• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

"Don't judge them until you've seen them live"

#21
I think that, as with most things, I would have to say "it depends". I was lucky enough to hear the Beatles live at the Cavern in the fall of '62, and the Rolling Stones when they were a house band in London, shortly after Charlie Watts joined them. IMO both were better live than on their early recordings; mainly becaue English recording studios at the time insisted on taking most of the bass out of the mix. Other than the bands I heard in the '60s when I lived overseas, though, my experience with live performances is very limited. I will say that, in general, I much prefer studio to live recordings. :)
 
#22
This discussion has been all about rock music and pop music. Jazz is a whole 'nother story. Jazz can be spectacular live, in a way that a recording cannot capture. Sometimes being in the room at a particular moment when the magic happens is indescribable. A recording of the same performance may not be as good, since the electricity is missing. I guess you had to be there.
 
#23
Gaolee said:
This discussion has been all about rock music and pop music. Jazz is a whole 'nother story. Jazz can be spectacular live, in a way that a recording cannot capture. Sometimes being in the room at a particular moment when the magic happens is indescribable. A recording of the same performance may not be as good, since the electricity is missing. I guess you had to be there.
Click to expand...

Well Jazz is pretty much a performance genre since it's very much based on improvisation. I don't care for jazz but i'm sure that it needs to be experienced live more than on record.
 
#24
Ha.....I'd have an almost polar opposite opinon of the OP.

In a studio, you can do it and do it and do it again...have 100 chances to "get it right" ( if you've got the budget ), not to mention all the production you can do post-tracking, cut-n-paste editing, lining everything up on a grid. It's nuts what you can do in a modern studio. You can even make a whole album without being able to actually play an instrument.


Live however, it's right then, right there and in a split second it's past you....no second chances. That's when you know if people are good or not.

I'd rather see people live, or listen to a crappy, un-edited live recording than a pristine studio masterpiece any day.
 
#26
Gaolee said:
This discussion has been all about rock music and pop music. Jazz is a whole 'nother story. Jazz can be spectacular live, in a way that a recording cannot capture. Sometimes being in the room at a particular moment when the magic happens is indescribable. A recording of the same performance may not be as good, since the electricity is missing. I guess you had to be there.
Click to expand...

What kind of jazz? I personally hate all things combo band style (**** the realbook and the concept of it).
"All right, so let's play the head twice, then I'll take 2 choruses, then you'll take 2 choruses, then he'll take 2 choruses, then we'll all trade 4's while the drummer takes a chorus! Than we'll take the head out and tag at the end!"
God kill me now. :scowl: Talk about an artist with nothing to paint about.

However, I'm a sucker for Dixieland and NOLA jazz. Grab the clarinets, banjos and sousaphones kids, we is having us a throwdown.

While I agree with Gaolee, that the live performances of these styles are magic when you're there and are not when they are recorded, I do still judge them on the quality of their studio recordings. Youngblood Brass band for example is pretty consistent in their studio recordings. I love those guys.
Rebirth is also a party on record and in person. Rebirth is just a party in general.

Then of course, you've got guys like Trombone Shorty (my favorite musician ever), who put on dynamite live shows that are an experience totally unlike his albums. But his albums are also amazing to sit down and listen to and are an experience Shorty could never bring you live. He's smart enough to know just to put the songs on record, keep the jams for live settings.
 
#27
A record can be horrible and the music & musicians can still be great. A record can be great and the musicians can still suck terribly. Music for thousands of years has been defined by being in the physical presence of people making music. It still defines everything that is great about music for me.
 
#28
I like some bands live, I like some band recorded, I like some bands for both. I like music that I like. I have heard some bands live that blew me away and found out they never record. Who cares, like what you like and move on.
 
#32
will33 said:
Ha.....I'd have an almost polar opposite opinon of the OP.

In a studio, you can do it and do it and do it again...have 100 chances to "get it right" ( if you've got the budget ), not to mention all the production you can do post-tracking, cut-n-paste editing, lining everything up on a grid. It's nuts what you can do in a modern studio. You can even make a whole album without being able to actually play an instrument.


Live however, it's right then, right there and in a split second it's past you....no second chances. That's when you know if people are good or not.

I'd rather see people live, or listen to a crappy, un-edited live recording than a pristine studio masterpiece any day.
Click to expand...

I'm with this ^^^^ dude.
 
#33
Live music is such an "in the moment" kind of thing for both the musician and the audience.
Recordings are like keeping a piece of wedding cake ... it's sentimental and gives nice warm fuzzies but you can't eat it after a while. You can only remember the first time you heard it or what events in your life it was the soundtrack for.
 
#34
cbyrd2200 said:
"Don't judge them until you've seen them live"

This statement is as true as true gets. Here's why:

Live: anything goes. **** hits the fan. Your drummer doesn't show up, your amp won't turn on. Maybe your in ears quit half way through a set due to technical difficulties. This is real life, the show must go on so how do you handle it? It really tests the ability of the musician(s). Their performance might be amazing that night, it might suck. Whatever.

However, in the studio, band members can be replaced by studio pros, perfect pitch machines can fix intonation, you can do as many "takes" as it takes to get it to a passable standard, given the conveniences of modern digital recording. I have no sympathy for anyone who sounds bad on modern recordings.

Therefore, the statement stands: "Don't judge them until you've been to one of their live shows."

...

And to anyone who still thinks the whole "Don't judge them until you've seen them live" thing is unacceptable:

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
Click to expand...

Phishyness omitted (I am not a fan, nor do I find them irritating)...

I agree with you entirely. Do the songs and musicianship stand on their own? Can't hide behind a bunch of processors, virtual-limitless tracks and a symphony orchestra. Does the band connect with the audience, does the energy flow between the stage and the stands?

Yup. A good band live, can be great in the studio, but bands that can't cut it live shouldn't be allowed to make records.
 
#37
I can't stand jam bands either. I find it very boring to listen to a band playing the same song for 25 minutes at a time. To me, it's nothing more than self indulgent nonsense on the part of the band. I feel the same way about bands that have each member do a solo during a concert. That's usually the point where I walk out and go to the rest room or get a beer.
 
#38
I've never actually heard someone DEFEND a band based on their live show versus a recording with that statement, so I didn't quite get the conversation at first.
It wasn't until post #24 that I saw what I've always thought was the rationale behind that sentence. When someone I respect says that to me, I take it to mean that the band's musicianship is so good that they can handle the variables associated with an anything-can-go-wrong live show and still smoke it. I had a teacher that once said, "You have to be able to play through the server dropping a platter of plates and glasses right in front if the stage." Whether the studio album is so-so or stunning, I tend (though not always consistently) to withhold judgement until I've seen a band execute live. I've seen too many tricks in recording sessions to trust recordings. But that's what matters to me about a band, more than the songs they write, number of radio plays, etc. I respect a good live performance. Of course, audience energy makes a difference. Sobriety or lack thereof on my part has an influence. Ymmv.
Now if we're taking about songwriting, I'm thrilled that there exists enough studio magic that the writer's intent can be fully realized. Kudos to the wizards that make that happen. I love a good song for its own sake.
Pretty sure I've added nothing to the conversation. But it was fun to think on!
 
#39
cbyrd2200 said:
"Don't judge them until you've seen them live"

This statement is as wrong as wrong gets. Here's why:

[DEL]Live: anything goes. **** hits the fan. Your drummer doesn't show up, your amp won't turn on. Maybe your in ears quit half way through a set due to technical difficulties. This is real life. I don't hold these things against the musician(s). Their performance might be amazing that night, it might suck. Whatever.
[/DEL]
Recording, anything goes. You can't play in time? Use ProTools to change it. You can't play the part? Consistently? Just do it over and over until you do manage to play it once correctly.

[DEL]However, in the studio, musicians are to be held to a perfect standard, given the conveniences of modern digital recording. I have no sympathy for anyone who sounds bad on modern recordings.
[/DEL]
This of course assumes that "perfect" and "making music" are both synonymous aims. And for a lot of music (and most of the musics I like) the aim is to present a record of the emotional situation now- and to show the interplay between musicians reacting to each other as they play.

And to anyone who still thinks the whole "Don't judge them until you've seen them live" thing is acceptable:

YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
Click to expand...

Pot, kettle.
John
 
#40
Even modern recordings can sound bad and it's not the fault of the musicians. Sometimes it doesn't capture the true sound they want to convey. Sometimes it's over-produced, poorly mixed, etc.

I just judge bands by whatever means I'm able to hear them: studio recording, live recording, terribly shot cell-phone video uploaded to Youtube. There are times I go, "Yeah, that's close to what I like to hear." and so I explore more about the band. Other times I go, "Nope."

There are many time people try to convince me their favorite band is worth listening to, whether it's a studio recording or live. If I dig it, I dig it. If I don't, I don't. Simple as that.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back