Does a bands live music affect your decision to like them or not? (1 Viewer)

[Hoos First]

Does it matter if they are good or bad live?

 

[Insein]

Since I most likely wont see them live, no.

 

[Amused to Death]

Very much. Most of what I listen to is live.

 

[Slapdash]

If they suck live I never really want to listen to their recorded stuff.

 

[Insein]

If they suck live I never really want to listen to their recorded stuff.

If their recorded stuff sucks, I'm not paying to see them live.

 

[Soulfly3]

Weezer is possibly the worst liveband ive ever seen... Sadly, had to see them about 4-5 times in my life

That being said, their blue album and pinkerton are among two of my fave and most important albums in my life... Plus they turned to absolute #### after those records

So, no... To me it doesnt matter. But it can be a letdown.

 

[Apple Jack]

Live is where music the real fireworks happen. If they suck live, they suck.

 

[Ghost Rider]

No.

Consider that the latter half of the Beatles material was never played live by the band, since they had stopped touring, and would have been impossible to replicate as is at the time with just the four of them. If that means the Beatles suck, well...

 

[MC Gas Money]

No. I expect most bands to be sub par live but it doesnt matter to me because i dont enjoy concerts anyway. Ive only been to two real concerts in my life, from autumn to ashes as a teenager and Black Sabbath with Dio at mohegan sun during the heaven & hell tour. FATA sounded great and Sabbath sounded phenomenal, but either way live music doesnt do it for me. All I think is that I wish I was performind instead.

 

[Quint]

in a vacuum, it wouldn't matter because i won't likely see them live anyway.

that said, i'd be bummed-the-F-out if i did go to a show and they sucked live.

 

[FUBAR]

If they suck live it makes me question their talent but their songs can still be enjoyable.

If they lip synch I'm more inclined to dislike the band but that depends on context.

Haven't been to a concert in years, but I've started enjoying live recordings more lately.

I will say, the good live shows I have been to made me like the band more than I would have without that experience.

 

[FUBAR]

Also, what do you mean by good or bad live? Music sounded bad or was the show just not entertaining?

 

[Rove!]

Depends on the artist and what they are going for...if part of their appeal on records is their ability to jam and/or their musicianship and/or amazing vocals and/or a high energy sound, and they stink live, it kind of ruins it. If they have a very processed sound or their appeal is in creating soundscapes etc, then it doesn't matter that much...

 

[MC Gas Money]

Also, what do you mean by good or bad live? Music sounded bad or was the show just not entertaining?

Pretty sure the OP meant the sound.

 

[RUSF18]

I can't stand it when a band sounds exactly the same live as they do in studio. That will turn me off more than an actual bad performance as long as they are trying something different.

 

[MC Gas Money]

I can't stand it when a band sounds exactly the same live as they do in studio. That will turn me off more than an actual bad performance as long as they are trying something different.

Not sure what you mean. I always thought a band would aspire to sounding just like the record

 

[Christo]

I can't stand it when a band sounds exactly the same live as they do in studio. That will turn me off more than an actual bad performance as long as they are trying something different.

Not sure what you mean. I always thought a band would aspire to sounding just like the record

That would piss me off more than if I went to a concert and they sucked. Part of seeing a band live is the uniqueness of the event.

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

The wife absolutely hated U2 until she took me to the Elevation Tour in 2001. Half way through the concert she was in love.

 

[Amused to Death]

Blues, Jazz & Jam Bands has to be live.

Could say the same for Led Zeppelin, The Who & Floyd (pre-Wall). Zappa, Tool, Marley, Crimson...all far better live than studio. Every concert is different, every jam and improv.

 

[Banger]

absolutely it makes a difference for me. I've been turned onto several bands due to their live performances. also, very disappointing to have a band you like and then have them bomb on stage. Actually going to Band of Horses tomorrow night and I think/hope they'll be good live.

 

[RUSF18]

I can't stand it when a band sounds exactly the same live as they do in studio. That will turn me off more than an actual bad performance as long as they are trying something different.

Not sure what you mean. I always thought a band would aspire to sounding just like the record

That would piss me off more than if I went to a concert and they sucked. Part of seeing a band live is the uniqueness of the event.

Yep. I'm not a big music guy, but I go to a concert to see a performance. I don't go to see a bunch of guys sing/play the album in front of me.

 

[Koya]

Of course, but there are so many variables. It won't affect how much I like listening to their music - not live. But it will affect my meaningless "rankings" of bands and obviously it affects if I want to see the perform.

For example, Phish would be a cool but weird band that I like a bunch of songs but wouldn't rank them as one of my all time favs by any stretch. But live? Something special. Even more so with the Dead, and here we go from pure music to an overall experience.

While I prefer phish love for pure music, I've never been to any show nearly as fun as dead shows.

 

[Steve Tasker]

It isn't the only determining factor, but it plays a big role. There are still artists that I enjoy that I have been very disappointed in with their live shows. There are other artists who I have come to enjoy later on simply because I loved the live show.

 

[Doug B]

I can't stand it when a band sounds exactly the same live as they do in studio. That will turn me off more than an actual bad performance as long as they are trying something different.

Not sure what you mean. I always thought a band would aspire to sounding just like the record

Not usually. Here's an easy example: check out Cheap Trick's "I Want You To Want Me" studio version on In Color and the live version on Live at the Budokan. I the studio, producer Tom Werman meant to help the band break commercially, and so polished any traces of hard edge off the finished product. At the Budokan, the band let loose and delviered an AOR classic.

"I Want You To Want Me" (studio)

"I Want You To Want Me" (live)

Even an iconic rock anthem like Queen's studio version "We Will Rock You" can deliver a whole new listening eperience through live performance. Not to say that you can't prefer the studio cut ... just that the band is free to explore new ground live.

"We WIll Rock You" on News of the World

"We WIll Rock You" on Live Killers

 

[MC Gas Money]

I can't stand it when a band sounds exactly the same live as they do in studio. That will turn me off more than an actual bad performance as long as they are trying something different.

Not sure what you mean. I always thought a band would aspire to sounding just like the record

That would piss me off more than if I went to a concert and they sucked. Part of seeing a band live is the uniqueness of the event.

Im not suggesting they just go out and try to nail it like a studio session and not put on a show, but im sure they would like to show that they really are talented musicians and its not all studio magicHow different from the album do you expect them to sound?

 

[Doug B]

There are still artists that I enjoy that I have been very disappointed in with their live shows. There are other artists who I have come to enjoy later on simply because I loved the live show.

Agree with this. I'd say that quality live performances can bump a band up (in my mind) a lot more than bad live performances can bring a band down. If I enjoy the studio versions, listening to poor live versions won't make me enjoy the album less. On the flip side, a stirring live performance can make me look a second time at an act that I had formerly cast aside.

 

[DaVinci]

If I like the studio stuff, I'll listen to the studio stuff. If I like the live stuff, I'll listen to the live stuff. I won't hate the band if they suck at one or the other.

 

[RUSF18]

I can't stand it when a band sounds exactly the same live as they do in studio. That will turn me off more than an actual bad performance as long as they are trying something different.

Not sure what you mean. I always thought a band would aspire to sounding just like the record

That would piss me off more than if I went to a concert and they sucked. Part of seeing a band live is the uniqueness of the event.

Im not suggesting they just go out and try to nail it like a studio session and not put on a show, but im sure they would like to show that they really are talented musicians and its not all studio magicHow different from the album do you expect them to sound?

I'm not talking about the actual technical quality of the instruments or of their voices. Yes, I'm sure they want to sound as great as they do on the album. We're talking some solos, improving, engaging the crowd, etc.

 

[MC Gas Money]

I can't stand it when a band sounds exactly the same live as they do in studio. That will turn me off more than an actual bad performance as long as they are trying something different.

Not sure what you mean. I always thought a band would aspire to sounding just like the record

Not usually. Here's an easy example: check out Cheap Trick's "I Want You To Want Me" studio version on In Color and the live version on Live at the Budokan. I the studio, producer Tom Werman meant to help the band break commercially, and so polished any traces of hard edge off the finished product. At the Budokan, the band let loose and delviered an AOR classic.

its great to play around with the structure or length of a song fora live audience but you still want tonsound crisp.I dont personally have experience with this as a deathmetal singer.my, and the bNds, goal was always to keep it really tight and solid.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I dont see many live acts, so I voted no. That being said, I did gain respect for Maroon 5 and the Goo-Goo Dolls after seeing them live at a corporate event.

 

[MC Gas Money]

I can't stand it when a band sounds exactly the same live as they do in studio. That will turn me off more than an actual bad performance as long as they are trying something different.

Not sure what you mean. I always thought a band would aspire to sounding just like the record

That would piss me off more than if I went to a concert and they sucked. Part of seeing a band live is the uniqueness of the event.

Im not suggesting they just go out and try to nail it like a studio session and not put on a show, but im sure they would like to show that they really are talented musicians and its not all studio magicHow different from the album do you expect them to sound?

I'm not talking about the actual technical quality of the instruments or of their voices. Yes, I'm sure they want to sound as great as they do on the album. We're talking some solos, improving, engaging the crowd, etc.

Oh we are just talking about a boring performance?

Even so it doesnt affect how much I like them.

 

[Banger]

I dont see many live acts, so I voted no. That being said, I did gain respect for Maroon 5 and the Goo-Goo Dolls after seeing them live at a corporate event.

I've always like the Foo Fighters and almost saw them a couple times over the years but never worked out. Saw them last year and what a show they put. Dave Groehl is the man and it took my appreciation of him and the band to another level. Just a great performer with great music....nothing better.

 

[Apple Jack]

No.

Consider that the latter half of the Beatles material was never played live by the band, since they had stopped touring, and would have been impossible to replicate as is at the time with just the four of them. If that means the Beatles suck, well...

The Beatles were excellent live. HTH.

 

[Bobcat10]

absolutely it makes a difference for me. I've been turned onto several bands due to their live performances. also, very disappointing to have a band you like and then have them bomb on stage. Actually going to Band of Horses tomorrow night and I think/hope they'll be good live.

Saw them open for MMJ a few years back and didn't know alot of their tunes....but they very good live, you should enjoy.

Absolutely matters to me. I listen to mostly live music and my favorite bands probably are my favorite because of their greatness in a live setting.

 

[Banger]

absolutely it makes a difference for me. I've been turned onto several bands due to their live performances. also, very disappointing to have a band you like and then have them bomb on stage. Actually going to Band of Horses tomorrow night and I think/hope they'll be good live.

Saw them open for MMJ a few years back and didn't know alot of their tunes....but they very good live, you should enjoy.

Absolutely matters to me. I listen to mostly live music and my favorite bands probably are my favorite because of their greatness in a live setting.

sweet....looking forward to it. Midlake is opening up for them. I don't know a ton about them but I've mentioned them to a few people and apparently they have an underground following and sound a bit like Pink Floyd.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Saw Billy Joel a few weeks ago in the Garden... He kicked ###, great performance, awesome effects, all around amazing show. The guy is in his mid 60's and still is awesome. I've been on a Billy Joel kick ever since the concert.

 

[Brony]

I can't ever remember seeing a band live and then thinking less of them after that. Some bands are better off just listening to them and not seeing what the band looks like (on TV or video), but even this is rare.

 

[Apple Jack]

I thought Band of Horses were good. The reverb-drenched vocal thing that he and Jim James lean on does get old in a hurry though. That double-bill was a bit much.

 

[Bobcat10]

I thought Band of Horses were good. The reverb-drenched vocal thing that he and Jim James lean on does get old in a hurry though. That double-bill was a bit much.

Jim James never gets old!

 

[MAC_32]

I was never a huge Smashing Pumpkins fan, but when their stuff came on I usually didn't turn on something else. Then I saw them in concert last year. They closed out an all day festival. It was awful. Don't think I've ever walked out on a show before, but I and more than half of the crowd did. Now when they come in I skip because I'm immediately reminded about how awful they were live.

So, yeah.

 

[Doug B]

No.

Consider that the latter half of the Beatles material was never played live by the band, since they had stopped touring, and would have been impossible to replicate as is at the time with just the four of them. If that means the Beatles suck, well...

The Beatles were excellent live. HTH.

You're correct, AppleJack, but Ghost's point is well taken, too. With some music, the studio and the recording/production equipment itself is kind of used as an instrument, fundamental to the sound. Much of the Beatles' later experimental work certainly qualifies.

Personally, I've found that artists like the Pet Shop Boys and Tears for Fears suffer from this effect when performing live. Tears' singer Roland Orzabal has a phenomenal voice, but their live show used to resemble a karaoke act because they relied so much on recordings to execute the music itself.

 

[Apple Jack]

I thought Band of Horses were good. The reverb-drenched vocal thing that he and Jim James lean on does get old in a hurry though. That double-bill was a bit much.

Jim James never gets old!

I like him. Just in small doses.

 

[Banger]

I was never a huge Smashing Pumpkins fan, but when their stuff came on I usually didn't turn on something else. Then I saw them in concert last year. They closed out an all day festival. It was awful. Don't think I've ever walked out on a show before, but I and more than half of the crowd did. Now when they come in I skip because I'm immediately reminded about how awful they were live.

So, yeah.

ya, I heard they were horrendous so it's not just a bad day type of thing.

I also heard that Van Morisson was abysmal and bitter. My buddy was a HUGE fan, was so pumped for the show and it was a complete dud. He just completely went through the motions and cashed a check and it really changed how he thinks about him still probably 10 years later.

 

[Apple Jack]

Van Morrison, for most of his career, has been lethal live. One of the best ever, almost always with a crack band of all-world players. Whoever said he was abysmal either caught a very, very bad night, or isn't much of a listener. That said, if you are really visually-oriented and just keyed in on Van's physical presence, he does always look like he's just grinding out a work day. He's always looked like that. Because he is. He'll be the first to tell you that he's a working man. But if you listen, it's a whole other story.

 

[Ghost Rider]

No.

Consider that the latter half of the Beatles material was never played live by the band, since they had stopped touring, and would have been impossible to replicate as is at the time with just the four of them. If that means the Beatles suck, well...

The Beatles were excellent live. HTH.

You're correct, AppleJack, but Ghost's point is well taken, too. With some music, the studio and the recording/production equipment itself is kind of used as an instrument, fundamental to the sound. Much of the Beatles' later experimental work certainly qualifies.

Personally, I've found that artists like the Pet Shop Boys and Tears for Fears suffer from this effect when performing live. Tears' singer Roland Orzabal has a phenomenal voice, but their live show used to resemble a karaoke act because they relied so much on recordings to execute the music itself.

Exactly.

And I have no problem with bands doing all kinds of crazy stuff in the studio that they can't do live. That is the advantage of being in the studio and having all of those things at your disposal.

 

[Steve Tasker]

No.

Consider that the latter half of the Beatles material was never played live by the band, since they had stopped touring, and would have been impossible to replicate as is at the time with just the four of them. If that means the Beatles suck, well...

The Beatles were excellent live. HTH.

You're correct, AppleJack, but Ghost's point is well taken, too. With some music, the studio and the recording/production equipment itself is kind of used as an instrument, fundamental to the sound. Much of the Beatles' later experimental work certainly qualifies.

Personally, I've found that artists like the Pet Shop Boys and Tears for Fears suffer from this effect when performing live. Tears' singer Roland Orzabal has a phenomenal voice, but their live show used to resemble a karaoke act because they relied so much on recordings to execute the music itself.

Exactly.

And I have no problem with bands doing all kinds of crazy stuff in the studio that they can't do live. That is the advantage of being in the studio and having all of those things at your disposal.

I'm having trouble seeing what this has to do with putting on a live show, though. No one's saying that the artist needs to be able to execute every song in their catalog in a live setting....an artist with sufficient material should be able to pick and choose what they should or should not play live. St. Vincent rarely plays anything off her first album in a live show, because the first album was recorded with extra instrumentation and is too complicated for her touring group to play. She plays mostly stuff off her later albums....and her live shows are great. If her live show sucked, I'd think less of her as an artist. The fact that she doesn't play much off her first album doesn't make her live show worse, just different....IMO, of course.

 

[Doug B]

its great to play around with the structure or length of a song fora live audience but you still want tonsound crisp.I dont personally have experience with this as a deathmetal singer.my, and the bNds, goal was always to keep it really tight and solid.

You're take makes sense from the perspective of a live-gig death-metal performer -- it's something of a constrained style of music. Go too far off the genre expectations, and you risk losing your audience by sounding not enough like death metal.

 

[DocHolliday]

I have seen live shows and been disappointed in the vocals or musical ability. I do tend to then like that band less. I would still listen to that band's album if I liked it. That is why it is called studio magic.

It works the opposite way too. For example, Iron Maiden kills live and that makes me like their studio work even more. When I am listening to the studio work, I know that they can pull it off live. That adds an added factor of respect or admiration to go along with just the enjoyment of the tunes then.

 

[MC Gas Money]

its great to play around with the structure or length of a song fora live audience but you still want tonsound crisp.

I dont personally have experience with this as a deathmetal singer.my, and the bNds, goal was always to keep it really tight and solid.

You're take makes sense from the perspective of a live-gig death-metal performer -- it's something of a constrained style of music. Go too far off the genre expectations, and you risk losing your audience by sounding not enough like death metal.

Thats actually one of my gripes with the genre and the people ive worked with. I pike progressive deaty/black metal and all kinds of varying music and some of these guys fail to acknowledge any other genres exist and they write boring crap

 

[17seconds]

Very important. If a band sucks live they can't become a favorite band no matter how much I love their songs. MGMT is an example of that.

If a band is amazing live it elevates them much higher than if I only listened to their albums. U2, for example. They have some good albums but their live performances over the years is what they're really about.