Good on record, bad live..

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

Moderators: sunny, spzretent, BzaInSpace, runcible

Post Reply
angelsighs
Known user
Posts: 4501
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Good on record, bad live..

Post by angelsighs » Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:38 am

at the Loop gig the other night, Aquarian Time and I touched on this subject during our pre gig beer. I have to admit I have been fairly lucky in this respect. live music is generally awesome but if your favourite band doesn't cut it, the disappointment can actually put you off listening to them sometimes.
I have had some instances:

Yo La Tengo. one of the most varied, consistent and enjoyable discographies around. however I have seen them live twice and they were generally sloppy, flat and just a bit lacking.
Maps- love the first album, and the first gig I saw by them was okay. the next one was just him and a couple of laptops. awful. couldn't listen to them for a good while after that.
Teenage Fanclub- I think these guys are excellent songwriters. when I saw them live about ten years ago it was rather poor.
(modern) Bob Dylan. have to add the caveat I've never actually seen him. however I've seen a fair bit of live footage, and I have no desire to change that. I think his recent albums have ranged from okay to brilliant, he's having a purple patch in that regard. but live it just seems like he's not arsed and every song turns into a bluesy mush.

The Dr
Known user
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by The Dr » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:03 am

angelsighs wrote: (modern) Bob Dylan. have to add the caveat I've never actually seen him. however I've seen a fair bit of live footage, and I have no desire to change that. I think his recent albums have ranged from okay to brilliant, he's having a purple patch in that regard. but live it just seems like he's not arsed and every song turns into a bluesy mush.

oh my! read my review of his gig at the albert hall, he was on fire! and aparently he was exceptional on the whole tour- especially in rome where he played 'hits' sets


Rainy Day Women #12 & 35
It Ain't Me, Babe
Man In The Long Black Coat
Positively 4th Street
Summer Days
Make You Feel My Love
Rollin' and Tumblin'
When The Deal Goes Down
Highway 61 Revisited
Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues
Girl From The North Country
Under The Red Sky
Ain't Talkin'
Thunder On The Mountain
I Don't Believe You (She Acts Like We Never Have Met)
Ballad Of A Thin Man
Blowin' In The Wind

------------


Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat
Don't Think Twice, It's All Right
Watching The River Flow
Blind Willie McTell
Honest With Me
Make You Feel My Love
Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum
Queen Jane Approximately
Highway 61 Revisited
Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues
Ain't Talkin'
Most Likely You Go Your Way And I'll Go Mine
Boots Of Spanish Leather
The Levee's Gonna Break
Every Grain Of Sand
Like A Rolling Stone
All Along The Watchtower

-------------

i think you have to see them live to comment on them live :wink: - youtube is never the same, or you can watch spz online and go, meh that was a nice show, no energy or atmosphere though...

what about bands which are great live and then you get the record and it is a pancake?
“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: 4501
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by angelsighs » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:15 am

that's a fair point, I shouldn't comment really as seeing people in the flesh is always different.

The Dr
Known user
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by The Dr » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:44 am

angelsighs wrote:that's a fair point, I shouldn't comment really as seeing people in the flesh is always different.
that being said there are some very good live albums out there and bootlegs with different, 'better' versions of songs :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!”

olan
Known user
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:42 am
Location: Liverpool

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by olan » Thu Apr 17, 2014 1:46 pm

/grumpy old git mode on/

For me the classic good on record/bad live band was New Order but then they also specialised in being bad on record/good live too. They have entries in my top gigs of all time (Salford University 1985, Dublin 1986 (second night) Reading Festival 1988 to pick 3 at random) and my all time worst gigs (Melbourne 2002, Brixton Academy 1983, Dublin 1986 first night to pick 3 at random). The Fall are also a good example of a good on record/bad live band that can bad on record/good live too

I loved most of the early Cocteau Twins LPs and saw them play a couple of epic gigs in 1983, but by 1986 they were pretty boring live. The Jesus and Mary Chain put out some great records but never really did it for me live, ditto Lush, Ride (after the first LP), and the Pixies most times I saw them. Echo and the Bunnymen were fab as a live act, but never recovered after PdF left (I saw them play the RAH in 1986 with Blair Cunningham on drums - they were pants) . I did not see them much after PdF died but in Melbourne in about 2001 in particular they played an absolute stinker of a show. Other honourable mentions go to The Las, The House of Love, The Buzzcocks (reformed line-up), New York Dolls......

/grumpy old git mode off/

In reality though there is no such thing as a bad gig or a bad record. Some of the gigs I listed above as being bad are held in high esteem by people I know who were also there and whose opinions I respect. All gigs and records are good to some extent, it is just that some are more enjoyable than others, which is really a matter of individual preferences and opinion.

BzaInSpace
Site Admin
Posts: 3576
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by BzaInSpace » Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:32 pm

Dylan nowadays hobbles and croaks through 'intepretations' of his hits, backed by a better-than-average bar band. Good for him for carrying on the endless road, but anyone who thinks he's getting close to his mid-60s peak is deluding themselves.

Which includes the likes of Allan Jones of Melody Maker and Uncut infamy: basically wetting themselves if Dylan plays guitar for a single song, or playing some godawful jam which after two minutes or so reveals itself as 'Forever Young' or something.

Dylan would be best now writing the remaining volumes of Chronicles - unlike Neil Young, he's no longer able for the rock 'n' roll game...
O P 8

angelsighs
Known user
Posts: 4501
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by angelsighs » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:12 pm

what about the records, Bza? I think he's been on a great run since Time Out Of Mind (which was, and is likely to remain, his last masterpiece)
I do agree that he gets a strangely sycophantic ride from the press sometimes. Allan Jones gave both Together Through Life and Tempest 5 stars.. quite good records.. but REALLY??

The Dr
Known user
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by The Dr » Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:44 pm

i think dylan is fantastic live now. yes i would have loved to have seen him rolling thunder/66 era but his voice was never where it is at (the 64 bootleg for example is a good advert against singing, but it still is brilliant), also i'm impressed he is singing at all, considering he had a throat operation in 97 (i think) to remove throat cancer- that has got to mess up the vocal cords irreparably. yes he'll never hit the 60s style again, the same way many here say spz haven't been good live since ladies and gents or lgm. it depends what you are looking for. if one is slooking for the 60s or 90s or whatever era of a band then they are better listening to the albums.

together through life i found patchy at best- the first album he co-wrote since desire- which was his first. lyrically it is weak and the music is hit and miss, although beyond here lies nothing and it's all good are worthy entrues to his greats, in my opinion. love and theft had moments but as a whole i feel it could be better but time out of mind, modern times and tempest i think are really brilliant albums, 5 stars for me. take a song like tin angel- dark twisted poetry, deeply mythalogical. i don't like roll on john as i have no interest in john lennon and tribute songs only really connect if you care about the person being tributed too (j.richman- velvet underground for example)

you are only as good live as your last show and this tour dylan has been immense. all of the reivews were echoing the preconceptions on this board and then going 'stone me, he's brilliant!' i think that you have to approach a show or album as what it is and not what you expect/want it to be to appreicate it fully. i haven't met a person for this tour who has not loved every second of it, except those who want him to come out and play mr tamborine man on guitair (although aparently he has some kind of condition meaning he can't play gutiair anymore) and then play like a rolling stone. a lot of these people, incidently, are who told me that they were pissed off when he went electric....you can't please everyone!
“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: 3576
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by BzaInSpace » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:42 pm

angelsighs wrote:what about the records, Bza? I think he's been on a great run since Time Out Of Mind (which was, and is likely to remain, his last masterpiece)
I do agree that he gets a strangely sycophantic ride from the press sometimes. Allan Jones gave both Together Through Life and Tempest 5 stars.. quite good records.. but REALLY??
Well I was really going on the live thing. However, if you were to take the strongest tracks from the last few Dylan albums you'd have a really good record. I really liked Modern Times though - I actually prefer parts of that to Time Out Of Mind. Especially the blues covers.

Allan Jones - did he not also highly rate the Xmas album? What rubbish, regardless of whatever 'charidee' cause it was for.

Live I get the impression nobody wants to admit how bad Dylan really is these days. A good mate of mine seen him pretty recently and it was atrocious. I'll certainly take his word for it over the fawning press...
Dr wrote:also i'm impressed he is singing at all,
I hardly think that really qualifies as singing though, let's be honest... :wink:
Dr wrote:you are only as good live as your last show and this tour dylan has been immense. all of the reivews were echoing the preconceptions on this board and then going 'stone me, he's brilliant!' i think that you have to approach a show or album as what it is and not what you expect/want it to be to appreicate it fully. i haven't met a person for this tour who has not loved every second of it...
You haven't spoken to my mate then. And I disagree with regards to your thoughts on appreciating a show or album - the best music (live or otherwise) is that which takes you somewhere else, and not only meets your expectations but smashes them to bits.

Otherwise life would be very boring indeed... and we'd all be writing for 'Uncut' mag, and making excuses for poor-too-middling live shows. And Bon Iver.
O P 8

The Dr
Known user
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by The Dr » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:55 pm

BzaInSpace wrote:
Dr wrote:also i'm impressed he is singing at all,
I hardly think that really qualifies as singing though, let's be honest... :wink:
Dr wrote:you are only as good live as your last show and this tour dylan has been immense. all of the reivews were echoing the preconceptions on this board and then going 'stone me, he's brilliant!' i think that you have to approach a show or album as what it is and not what you expect/want it to be to appreicate it fully. i haven't met a person for this tour who has not loved every second of it...
You haven't spoken to my mate then. And I disagree with regards to your thoughts on appreciating a show or album - the best music (live or otherwise) is that which takes you somewhere else, and not only meets your expectations but smashes them to bits.

.
who would you say is a good singer? billie holiday? she can't carry a tune but cuts me up. sarah brightman? beautiful voice but some dull songs. i'd be interested in your definition.

no i haven't met your freind, i hope he is well

seeing dylan, seeing leonard cohen, jane birkin, the bolshoi ballet, wagner's parsifal etc last year blew me to pieces. i agree a great piece of art goes through you and changes who you are but one shouldn't have preconceptions to beat or not, one should go in open minded and if it blows one away then it was a great book or what-not, if one only looks at things comparatively then something will always be lost
“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: 3576
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by BzaInSpace » Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:40 pm

I was of course being somewhat facetious with my remark about Dylan's, er, 'vocals'.

I will stand by my opinion though - whatever else Dylan still has, his tonal range and vocal strength have all but gone. He sounded great on Theme Time Radio Hour though.

On the other hand, some of his singing, particularly from the 1960s, is absolutely amazing. Abrasive and coarse and probably mixed too high - but the force and presence there cannot be denied!

What do I think makes a good singer?

My answer is simple: the exact opposite of whatever Simon Cowell and his coven think makes a good singer.

Despite what you might think, I don't buy all this stuff about technical albility. At all.

Sure, Freddie Mercury was an astonishing singer and extremely gifted and hits all the notes and has massive vocal power - yet Neil and Jennifer from Royal Trux were none of these things but they are just as good.

Sometimes it's all about the phrasing or the grain of the voice.

It's just that I think Dylan has all but lost any kind of singing ability. IMO.



Back to the topic though - who else is good on record, but bad live?

One example for me would be Mercury Live in 1998. Deserter's Songs sounded ace back then - atmospheric and evocative and a very elaborate production. Live unfortunately it was a sprawling mess. And not in a good, feedback-strewn David Baker-going-nuts kind of way. There were just so... average. The two Rev guys and a bunch of session guys.
O P 8

angelsighs
Known user
Posts: 4501
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by angelsighs » Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:31 pm

I forgot about Mercury Rev! I was quite keen on them around the Deserter's Songs time. I managed to catch them a couple of years later at a festival-I expected a epic, sweeping assault and it was just pants. Jonathan's voice sounded whiney and annoying and they tried to beef up the guitar sound with a bit of delay but it just sounded clunky.
the next album was poor too.. I eventually sold Deserter's Songs as well, and now I'm not really a fan of them at all!

runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5209
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by runcible » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:26 pm

I saw Mercury Rev's first ever UK show at the Mean Fiddler. It is probably the loudest performance I have ever witnessed and pretty bonkers all round. They were great... But then that was the noisy period with David Baker. All the shows I saw with him in the line up were outstanding.

redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by redcloud » Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:27 pm

Smashing Pumpkins - I like "Gish" and "Siamese Dream" and saw them during this time and was horribly disappointed. That may also have tainted my opinion of "Mellon Collie", which was the last album of theirs I bought and I thought it was over bloated and too full of filler.

Aerosmith - As a young boy one of my favorite albums was Aerosmith "Rocks" (1976) it is one of the mid 70's hard rock albums I still rate highly. They were still a rock band when I had the chance to see them at age 11 or 12 (no power ballads had crept in, yet) BUT...they were dreadful! This was my first sense of disappointment with live music and it also confirmed all the stories I heard about them from older people or read in magazines like Creem, Hit Parader and Circus.

nickh
Known user
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: London

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by nickh » Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:12 pm

...
Last edited by nickh on Mon May 18, 2015 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5209
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by runcible » Tue Apr 22, 2014 3:34 pm

Jane's Addiction. Saw them twice around Ritual Lo Habitual - a record I love - and they were very tame. You'd think they'd be explosive live but all I could think of was that they needed a second guitarist to fill in all the gaps.

mywhitenoise
Known user
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:19 pm

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by mywhitenoise » Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:06 pm

I've seen Yo La Tengo twice, and always left amazed at what I had just seen. Seeing and extended Ohm last year almost felt like a religious experience.

BzaInSpace
Site Admin
Posts: 3576
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by BzaInSpace » Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:24 pm

runcible wrote:Jane's Addiction. Saw them twice around Ritual Lo Habitual - a record I love - and they were very tame. You'd think they'd be explosive live but all I could think of was that they needed a second guitarist to fill in all the gaps.
Wow - really? I seen them live years later at one of the Gig On The Green festivals in Glasgow - 2002 I think. Spiritualized and the Prodigy played too. Anyway, they had recently reformed and Dave Navarro was with them and they were truly awesome it has to be said. This was despite Perry Farrel's wacky headgear...

I distinctly remember the sun was setting, the crowd were full of love, the refreshments were kicking in and the ominous intro to 'Three Days' started... the place went fucking bananas. Full on euphoria and shivers forever, I could not believe what I was hearing at all. If you know that song you might imagine it would sound potentially pretty messy live yet it sounded incredible - loud and vast and 3D technicolor all the way.

Still - Ritual de lo Habitual remains a true American rock classic and kinda forgotten about these days maybe. Still sounds amazing...

Maybe this belongs in Good On Record AND Live.
O P 8

runaway
Known user
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: the shadows

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by runaway » Wed Apr 23, 2014 3:16 am

Jane's Addiction gets my vote for bad on record and bad live.

redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by redcloud » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:40 am

Or we could start a new thread "Bad on record, Great live". Perfect candidate: The Grateful Dead.

Although, I do like a lot of their studio records (in the case of "American Beauty" like is replaced with love) it's a known fact that the Dead were a live band and they struggled to replicate the live sound, energy and looseness in the studio.

runcible
Site Admin
Posts: 5209
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by runcible » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:05 am

redcloud wrote:Or we could start a new thread "Bad on record, Great live". Perfect candidate: The Grateful Dead.

Although, I do like a lot of their studio records (in the case of "American Beauty" like is replaced with love) it's a known fact that the Dead were a live band and they struggled to replicate the live sound, energy and looseness in the studio.
Can of worms? I really only play live Dead but American Beauty, Workingman's Dead and Wake of the Flood get regular airplay too - great records. And American Beauty is indeed without doubt one of the greatest albums ever made.

BzaInSpace
Site Admin
Posts: 3576
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: HELL

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by BzaInSpace » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:09 am

runaway wrote:Jane's Addiction gets my vote for bad on record and bad live.
Haha... Funny.
O P 8

beaker73
Known user
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by beaker73 » Wed Apr 23, 2014 10:58 am

I'm kinda surprised no one mentioned The Stone Roses yet in this thread. I never saw them actually perform in the time of the first album, but what I gather from bootlegs, they sounded really bad live, with Ian singing out of tune. Even on the officially released Blackpool gig.
"I've been drinking all night long, but my hands are steady"

James T
Known user
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:00 pm

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by James T » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:10 am

I liked yo la tengo a lot live, but then again I did also think they were awful at primavera (but it was really bad sound)

I think this is easier the other way round. I can't stand beck on record really apart from a few tracks, but always enjoyed him live.

spunder
Known user
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 12:13 pm

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by spunder » Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:56 am

beaker73 wrote:I'm kinda surprised no one mentioned The Stone Roses yet in this thread. I never saw them actually perform in the time of the first album, but what I gather from bootlegs, they sounded really bad live, with Ian singing out of tune. Even on the officially released Blackpool gig.
hmmmm.....from boots *especially* the Blackpool show, despite Ians vocals the band are playing well....i think they suffered from the odd technical hiccup (Ally Pally, Spike), but on the whole the music was fairly tight....i suppose you could also argue that, at the the time, the sense of occasion they created at their gigs overwhelmed any band/playing/sound issues...?

redcloud
Known user
Posts: 2755
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:32 pm
Location: Portland, OR.

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by redcloud » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:12 pm

runcible wrote:
redcloud wrote:Or we could start a new thread "Bad on record, Great live". Perfect candidate: The Grateful Dead.
Can of worms?
Yep probably. Especially considering how many people listed them in the "Sacred Cows" thread.

beaker73
Known user
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by beaker73 » Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:13 pm

spunder wrote:
beaker73 wrote:I'm kinda surprised no one mentioned The Stone Roses yet in this thread. I never saw them actually perform in the time of the first album, but what I gather from bootlegs, they sounded really bad live, with Ian singing out of tune. Even on the officially released Blackpool gig.
hmmmm.....from boots *especially* the Blackpool show, despite Ians vocals the band are playing well....i think they suffered from the odd technical hiccup (Ally Pally, Spike), but on the whole the music was fairly tight....i suppose you could also argue that, at the the time, the sense of occasion they created at their gigs overwhelmed any band/playing/sound issues...?
You could certainly argue that. The old "guess you had to be there"-thing. And would have loved to have been there :roll:
"I've been drinking all night long, but my hands are steady"

angelsighs
Known user
Posts: 4501
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by angelsighs » Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:23 pm

the Stone Roses were quite inconsistent live, from what I can gather from boots etc. they sounded a bit wimpy around the time of the first album, but become rock beasts on the Second Coming tour. I very much enjoy boots from that tour.
they sounded pretty good on the reunion tour too.

the issue raised above about one guitarist is a good one. sometimes if people's records have lots of overdubs and layers it can be tricky to replicate it live. even the best bands can suffer from this. but a good band should select songs carefully and do live arrangements that still can sound visceral and exciting.. sometimes the guitarist has to play riffs that are kind of a hybrid.

semisynthetic
Known user
Posts: 1444
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:39 pm
Location: Undefined; drifting ever further and further away

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by semisynthetic » Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:41 pm

redcloud wrote:
runcible wrote:
redcloud wrote:Or we could start a new thread "Bad on record, Great live". Perfect candidate: The Grateful Dead.
Can of worms?
Yep probably. Especially considering how many people listed them in the "Sacred Cows" thread.

I am a bit interested in just why so many people went after the so called "Sacred Cows"; for The Grateful Dead, playing live was their forte'; I enjoy their albums very much, but even their "live" albums do not begin to have the sound and that weirdly exciting ambience they created so very well in concert, and played so beautifully. I really miss those concerts!
"Everything is a Poison; it is the amount or degree that separates one Poison from another"
Paracelsus

natty
Known user
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Comfortably dumb.

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by natty » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:28 pm

runcible wrote:I saw Mercury Rev's first ever UK show at the Mean Fiddler. It is probably the loudest performance I have ever witnessed and pretty bonkers all round. They were great... But then that was the noisy period with David Baker. All the shows I saw with him in the line up were outstanding.
I saw them support Ride around then and they were pretty shambolic I thought, although interesting enough to make my buy "Yerself Is Steam", which is such a good record I'm glad I did.

Saw them with David Baker again on the Electric Mainline tour with Spiritualized and they were absolutely mindblowing, one of the best things I've ever seen, arguably blew Spiritualized off the stage that night.

natty
Known user
Posts: 713
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 1:00 am
Location: Comfortably dumb.

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by natty » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:29 pm

runaway wrote:Jane's Addiction gets my vote for bad on record and bad live.
:shock:

The Dr
Known user
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 pm
Location: some forgotten memory/ midday of eternity

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by The Dr » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:55 pm

chemical brothers- interesting on record with lyrics, meoldy, beats etc- live just beats and lazers *snore*
“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!”

nickh
Known user
Posts: 591
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: London

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by nickh » Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:07 pm

The Dr wrote:chemical brothers- interesting on record with lyrics, meoldy, beats etc- live just beats and lazers *snore*
Not sure I totally agree with that, hit and miss definitely. I saw them play the Sunday night at Glastonbury in 2007 and was one of the most amazing live shows I have ever seen, 6 months later at Brixton Academy was a similarly wonderful experience. Seen them since at Olympia and Hyde Park and they were actually quite dull. Have to add that just before the Hyde Park show I had watched the Aphex Twin play a set that no one could have followed.

Still love their records.

pale blue eyes
Known user
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 7:27 pm

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by pale blue eyes » Fri Apr 25, 2014 12:38 am

natty wrote:
runaway wrote:Jane's Addiction gets my vote for bad on record and bad live.
:shock:

DOUBLE :shock:

Laz69
Known user
Posts: 2358
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 9:09 am
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by Laz69 » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:18 am

The Dr wrote:chemical brothers- interesting on record with lyrics, meoldy, beats etc- live just beats and lazers *snore*
I saw The Chemical Brothers twice many years ago @ Barrowlands in Glasgow around the 2nd and 3rd albums and both sets blew me away... i was never really fussed about dance music in general but i enjoyed their records, and with the full light show/video screens and massive sound, they really put on a great show!

mojo filters
Known user
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Permanently folded, doing the best that I can...
Contact:

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by mojo filters » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:42 pm

spunder wrote:
beaker73 wrote:I'm kinda surprised no one mentioned The Stone Roses yet in this thread. I never saw them actually perform in the time of the first album, but what I gather from bootlegs, they sounded really bad live, with Ian singing out of tune. Even on the officially released Blackpool gig.
hmmmm.....from boots *especially* the Blackpool show, despite Ians vocals the band are playing well....i think they suffered from the odd technical hiccup (Ally Pally, Spike), but on the whole the music was fairly tight....i suppose you could also argue that, at the the time, the sense of occasion they created at their gigs overwhelmed any band/playing/sound issues...?
I agree that on both the boots and the official Stone Roses live material, Ian Brown can be described as inconsistent at best. On the official DVD it's really noticeable how his vox are deliberately mixed low on both the stereo and 5.1 mixes, which makes his dodgy pitch less obvious.

However when I saw him headline the Other stage at Glastonbury (2005 I think) he came on and went straight into four Stone Roses tracks and sounded great. But then he started to play some solo stuff and seemed to lose whatever momentum he had - he reverted to stopping songs to berate the engineers, and all the other usual crap I'd seen him do as a solo artist, including singing badly out of tune.

But those 1st four songs he really impressed me (for the 1st time live) and he sounded virtually as good as on record, and none of his diva-esque trashing the sound guys.
I'm like Evel Knievel, I get paid for the attempt. I didn't promise this shit would be good!
Dave Chappelle

beaker73
Known user
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by beaker73 » Fri Apr 25, 2014 4:52 pm

When I saw Ian do a solo gig in the Paradiso in Amsterdam a couple of years ago, I wasn't expecting much, but he was in good voice then. I guess he got better through the years. Therefore I would love me a nice official live album/dvd of the stone roses reunion :D
"I've been drinking all night long, but my hands are steady"

mojo filters
Known user
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Permanently folded, doing the best that I can...
Contact:

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by mojo filters » Fri Apr 25, 2014 5:08 pm

beaker73 wrote:When I saw Ian do a solo gig in the Paradiso in Amsterdam a couple of years ago, I wasn't expecting much, but he was in good voice then. I guess he got better through the years. Therefore I would love me a nice official live album/dvd of the stone roses reunion :D
I'm surprised this hasn't been released yet - as surely it would be best positioned to sell well, on the back of the recent reunion gigs ... if it's taking this long to release it's a bit sus!

But if they are planning on more big-earning reunion gigs, they might well have all the footage in the can and post-production work done - but to release it now would dilute potential earnings from future live performances ... so at this point who knows?

No matter how much I respect and admire the Roses and especially John Squire, I can't imagine that a new live concert release wasn't part of the reunion gig revenue-enhancement masterplan, especially considering how unimpressive Blackpool was!
I'm like Evel Knievel, I get paid for the attempt. I didn't promise this shit would be good!
Dave Chappelle

beaker73
Known user
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:59 pm

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by beaker73 » Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:58 pm

maybe they're plodding a third coming :lol:
"I've been drinking all night long, but my hands are steady"

mojo filters
Known user
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:20 pm
Location: Permanently folded, doing the best that I can...
Contact:

Re: Good on record, bad live..

Post by mojo filters » Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:09 pm

beaker73 wrote:maybe they're plodding a third coming :lol:
Thought that had already happened, live at least...
I'm like Evel Knievel, I get paid for the attempt. I didn't promise this shit would be good!
Dave Chappelle

Post Reply