturing nature in all its detail. Throughout three exhibition halls, the juxtaposition of art and artifacts reveals the astonishing amount of research and detail represented in each work. (A rare look inside the Smithsonian's secret storerooms) Jacob Hoefnagel. Part 1, Plate 1, from the series Archetypa studiaque (Archetypes and Studies), 1592 Photograph courtesy of National Museum of Natural History, Rosenwald Collection An Elephant Beetle (Megasoma e. elephas) from the Department of Entomology collections at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History. Photograph by James Di Loreto and Phillip R. Lee, Smithsonian Institution While it holds a prestigious spot on the National Mall, the National Gallery is not part of the Smithsonian—and the collaboration is novel for both institutions. 'We came up with the idea for this during the pandemic,' says Alexandra Libby, a curator of Northern Paintings for the museum. 'We started trading e-mails, hoping to get the Smithsonian people excited about it, explaining that these are not just pretty pictures of butterflies, but evidence that there was a real scientific level of engagement during this period. 'They were engaged from the start. They said, 'This is amazing!'' Moving from gallery to gallery, a visitor to this joint venture exhibition walks through a period when artists took the lead in creating the concept of natural history, says Brooks Rich, a curator of Old Master art at the National Gallery. 'The flourishing of interest in nature in its most minute detail that we see here really provided the foundation for the entire discipline,' he says. That breakthrough is crystalized in a display case positioned at the center of the exhibition's first room: Four diary-sized books, bound in leather, illustrated by the artist Hoefnagel. Entitled Aier, Aqua, Ignis and Terra (Air, Water, Fire, and Earth), the books contain, on fine parchment paper, 270 hand-painted images of creatures ranging from house flies to elephants with a level of detail that rivals anything a 4K TV screen will reproduce today. Collection of animal skeleton etchings on laid paper by Teodoro Filippo di Liagno Photograph by Rob Shelley, National Gallery of Art 'Prior to Hoefnagel, most people dismissed insects as vermin,' says Stacy Sell, the museum's curator of Northern Book Painting. 'But he undertook a sustained study of them, looking at every minute detail, and saw how beautiful they were. 'Finally, he said, 'You know, watercolor just isn't going to cut it.' So, he developed all kinds of innovative techniques to create a level of detail no one had attempted before. 'I mean, he actually painted with butterfly dust. That's pretty amazing.' (How to plan a walking tour of the best museums in D.C.) So delicate are the images in the four books, the museum almost never has them on display. In the course of the exhibition—May through November 2—the pages will be turned just three times. Perhaps the most glorious art work in the exhibition is the epic 'Noah's Family Assembling the Animals Before the Ark,' painted around 1660 by the Flemish artist Jan van Kessell the Elder. The Noahs—dressed in their Flemish finest—herd a zoofull of animals across a distinctively Northern European landscape toward a distant, barely-visible boat. Camels, turtles, monkeys, ostriches—even North American turkeys—ramble across the frame. But it's the sky that commands our attention: A riot of birds, two-by-two, winging their way to safety. 'It was such a joy to work with the Natural History Museum managers as they identified all the birds in this painting,' says Libby. 'They studied it to see what the artist got right, and why they might have gotten some things wrong.' For example, at the painting's extreme upper right, a pair of Paradisaea apoda—Greater Birds of Paradise, from New Guinea—streak into the image like plumed missiles. Besides their glorious color, their most distinctive feature is the fact that they have no legs. 'These birds were prized for their feathers, for women's hats,' says Libby. 'By the time those dead birds arrived in Europe, their legs were gone.' For a painter obsessed with getting everything just right, only one solution could satisfy both art and science: Rather than get the legs wrong, van Kessell simply left them out. (How do you find a 'lost' masterpiece?)
Boston Globe
05-06-2025
- Boston Globe
A.R.T. announces 2025/2026 season, will premiere new musical adapted from the film ‘Black Swan'
In a telephone interview, A.R.T. artistic director Diane Paulus said that 'Wonder' is driven by 'a very fresh, contemporary sound,' with 'equal parts catchy pop tunes and emotional heart' in the music and lyrics by A Great Big World, a duo consisting of singer-songwriters Ian Axel and Chad King. The book is by playwright Sarah Ruhl. Advertisement (Disclosure: Paulus directed my son Matt's opera, 'Crossing,' in 2015, and Ruhl collaborated with him on 'Eurydice,' an opera that premiered in 2021 and was based on her play of the same name.) The A.R.T.'s production of With music and lyrics by Dave Malloy (' Advertisement According to Paulus, 'Black Swan' will 'delve into the theme of perfection, the world of ballet, and the pressures on women.' She said that 'a story told through dance and movement' is 'right up A.R.T.'s alley,' adding: 'For me, theater as a form is physical. It's visceral. It's about communication, not only through text and words and music, but the body, and movement.' Starting this fall, Paulus will direct a concert tour of 'Dear Everything,' which was commissioned and developed by the A.R.T., and premiered in concert form in 2021 under the name 'WILD: A Musical Becoming,' starring Idina Menzel. The overall picture for the A.R.T., which is based at Harvard, is clouded by the university's ongoing confrontation with President Trump, who has cut billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts to Harvard. Asked how concerned she is about the potential impact on her company, Paulus replied: 'It's a very challenging time. We are navigating changing waters on a daily basis.' 'As a theater, as a company like A.R.T., we are committed to continuing to bring people together,' she added. 'Theater is a community builder. That is our greatest role, right? Humans coming together in time and space and listening to stories that are not our own.' The A.R.T.'s season will launch Sept. 2-26 with Advertisement The season will also include Sam Kissajukian's autobiographical solo show, '300 Paintings,' scheduled to be at Harvard's Farkas Hall Oct. 1-19, 2025. Paulus said '300 Paintings' explores 'how all of the arts and mental health and creativity are in relation to one another.' Don Aucoin can be reached at
