[Aman]

By "this type", I mean the following:

The type that doesn't improvise their songs
The type whose music doesn't contain a degree of chance or surprise
The type whose music can't be performed with interpretation (such as by a conductor for a classical piece).

What is the draw to see this group? I have wondered and wondered but have not seen the desire. I myself am a fan of many groups who possess these characteristics, but I would never be driven to go and catch them live, because I can't picture how good the show could be.

Those who say, "I just like live music." - well I don't really think that's live music. Those people (hopefully) will sound JUST like the recording, so what's the point? Why pay the often times expensive price to simply hear music that you can hear just the same at home?

This thinking leads me to believe that it's more about the experience, in which case I wonder if the reason people are there is even about the music at all. One of these type of groups was recently in my area - a group that I enjoy a good deal - but I decided not to go. A bunch of friends who went told me it was a good show, but when I asked why they said "They were just on that night."

Aren't they supposed to be "on" every night? As a performer myself, I understand what is demanded out of a musician at each gig, but I would need more than the fact that they're playing their songs correctly to convince myself to go to one of these shows next time. Why would I choose this over an improv night at The Stone or a trip to Avery Fisher Hall?

 

[Quixizous]

Why not?

Listening to your favorite bands live, is, of course, entirely about the experience. The sound quality will be lower, the vocalist will probably be at least a little bit out of tune (rock singers especially), but you're surrounded by other people who share your same appreciation of the music, singing along, etc. I'm interested in seeing Rage Against the Machine when they play at Voodoo Fest in New Orleans. I don't expect the music to be at all different from the studio recordings. I don't expect Tom Morello to replace the weird effects based guitar solos with blues lick based solos. However, it'll still be a great show. It's also about being near the people who created the music you love. You'd pay to see Buddy Holly live, even if he didn't do a single thing different, I'm sure.

Now, the kind of music that I think does not work well at all in a live setting is electronica. At least, the way Tiesto does it. Check out videos on Youtube of Tiesto live. I didn't check out too many videos for too long, but it seems like 90% of the time, he just stands behind his equipment, occasionally clapping his hands above his head and touching the controls for a bit. Sounds exactly like the recordings because, essentially, he's just replaying the recording. This is about as far from "live" as a live performance can be. Kinda irritating that he makes millions this way. At least bands live actually play every note, ya know? He just presses play.

 

[i has a can]

NOS Telefunken

 

[FalconP]

Music concerts are what is closest to religious rituals in a secular world. While the music itself is important, it is also about sharing a spiritual experience with like-minded people. Also, as a non-musician, I always find that there is a certain magic with musical sounds at the very moment of its creation: You literally do not know what will happen next (sure, you can have expectations though). I perk my ear for the next turn of phase, high in anticipation, and even the sound turns out to be "the same as on CDs" I'll still enjoy that thrill of anticipation.

 

[Zarathustra19]

It really depends on the type of music we're talking about. Aman, I believe you're a fan of Jazz and blues if I'm not mistaken. With that kind of music, yes its amazing to hear improvisation and new stuff coming from the artists because that's the beauty of jazz and blues. When one goes to see Amon Amarth live, however, one wants to hear the pounding beats, scathing riffs and howls of pure viking lore put into a melo-death band. I don't want them to start making stuff up. Or if I go to see a black metal band, I'm there for the experience, not for the improv or interpretation. Chances are, with that kind of music, no one else will ever play the songs, so why leave them open to interpretation?

My question is why would anyone go see people like jessica simpson, britney spears, and the like live? They have forgettable voices and don't even play an instrument. I can respect Hanson more than those mindless pop singers(only singers).

On a side note, I realized today that a band I'd love to see live is Sunn O))). The droning metal they play has to be hypnotic live.

 

[Chrispy]

I saw Itzhak Perlman play Vivaldi's winter live. There is no way any recording to stand up to the amount of power in seeing possibly the best violin player in the world

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zarathustra19 /img/forum/go_quote.gif On a side note, I realized today that a band I'd love to see live is Sunn O))). The droning metal they play has to be hypnotic live.

The droning is VERY hypnotic live. It also has an added physical dimension to it, in that it literally is a contest of physical endurance to maintain your musical sanity in such an environment.

 

[Thelonious Monk]

aman, is the word "fun" in your vocabulary, homeslice?

i'm not even going to elaborate. come on dude. there's just something about seeing a band live that beats the crap out of recordings. there's more to the show than the music. don't tell me you could go to a show like this one and not have a blast.

edit: man, that was a great show.

 

[Quixizous]

Also, people usually go to a live show with their friends, so it's also about being a social event, like bar hopping or seeing a movie.

 

[soozieq]

I saw the Eagles live about 10 years ago (for their reunion concert) and came away strangely disappointed because each and every single number was performed exactly the same as the studio version. If you closed your eyes, it was like listening to the album, there was no deviation at all. And they seemed to play a very short set, only about 90 minutes with 1 or 2 polite encores. It was technically 'perfect' and yet horribly lifeless at the same time. I've been to loads of live concerts and have never come away this disappointed before.

I get the exact opposite feeling when I see Neil Young live, there's a lot of energy at his concerts plus he'll just play and play and play. In Ghent he played for over 3 hours non-stop finishing with an 18-minute version of Powderfinger. We all missed the coach back to the hotel and had to spend a fortune on cabs, but no one cared because it was so worth seeing and I still look back on it as one of the best (and loudest) concerts of his I'd ever been to. No such reaction after the Eagles. If I want the album version, I'll play it for free. I don't want to spend £50 for the privilege of sitting outside and listening to it.

 

[Sordel]

This is a debate that I have with my wife all the time. (Well, not all the time ... that would be pathological!) She likes bands to perform songs exactly as she knows them. If the first album that she heard was a live album, she wants it like that; if it was a studio album, exactly like that please. As a result, although she's the bigger Eels fan, I've enjoyed the two Eels concerts that we've attended more than she has.

For me, live music is all about the artists' being in the moment with the audience. It's what I listen for when buying Grateful Dead recordings or jazz for example: a mistake can be as interesting as some extemporised addition. The moment when a performer takes a request from the audience I perk up because I know that for that track he/she/they will be entirely in the auditorium with the audience, responding to the immediate surroundings, rather than thinking back to pre-tour rehearsals.

 

[FalconP]

In my experience, the artist who was closest to "this type" was Cesaria Evora. Her delivery was perfect, yet I could not find a grain of rapport between her and her audience. Fortunately her accompanists were musically superb and interesting. However, given that I'm only mildly interested in Afro-Latin music, I may not choose to see her again.

 

[kyleisgreat]

I guess it's like the difference between seeing a picture taken from the top of a mountain and being on the top of that mountain.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thelonious Monk /img/forum/go_quote.gif aman, is the word "fun" in your vocabulary, homeslice? i'm not even going to elaborate. come on dude. there's just something about seeing a band live that beats the crap out of recordings. there's more to the show than the music. don't tell me you could go to a show like this one and not have a blast. edit: man, that was a great show.

I'm not asking about "bands", but a specific type of band. Like Greenday, Radiohead, The Rolling Stones, or Franz Ferdinand, who likely don't do much but play their songs on autopilot.

As someone above mentions, there's a difference between somebody who plays autopilot (like The Eagles) and somebody who plays with energy and uniqueness (Neil Young) - even though both play pretty much straight-forward rock n' roll. Neil Young is somebody I would see - it would be more personal, more intimate, and definitely more varied. Every live performance I've viewed of The Eagles just made me think of the radio, and not the concert (though I wasn't there in person, I'm sure it wouldn't have been much different if I was).

Quote:

Also, people usually go to a live show with their friends, so it's also about being a social event, like bar hopping or seeing a movie.

Of course concerts are social events, but my friends and I wouldn't traverse to a concert hall to see an autopilot group just so we could talk... we could do that at my apartment with a bunch of liquor.

 

[88Chris]

my favorite live experience ever

i hope that worked.