Seeing a Performance vs Seeing a "Live" Band

E

ewill52

Well-known member
I always struggle with this - I want our band to be tight as a drum, but we run the risk of getting sterile. Last night's practice was sort of an epiphanous moment - some people want to see a "live" band - improv'd solos, changes in the set, etc, me included. I don't want to see a click-track-near-cd-perfection version of the song, i want to see them play the song with all the little changes that happen.

What do you prefer?
 
What impresses me are two things: being tight with good vocals (harmonies on point) and great stage presence. I don’t mind going off track with a little improv as long as it remains tight.
A few years back I saw a Winery Dogs show. As great and tight as they were, Mike Portnoy stole the show from behind the kit. He was putting on a lesson in stage presence, as a drummer no less…fun show to be at.
 
The thing is that if it is the one and only time I'll see that band then it all seems spontaneous and fresh, that one time.

But in a vacuum I like having some spontaneity however with some folks that can be a slippery slope.

Portnoy is a great watch...seen DT twice and he steals the show.
 
I have a problem, singing- remembering words- talking shit- playing guitar (lead and rhythm) and I find that running around stage is lacking for me like warren dimartini. My bass player is like a statue Nothing I can do to change that. I try to live it up between songs. But not too much to take away. I suck anyway so I guess it doesn’t matter.
 
Prefer bands who sound like bands but I'm not a fan of extended improv wank like DT

Give a couple of members who arent featured as much in the songs a couple short improv solos or crowd participation.
 
alund said:
I have a problem, singing- remembering words- talking shit- playing guitar (lead and rhythm) and I find that running around stage is lacking for me like warren dimartini. My bass player is like a statue Nothing I can do to change that. I try to live it up between songs. But not too much to take away. I suck anyway so I guess it doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...
I doubt you suck. The reality that I've found is that 99.9% of the people could care less about my flashy licks and tone and just want to dance, drink, and have a good time. I'm super guilty of looking into the crowd and imagining every person is Eric Johnson lol... we're waaay to hard on ourselves. YouTube makes it worse because there's always some 13 year old prodigy playing Jason Becker and Paganini.

I'm never going to make money playing music. It's gear money, tax write-off, fun with the boys. That's it for me. We get to play a few decent shows a year, bunch of old married dudes playing southern rock stuff we love.
 
DanTravis62 said:
Prefer bands who sound like bands but I'm not a fan of extended improv wank like DT

Give a couple of members who arent featured as much in the songs a couple short improv solos or crowd participation.
Click to expand...
totally get this. I want a little improv, maybe a minor change to the arrangement, but I don't want them to go full jam-band 20-minute extended versions lol
 
Th
ewill52 said:
I doubt you suck. The reality that I've found is that 99.9% of the people could care less about my flashy licks and tone and just want to dance, drink, and have a good time. I'm super guilty of looking into the crowd and imagining every person is Eric Johnson lol... we're waaay to hard on ourselves. YouTube makes it worse because there's always some 13 year old prodigy playing Jason Becker and Paganini.

I'm never going to make money playing music. It's gear money, tax write-off, fun with the boys. That's it for me. We get to play a few decent shows a year, bunch of old married dudes playing southern rock stuff we love
Click to expand...
That’s me! Yeah. 90+% could give a shit if your chops are happening or not: it’s a “musician’s dimorphism syndrome”. We are our own worst critics, if you will. The two musicians in the crowd are at the forefront of your mind and all the drunk whores googling over you are out of sight/out of mind. I can’t tell you how many times I finish a set and say dammit I missed x, y, and Z….. I suck. Meanwhile the crowd likes my jokes and stupid references.
 
If I go see the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra perform Carmina Burana, I expect technical precision and no showmanship. A rock show is not a recital. If you want to listen to the album, listen to the album. If I go see a rock show live, it better be live. I'm all for improved solos, alternate lyrics and loose interpretations. If you name a city in a song, you better change it to the city you're playing, and for sake of the gods, rock it! It's better to have your bassist stop playing for and entire measure to do a backflip off the speaker stack than to have him play perfectly and be a statue. Rock music is supposed to be fun, not perfect.
 
Usually people who aren’t very good “like it loose” in the covers world…lol
For original music, totally depends on the band. Don’t care for extendo jams either as I feel like 2-3 songs could have been played instead of 12 minutes of a breakdown, attempt at crowd sing-along plus half baked solo’s. Drum solo’s should be forbidden unless they incorporate the band in a fun way. I’ll never forget seeing Ozzy in ‘89 or ‘90 and Zakk did what must have been a 20 minute solo. Even being a young excited metal head seeing Ozzy for the first time it was super painful to endure.
 
BeZo said:
If I go see the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra perform Carmina Burana, I expect technical precision and no showmanship. A rock show is not a recital. If you want to listen to the album, listen to the album. If I go see a rock show live, it better be live. I'm all for improved solos, alternate lyrics and loose interpretations. If you name a city in a song, you better change it to the city you're playing, and for sake of the gods, rock it! It's better to have your bassist stop playing for and entire measure to do a backflip off the speaker stack than to have him play perfectly and be a statue. Rock music is supposed to be fun, not perfect.
Click to expand...
In some of this vein of wanting it live, I really can’t stand the use of backing tracks. Need rhythm guitar, hire a player for the tour. Need backup vocals and harmonies, get the band to singing lessons if they can’t do it. Nothing like hearing these studio quality vocals, with doubles, harmonies to where you can’t even tell what is the live part from the singer at all. Bands that can pull of good backing vocals and harmonies, live, always sound vastly superior. I get a pre-recorded intro or weird sound effects, samples that were not produced organically even in the studio. but let me pay $200 to listen to your Mac running Logic with half your sound in a rock show..uh. No.
 
I agree about the piped in vocals and instruments, it turns me off immediately. People used to get annoyed sometimes that bands would have a live version of a song that was different than the album just because it would otherwise be unplayable just as a band, but I would prefer it honestly. I don’t want to feel like I could just as well be listening to the album.

Queen had bombastic songs with crazy layered choirs and shit that they couldn’t actually reproduce live, and they still managed to deliver anyway.
 
Depends on the band and vibe! If I’m going to a DT show, part of the draw is seeing extraordinaryly virtuosic musicians share a stage together - like classical music.

Other bands can have some improv or spontaneity which brings a different energy and urgency. As mentioned previously, they can do this as long as they know what they’re doing and don’t derail a show.

Can’t forget stage presence, props, lighting, lasers, video etc.

Ideally the artist will have lifted your senses enough to stir emotions and make you feel alive. What makes a great live performance so good is being able to check many boxes and be in the moment. It’s lightning in a bottle when everything aligns to convey one focused message.

The only important factor is the degree to which you really felt something after a performance. Production elements can certainly help but aren’t required.
 
BeZo said:
It's better to have your bassist stop playing for and entire measure to do a backflip off the speaker stack than to have him play perfectly and be a statue.
Click to expand...
For me that depends on the band and even then, I'm way more interested in the music than any gymnastics. I can go see real athletes do athletic stuff. I'm fine with band members standing in one spot and just playing well. I'm watching musicians. I also think when I go to see a bar band I find over-the-top theatrics appearing amateur most of the time.

EG - I love Coroner but when I watch Tommy do all his hair flipping I cringe a little. And he plays so well.
 
DanTravis62 said:
Prefer bands who sound like bands but I'm not a fan of extended improv wank like DT

Give a couple of members who arent featured as much in the songs a couple short improv solos or crowd participation.
Click to expand...
i wanted to use DT as an example too. I think people are turned off by their "perfection". They're so un-rock and roll in that sense.

I still like to see a band whos all had a few chemical additives to enhance their performance :p
 
This reminds me of something Alex Lifeson said once; “I think our fans expect to hear the songs as close to the original as possible”. Maybe DT thinks the same. This is an interesting thread because it brings up two types of people who go see a show. The non-musicians and the musicians. Non-musicians go and get hammered and scream lyrics, take their tops off, fight, etc etc… then the musicians, who watch intently of what the band is doing and “expect” perfection to some degree. Maybe. And there is crossover between the two groups. Air guitar vs real guitar so to speak. The other way to think about it is; the band Poison is a show (hair, flair, blow, bitches, whatever). Dimeola, Petrucci, Stanley Jordan seem more intent on music vs the glam. Idk. I like both.
 
JimAnsell said:
i wanted to use DT as an example too. I think people are turned off by their "perfection". They're so un-rock and roll in that sense.

I still like to see a band whos all had a few chemical additives to enhance their performance :p
Click to expand...
Agreed, maybe I'm old school, but unless it's a runaway train you're trying to keep on the rails, it ain't rock and roll
 
If I'm in a circle pit, I'm not going to notice if you miss a note in the solo. Most people listen to music to sing and dance. If you can't dance, why are you playing music? Even classical musicians sway to their melodies. If you're a statue on stage, it makes me want to hit you with my shoe and go home barefoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top