What does a band "owe us" live?

For new sounds, old sounds and favourite sound discussion...

Moderators: sunny, BzaInSpace, runcible, spzretent

Post Reply
James T
Known user
Posts: 2162
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:00 pm

What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by James T »

Nothing is what I say. But my number one buddies Low certainly have caused a stir. Trending on twitter and getting all sorts of abuse after playing a 30 minute version of "Do you know how to waltz?" as a one-song set at Rock The Garden festival in MN.

I would've loved to have seen this kind of Low live, but see what you think and listen....

http://blog.thecurrent.org/2013/06/the- ... m-perform/
angelsighs
Known user
Posts: 4876
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by angelsighs »

yeah I was reading about this on the net last night. certainly seems to have generated strong feelings on both sides.
I would lean towards your viewpoint James- a band don't 'owe' us anything, it's not like we are entitled to anything in particular just by being a fan. what the band did takes massive balls and shows a true artist (not sure I could do it myself to be honest). there is the time when Sonic Youth played ATP and they performed an entire set of improvised noise, that ruffled a few feathers. as for myself I respect when a band challenges their audience a little bit- Jason has opened gigs with Cop Shoot Cop! and Wilco used to play Less Than You Think with the entire drone section! I am fairly happy to be a band's bitch within reason :) .. better than becoming a performing jukebox.

however I would give certain exceptions to the rule- one is the length of a set. I do think a band should play a decent length set (depending on factors such as ticket price obviously). from what I have read with this Low incident the bands were running behind already, so they only had 30 mins anyway. that's cool.
I can see however why people would be pissed off, with, say Jesus and Mary Chain only doing 20 mins like in the early days, and I also hear stories about rap gigs where the rapper is only on stage for a few minutes!

and also I don't think a set should veer too much from what has been advertised. if it's advertised as a greatest hits set, don't do a bait and switch and play obscurities :) that's not being artistic, that's playing silly buggers! when Jason did the whole of Sweet Light, it should have been advertised more clearly that it was going to be the case.
TheWarmth
Known user
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by TheWarmth »

I agree with most of what you two have said but I don't agree that Jason should have advertised the SWSL shows, as such. Seems to me that it was meant to be a surprise. It wouldn't have been as exciting if everyone knew they were going to hear all new material ahead of time.
The Dr
Known user
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by The Dr »

a band is a buisness and the fact that they have released their music means (no matter how uncool it is to say) that they want an audience. gigs are great ways for bands to create new fans and generate income through merchendise. would they perform this at their own show? with shsl it was a great surprise (albert hall) and considering i'd paid for a spz show i knew i'd get what i get. but if i saw them at a festival playing something 'self indulgent' then it is unlikely that i would bother buying cds, t-shirts etc. so re: low- it makes no sense economically, seems unlikely to create new fans, is disrespectful to those who went to the festival just to see them (paying x amount for the festival ticket). i read the marychain thing was at first because they only had 4/5 short songs (and it cost about £2 to get in) so mcgee tried to stir it up to create headlines and then later, when they had more songs, it was a type of self preservation. love them or hate them u2 respect their audience (as in lowest common denominator) and have become big etc because of it. low? low who?

i doubt in the scheme of music anyone really cares
“You're not Dostoevsky,' said the citizeness

'Well, who knows, who knows,' he replied.

'Dostoevsky's dead,' said the citizeness, but somehow not very confidently.

'I protest!' Behemoth exclaimed hotly. 'Dostoevsky is immortal!”
sm-iom
Known user
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:46 pm
Location: Isle of Man

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by sm-iom »

Springsteen did 3 1/2 hours at Wembley the other night. A good friend of mine describes it as the best gig he's ever been to, with Bruce showing respect for his catalogue (playing all of Darkness.... through) and the crowd (taking requests)
James T
Known user
Posts: 2162
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by James T »

I have seen Low 30+ times now, and they have every single time taken requests for the encore and have played songs from pretty much every album each time. An exception is that almost always someone shouts for the track in question, and they have never played it when I've seen them (only a handful of times in years). Also make it known that this was a pretty local festival for a local station which they have played free shows and small shows for many times playing a usual set. I think it's pretty great they took the risk and went back to the old way for a show. Hell, I bet these people at the show say the early stuff is best but are referring to the 5th/6th albums.
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by redcloud »

Some good points here. I reckon people will be talking about that Low gig in years to come. Somewhat similar to S3's 'Contemporary Sitar Music' gig in Brentford. Personally, I really wish I was at that gig!

So, I fall somewhere into the category of no, they don't "owe" us anything. They are artists and they should be allowed, expected and encouraged to take risks, experiment and try new things. Why not? Otherwise they will be just another stale Status Quo or Oasis (same sound no matter what the album is).

But, they do make their living from our money so there will always be a certain expectation by the buying public. Fans will come and go (Flaming Lips are a great example....I have respect but I still left once 'Soft Bulletin' came out but many more jumped on board) but the band should always show some respect to its audience as they are their bread and butter. For example, I've read posts on message boards by band mates of one particular band that harass, antagonize and insult their fans. That is totally uncool and seems very dodgy ground to me.
Hofstadter
Known user
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:46 am

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by Hofstadter »

Was the way the dreamweapon gig played out a surprise to everyone there? Wow that must have been bliss (although even if it wasn't a surprise I can't imagine it not being sonic heaven live cause its pretty close on the record now, at least i think so). Just realized i dont really know much about the gig besides that a) i love it and b) ??? Don't even know the date.
The Dr wrote:a band is a buisness
Seems like a pretty controversial statement, or at least one that brings up some pretty hard questions - since im on my phone I will try to boil it down to just one: what is the difference/where is the line (if either of those things exist) between 'art' and 'entertainment' (obviously lots of overlap) - closely related, and more rhetorical than actually prompting debate but: why do or rather should artists have to appeal to the masses and sell themselves to ultimately be able to make a living and fully commit to art as a way of life - it all touches on the idea of a 'professional artist' - I guess it all comes down to the fact that there just seems to be something weird and troubling about those two words together.
Hofstadter
Known user
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:46 am

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by Hofstadter »

http://pitchfork.com/news/45658-watch-b ... r-an-hour/

for good measure, this seems pretty relevant. I saw him play a totally normal show just a few weeks before this. Pretty funny.
runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5443
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by runcible »

Hofstadter wrote:Was the way the dreamweapon gig played out a surprise to everyone there? Wow that must have been bliss (although even if it wasn't a surprise I can't imagine it not being sonic heaven live cause its pretty close on the record now, at least i think so). Just realized i dont really know much about the gig besides that a) i love it and b) ??? Don't even know the date.
It wasn't an actual gig. The band set up in the foyer of Waterman's Art Centre and played the noodling set that Fierce eventually released. The idea was to play some ambience while the audience filed past them to watch 'Wings of Desire' so very few actual Spacemen 3 fans were there. I didn't even know about it until Fierce released it yet I was attending every London show they did around that time. They were meant to play 2 sets but were asked to stop after the 1st. The other interesting fact here is that Will had only just joined and his bass packed up before the start, so he mimed and isn't on the recording.
James T
Known user
Posts: 2162
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by James T »

More complaints about noodling etc... this time about Neil Young's tour. Absolutely awful reporting, mind you...
http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music ... -1.1430607
spzretent
Site Admin
Posts: 5587
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Motor City

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by spzretent »

If you look on IORR.Org, the Rolling Stones fan site, you see divisions amongst fans over what you would prefer the band to play live. Bands dont come muuch bigger than the Stones and fans pay a lot of money to see them. If had had my choice it would be all deep catalogue stuff and not the "warhorses" as Miss You, Start Me Up, Brown Sugar, Satisfaction, Jumping Jack Flash & You Cant Always Get What You Want are called. They end the show and comprise the encore at least on this tour.

I saw them in Toronto a few weeks ago and for me the highlights were; Worried About You, Emotional Rescue, Cant You Hear Me Knocking, Midnight Rambler, Gimme Shelter and then Keith doing You Got The Silver & Before They Make Me Run.

I know there a many fans who probably have never seen them live that want the "warhorses" and more hits. They paid good money. I had seen them 20 times. So we left when Miss you started. I felt I had gotten my moneys worth and really did not need to see the end of the show.

So I realize bands owe me nothing. Even huge ones. But I was happy to see Mick Taylor play with them. For me that was worth the time and expense to go 4 hours away to see them one last time(seriously no pun intended).
http://www.lilmoxie.com
Detroit, Music, Sports and Other Stuff(including Spiritualized, Spacemen 3)
redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by redcloud »

My point in mentioning the S3 Brentford gig was really as an example of a band playing totally off their catalog. I don't know how it was viewed at the time by S3 fans...but then again, as runcible hints at how low key the gig was - maybe there were not that many S3 fans in attendance?

Also, as it was pre-social networking or internet the fans complaints or praise would have been contained within their own circle rather than going "viral".

My other point being that it makes me wonder if once the initial shock of Low's 30 minute jam of one tune wears off if it will be viewed favorably by many. Hell, if a recording surfaces it may even become one of their "legendary gigs" and one for the collectors.

More to the point though...as festival sets are condensed I say good on them for shaking it up a bit and making it "fresh". Shame some fans couldn't see that aspect or the fact they just witnessed a one-off and something unique.
James T
Known user
Posts: 2162
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by James T »

There's a recording of the set on the link at the top. it's also on soundcloud. I love it. It's one of my favourite tracks of theirs and during the tour with GY!BE years ago they regularly did 20+ minute versions of it together. They also played it with wilco when supporting them once. Strange it caused such a stir this time!
toomilk
Known user
Posts: 2973
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:40 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by toomilk »

I think it only stirred people because it was at a festival where most of the people hearing the bands are there for the headliner (and don't know most of the other acts) and they expect a "greatest hits" type set from each act. Challenging sets at regular festivals are strictly verboten. I can hear the crowd after the set with murmurs of [spoken in valley-girl-speak] "OMG, that FACKING sucked. They didn't play Canada!"
olan
Known user
Posts: 1968
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Liverpool

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by olan »

I'm firmly of the opinion that the bands owes us nothing. I really enjoy when bands do totally unexpected stuff, which is why playing the hits, or a single album from start to finish, doesn't really work for me.

I went to see New Order in Birmingham in 1985, a couple of months before Low Life was released. At this stage a typical gig was ten songs, with a one song encore. Out come the band, play one song everyone knows, and then 6 or 7 new tracks in a row without saying a word. They were clearly doing exactly what they wanted, and the gig was immense. There was even the worlds most insincere apology for playing all the new songs, "but somebody's got to hear them" and then another couple of new songs :lol: were played before the set closer which was track off their first album IIRC. The encore was a single, but no attempt was made to play the hits. It was simply hilarious, but really wound up those in the audience who were there for Blue Monday. The tension made it even more interesting/fun.

The following year at the same venue, they played a more punter-friendly set and were barracked mercilessly by a bloke in the audience for playing pop songs. This guy ended up on the receiving end of a foul-mouthed tirade and was invited up on stage to repeat what he had said. Cue more insults when he refused. After the next song, came the world's second most insincere apology "I'm sorry if we hurt your feelings, we love everybody really", leading to most in the audience falling about the place laughing, including the punter who was on the receiving end IIRC.

Excuse the long-winded story :roll:
Greeny
Known user
Posts: 812
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Burgess Hill

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by Greeny »

Without wishing to recreate the previous, interminable thread, I think those of us with a beef about Spiritualized RAH#2 had so because of the specific use by the band's people of the phrase "career spanning setlist".

And yes, I am aware of the encore, but really, they'd have been better just to say nothing beforehand.

That aside, I think the trouble with bands experimenting in a live setting is that it often seems to make more sense after the bootlegs have been listened to a few times or more context is applied with the benefit of hindsight. On the night itself, it invariably makes for a "difficult" atmosphere and often sucks the life out of a gig.
jadams501
Known user
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:51 am

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by jadams501 »

As much as we can talk about the transcendent ideal of a gig as an existential presentation of true eternal artistic greatness, I think the truth is that most musicians are entertainers pleasing their audience and the more mass-market crowd who happened to show up, most of whom paid good money to be there.

If bands want to pull out all the stops for a special gig like Dreamweapon that stands apart, more power to them. And if there are a few things they don't want to play, that's fine too -- I went to a Pearl Jam concert once without Jeremy and a few years back saw a great Richard Ashcroft show where he didn't play Bitter Sweet Symphony, seemingly to make a point. Great acts have enough good stuff that they needn't always play all of the obvious hits. Or, with someone like Bob Dylan, where being wickedly obscure is kind of the point, it makes sense.

But if I put down three hundred bucks and braved traffic to see Paul McCartney, I deserve to hear Let It Be and wave my cell phone to the end of Hey Jude, even if it would also be awesome for him to revive a 1983 b-side. After their years of immense success I kind of feel like Radiohead should affectionately revive Creep since much of the aging fanbase really loves it. At my next Spiritualized (and, hopefully, Spacemen 3) gig, I certainly hope there are songs I know and love from following their entire careers. If so, I'm more likely to buy a t-shirt.

Rock & pop are at their core about exciting and pleasing the audience. It's great to experiment and play rarities but give the crowd what it paid for.
angelsighs
Known user
Posts: 4876
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by angelsighs »

depends what sort of fanbase you want to develop though, doesn't it?
if you just play hits and obvious songs you will might have wider appeal but the fans might also be a bit fickler, and might move on to the next band who has the next big hit. whereas as some bands want to cultivate a smaller but more loyal following who have a deeper connection. this Low set makes perfect sense in terms of their fanbase, who are likelier to be more discerning (and perhaps 'artier') than your mainstream music fan.

anyway, it's not mutually exclusive. I think the best setlists have 'the hits' AND some deeper rarities too. win win.

another example I have just thought of is the Yo La Tengo 'spin the wheel' tour from a couple of years back. the content of the first half of their set was dictated by a random spin of the wheel. the night I went it was a set from the Condofucks (their garage rock alter egos) but some nights, people got the band reciting episodes of Seinfeld and stuff! some people were disgruntled, but the form of the shows were clearly advertised beforehand. and on instances like that the band played a greater helping of music in the second half.
a lot of this stuff is just to keep it interesting for the band (especially if they have been around for a few years)- it must be murder trotting out the same setlist year after year.
The Dr
Known user
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by The Dr »

leonard cohen tonight- songs from the new album, more 'obscure' tracks from albums people may not have heard (10 new songs etc) and of course suzanne, halle, so long etc. it was the perfect show (even in the o2 with my vertigo and being sat in the gods)

(and look at the last song- a pleasant surprise)

the audience talked though the songs they didn't know and sang bits of the ones that they did. double grrr



First Set

Dance Me to the End of Love
The Future
Bird on the Wire
Everybody Knows
Who by Fire
Darkness
Ain't No Cure for Love
Amen
Come Healing
Lover Lover Lover
A Thousand Kisses Deep (Leonard Cohen recital + subtle synth backing)
Anthem

Second Set

Tower of Song
Suzanne
Sisters of Mercy
Heart with No Companion
Waiting for the Miracle
Anyhow
The Partisan
Alexandra Leaving (performed by Sharon Robinson with Leonard Cohen recital intro)
I'm Your Man
Hallelujah
Take This Waltz

Encore:

So Long, Marianne
Going Home
First We Take Manhattan

Encore 2:

Famous Blue Raincoat
If It Be Your Will (performed by the Webb Sisters with Leonard Cohen recital intro)

Encore 3:

Save the Last Dance for Me
(The Drifters cover)
“You're not Dostoevsky,' said the citizeness

'Well, who knows, who knows,' he replied.

'Dostoevsky's dead,' said the citizeness, but somehow not very confidently.

'I protest!' Behemoth exclaimed hotly. 'Dostoevsky is immortal!”
angelsighs
Known user
Posts: 4876
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by angelsighs »

that's a pretty cool Leonard setlist. however another question is can a setlist ever be too long?

on Friday night Wilco played an 'all requests' show where they played only requests from fans. it was all covers apart from one song. this was advertised clearly beforehand. and STILL people moaned! plus Wilco are playing other (more standard) sets over the weekend anyway. as a fan I would love to experience them playing these songs and having a ball with it:-

http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/wilco/201 ... 936a6.html
The Dr
Known user
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by The Dr »

angelsighs wrote:that's a pretty cool Leonard setlist. however another question is can a setlist ever be too long?
l
if i could i'd still be there now :D
“You're not Dostoevsky,' said the citizeness

'Well, who knows, who knows,' he replied.

'Dostoevsky's dead,' said the citizeness, but somehow not very confidently.

'I protest!' Behemoth exclaimed hotly. 'Dostoevsky is immortal!”
The Dr
Known user
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by The Dr »

Hofstadter wrote:
The Dr wrote:a band is a buisness
rather should artists have to appeal to the masses and sell themselves to ultimately be able to make a living and fully commit to art as a way of life - it all touches on the idea of a 'professional artist' - .
the reality- from an established artist who has very good buisness savy

"Former Velvet Underground frontman Lou Reed spoke out against MP3s and music downloading at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity this week, stating that MP3s were reducing music "to the lowest common denominator".

Making his first public appearance since his lifesaving liver transplant in May, the singer went on to elaborate his point, stating: "MP3s for God's sake. A really miserable sounding thing, people don't understand what they are missing" before comparing the "horrifying" sound of MP3s to the "beautiful warm sound you get on vinyl."

As well as his distaste at the quality of the recording format, the singer also went on to discuss the resultant financial fall-out for artists, reports Rolling Stone. "It's pretty much what I get from downloads now. I'm back where I started," Reed said, comparing his current earnings from downloads to the $2.60 he made playing in a bar at age 14. "I understand young people were brought up on downloading and Steve Jobs tried to make it into some kind of business which benefits Apple but you get about a sixteenth of a penny. You used to make a record but they reduced the size of it and put it in this plastic that breaks immediately, it's like, what? You realize they are really fucking with you, so people didn't want to pay for anything. . . But meanwhile the musician doesn't get paid anything. Now making a record is kind of a promotional thing." "
“You're not Dostoevsky,' said the citizeness

'Well, who knows, who knows,' he replied.

'Dostoevsky's dead,' said the citizeness, but somehow not very confidently.

'I protest!' Behemoth exclaimed hotly. 'Dostoevsky is immortal!”
BzaInSpace
Site Admin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by BzaInSpace »

C'mon Lou. Surely the beauty of the mp3 is the portability aspect? If you told me even 10 years ago I could walk around with several hundred albums in pristine quality, on a device smaller and lighter than a pack of cigarettes, and play them anytime with no loss in sound quality regardless of how often I can play them, and no more fucking around with seperate tapes/CDs/whatever... wow.
True music lovers are still gonna want their records and CDs in their homes on their sound systems. This is just because the likes of Lou don't get their insanely inflated advances anymore which they could blow on smack and the like. And maybe he should question where all the millions he made for RCA and the like went if it didn't go to him...

After that ill-tempered broadside, can I just add the following:

Surely the point of great art and artists is moving forwards - forget holding on for everyone who can't keep up. These artists owe us nothing at all, least of all your expectation and what you want from a gig or record.

The artists that matter right enough.

If you disagree... do it yourself. I applaud anybody wanting to take some kind of risk and go out on a limb, even if it's a glorious failure. Better that than some horrible, homogeneous, crowd-pleasing bunch of bullshit. As there is clearly more than enough of that to go around.

The great 2011 Royal Albert Hall gig. C'mon, I can't have been alone with being extra privileged at being part of something totally amazing? I'll never forget what it was like to be standing there at the Albert Hall hearing one song after another I'd never heard before (I didn't recognise 'I Am What I Am' at all!), seemingly bridging the gap between orchestral funk, ethereal ballads, trance rock and epic-with-a-capital E singalongs, with the regular band fortified by a massive fuck off orchestra and choir. There was an extended set of "career spanning" material afterwards - but surely we hear that at every other Spiritualized show? To fit in with that prestigious venue I think it's great they did something extra special.

This reminds me of the time that David Holmes played in one of Aberdeen's more selective and drugged-up venues around 1999 - I guess the promoters (and everyone else - including me) expected him to play a night of fairly hard techno. Nope. he proceeded to play this show full of the likes of Sex Pistols, Stooges, obscure heavy funk, soundtracks, dub reggae, garage rock...
Talk about eclectic. And the crowd were going mental. Unfortunately, for all the wrong reasons. Yet me and some pals and a small group of others were going crazy for this stuff. And crucially, the masses of pissed off punters weren't on anything that we weren't... this was a long time ago. But that was an awesome night. I realize there is an element of selfishness here, but really it's all about the artist.
O P 8
angelsighs
Known user
Posts: 4876
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by angelsighs »

just to clarify, regarding the Sweet Heart/Sweet Light RAH show I totally wasn't complaining about the content of the gig, just the fact that the total surprise must have been a bit strange for casual fans, especially as one website had indeed described the show as 'career spanning' beforehand.
I think SHSL has many great songs on it, and overall it came across better live than in the studio.
burningwheel
Known user
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Inner Space
Contact:

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by burningwheel »

i think the venue's we us good sound! the grog shop in cleveland and the empty bottle in chicago are particularly bad and i will never go to another gig at these venues :)
[url=http://www.loveisforever.org]Primal Scream, My Bloody Valentine, Swervedriver, Chapterhouse, The Telescopes, Loop, Verve and more![/url]
The Dr
Known user
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by The Dr »

BzaInSpace wrote:This is just because the likes of Lou don't get their insanely inflated advances anymore which they could blow on smack and the like. And maybe he should question where all the millions he made for RCA and the like went if it didn't go to him...
i think his point is more fundemental, as in new starting up bands. if AW hadn't endorsed and paid for the recording of VU&N would we know who lou reed was?
“You're not Dostoevsky,' said the citizeness

'Well, who knows, who knows,' he replied.

'Dostoevsky's dead,' said the citizeness, but somehow not very confidently.

'I protest!' Behemoth exclaimed hotly. 'Dostoevsky is immortal!”
angelsighs
Known user
Posts: 4876
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by angelsighs »

burningwheel wrote:i think the venue's we us good sound! the grog shop in cleveland and the empty bottle in chicago are particularly bad and i will never go to another gig at these venues :)
good point! although weirdly sound quality doesn't seem to be an exact science and sometimes it's just not happening. I have been to some gigs with dog rough sound.
TheWarmth
Known user
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by TheWarmth »

Sort of off topic, but I have to defend the Empty Bottle. I've seen tons of shows there and played quite a few. Never had an issue with the sound. Somehow, even Boris sounded awesome there with their insane amount of gear and ridiculous volume. Maybe you were there on an off night, but I certainly wouldn't write it off. It's actually my favorite venue in Chicago.
BzaInSpace
Site Admin
Posts: 3864
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by BzaInSpace »

The Dr wrote:
BzaInSpace wrote:This is just because the likes of Lou don't get their insanely inflated advances anymore which they could blow on smack and the like. And maybe he should question where all the millions he made for RCA and the like went if it didn't go to him...
i think his point is more fundemental, as in new starting up bands. if AW hadn't endorsed and paid for the recording of VU&N would we know who lou reed was?
Yeah I know - I was just being facetious.

Unlike Lou's recent piece about Kanye West's new album, which he might be entirely serious about. In fact, he goes on to compare it with Metal Machine Music.

:twisted:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/ju ... est-yeezus
O P 8
shalloboi
Known user
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:25 am
Location: chicago, il
Contact:

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by shalloboi »

TheWarmth wrote:Sort of off topic, but I have to defend the Empty Bottle. I've seen tons of shows there and played quite a few. Never had an issue with the sound. Somehow, even Boris sounded awesome there with their insane amount of gear and ridiculous volume. Maybe you were there on an off night, but I certainly wouldn't write it off. It's actually my favorite venue in Chicago.
i've got to chime in here and echo this statement. the number of bad sounding shows i've seen at the bottle is two at the most in about eight years. i think these instances have occurred when a band brings their own sound engineer- the people they have on staff as engineers have been there for years and years and really know their shit.
simonkeeping
Known user
Posts: 1694
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Contact:

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by simonkeeping »

Interesting thread. I think I'm firmly in 'they don't owe us anything' camp. For me rock and roll is am art form that defies explanation. You want to set your guitar on fire? Do it! You want to kick the shit out of your drums? Be my guest.

Think of the music that simply wouldn't exist without people taking (what seemed at the time) stupid, unfathamable risks in the live setting. Seriously the list will be endless! Dylan going electric, pretty much everything the stooges ever did, miles Davis circa bitches brew and beyond etc etc...

I think that initial shock of the new, or unfamiliar takes you to some exciting places. Risks sometimes fall flat and don't work, but when an artist puts it on the line to try something (that's potentially going to piss people off if it doesn't work) new then good luck to them. If you want to hear nicely played versions of songs like they are on the cd then the live experience isn't going to leave you very fulfilled.

Oh, and BZA, I remember that David Holmes story very well. I had no idea you were there that night. Nice one! Another example of the magic of taking risks in the live arena
http://www.soundcloud.com/haarlemriots
James T
Known user
Posts: 2162
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by James T »

The Dr wrote:leonard cohen tonight- songs from the new album, more 'obscure' tracks from albums people may not have heard (10 new songs etc) and of course suzanne, halle, so long etc. it was the perfect show (even in the o2 with my vertigo and being sat in the gods)

(and look at the last song- a pleasant surprise)

the audience talked though the songs they didn't know and sang bits of the ones that they did. double grrr
Pretty sweet! Seen the great man 4 times now, just once since the new album came out (wembley last year). The setlist is pretty much the same each tour but he does have a list of back up tracks he brings in and cuts out sometimes which keeps it interesting. Did the drifters cover last time I saw him! Can't wait for Manchester next month, FRONT ROW.

I would be annoyed if he did 1 song for the whole show in fairness.....
semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: What does a band "owe us" live?

Post by semisynthetic »

A band, a musical band, I believe can go basically in two directions; play what THEY like and if it is appreciated, people will come back for more. That is probably a "purists" notion that is not practical, but neither was Shox Lumania, or is early Der Blutharsch. These musicians did their noises, and people came back. I am a big Nico fan; that Tuetonic and stoic way rubs most people the WRONG way, but she had an incredible fanbase that were not ALL junkies.

Of course, some bands by DESIGN have become businesses, others have by circumstance and by knowing what people WANT to hear. Usually, when one goes to any given concert, they know what to expect, and if they don't get it, they can leave, or complain to someone who doesn't care. Elvis in the later years would do karate for half an hour or more until the meds kicked in enough to let that incredible voice he had astound. Of course, in the beginning it was by design, but success allows some measure of creativity; from Elvis singing to a dog on Steve Allen to flying out to Vegas to mix Dilaudid with everything else and sing his heart out. Literally. I heard "Unchained Melody" on the radio in my Jeep today, and it still amazes me what a talent, a gift he had in that voice. I'll let others cast the first stone on the rest of it if they choose to.

A band or musician or entertainer owes me NOTHING. I would rather hear the UNUSUAL "hits" than the standards, but there IS that practical side. I am not very good at practicality myself, but I cannot sing well, either. I am very fond of music and musicians; if they want to take me out on a limb sonically, I am willing to go along; IF I don't like it, I can always leave and direct my attentions elsewhere.
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus
Post Reply