Wow... this was kind of depressing

[Blackbird 13]

For what it's worth, I'm 27.. most of my friends and family in the same age bracket (21-35 let's say) are all about going to see their favorite bands live. Hell, I know for me, I'll go see anyone live once, even if they aren't a style of music I'm usually into.

 

I think this is just a case of this one guy preferring live recordings to live bands. And honestly, maybe some of the bands he's into just aren't that great live...

[jeff42]

IMO, that experience is the exact reason that I hate to see other bands do poorly. I think a lot of people have the myopic view of: "If we kill everytime we play club XXX and the other bands flounder, it increases our value to club XXX". While this may be true, my attitude has always been, the more good bands there are to see live, the more people will enjoy their experiences seeing live music, the more often they will go to see live music and bring their friends..

 

 

very true!

[kmart]

Lots of people tend to hit a time in their lives where their entertainment and soclal lives revolve around the house. yard parties , BBQs offer alot more bang for the buck. the night club bar scene is more geared to the young and single and the older and retired .... most of the people inbetween are working too hard to spend the extra to go out. latter 30s to early 50s ,, have have alot of things pulling on the income. Its a stay at home and eat steak vs go out and eat burgers type decision. thow in the drunk driving ,, the non smoking bars and its pretty well a no brainer for alot of these mid live people to just stay home to do their social thing.

 

 

Weird...not my experience for my peers/in my neck of the woods at all; from age 15-30, the vast majority of my 'social life', and that of my peers revolved around seeing bands...not your corner bar variety cover bands, and not arena acts for the most part: mid-level and up & comer bands, in clubs, where the primary focus was 'see the band live'.

[rangefinder]

Maybe people are getting smarter,,, when you think about it ,, a bar isnt the greatest place to meet the woman of your dreams. Odds are too good of meeting an drunk , espeically as you get older.

 

 

Some of us prefer drunks who AREN'T the women of our dreams... if you catch my drift.

 

Anyway, many factors have been mentioned here and all are true, but possibly the biggest one is the pervasiveness of technology.

 

Back in the day, the way to get a record made was to kick ass in live venues, build a following, and get an A/R guy interested enough to agree to spend a ridiculous amount of money on a studio session.

 

Now, you can skip all that crap and just make your own demo, if not your own album entirely, for not all that much money, and never play a note live.

 

Plus the technology can mask all kinds of performance issues, of course.

[rhat]

Some of us prefer drunks who AREN'T the women of our dreams... if you catch my drift. Anyway, many factors have been mentioned here and all are true, but possibly the biggest one is the pervasiveness of technology. Back in the day, the way to get a record made was to kick ass in live venues, build a following, and get an A/R guy interested enough to agree to spend a ridiculous amount of money on a studio session. Now, you can skip all that crap and just make your own demo, if not your own album entirely, for not all that much money, and never play a note live. Plus the technology can mask all kinds of performance issues, of course.

 

 

 

Yup pretty well anyone can have a CD out these days. Its pretty hard for people to weed through all the trash to discover that really great indy band or artist. In a way I liked it back in the day. AM top 40 radio did all that weeding out for you..... A band could look at the top 10 ,, cover the songs they liked , and rinse wash and repeat. To be a top band back then , you had to really stay active on updating set lists to stay on top of a local scene.

[Lee Flier]

For what it's worth, I'm 27.. most of my friends and family in the same age bracket (21-35 let's say) are all about going to see their favorite bands live.

 

 

Sure, and I still know lots of people like you and your friends and family. But I also think there's a huge under-served market out there. The fact that attendance at live shows (even small, cheap venues) has dropped so dramatically doesn't lie. The die-hards aren't enough to keep a vibrant scene going.

 

 

I think this is just a case of this one guy preferring live recordings to live bands. And honestly, maybe some of the bands he's into just aren't that great live...

 

 

Well, according to him, the latter is the case - the bands that he liked on record just weren't very good live. He said they couldn't play or sing very well and the sound was bad.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of others like him.

[GmanJeff]

I found a similar sentiment recently on the part of a club owner, although it related not to whether to see a live performance, but to whether a recording is a reasonable representation of what a band sounds like when performing live. When I offered one of our demo CDs so he could hear us before making a booking decision, he said he never listens to band demos because he's found they rarely correspond to what he actually gets on stage in the venue. He explained that he felt that anyone could sound fine on a demo, but that many acts can't reproduce that quality live. He booked us, but on the strength of 1) my having taken the time to see him and ask him to book us, 2) our track record of having played at other venues and having been asked back to them, 3) our website, which we've been told looks relatively professional compared to a MySpace Music, Facebook, or similar free site, and 4) our price fit his budget.

[Lee Flier]

I found a similar sentiment recently on the part of a club owner, although it related not to whether to see a live performance, but to whether a recording is a reasonable representation of what a band sounds like when performing live. When I offered one of our demo CDs so he could hear us before making a booking decision, he said he never listens to band demos because he's found they rarely correspond to what he actually gets on stage in the venue. He explained that he felt that anyone could sound fine on a demo, but that many acts can't reproduce that quality live.

Yup, we've gotten the exact same rap. Usually, they will accept a live video (with only the video camera's mic as audio) as a demo, though - kinda hard to fake that, although anything's possible.

[SeniorBlues]

Yup, we've gotten the exact same rap. Usually, they will accept a live video (with only the video camera's mic as audio) as a demo, though - kinda hard to fake that, although anything's possible.

This is kind of depressing . . . .

Most video cameras don't have wide angle lenses that will allow you to get close to the band, so you back way up and the low end disappears.

Wonder if anyone has tried blending a track from a mic off the PA and another from the camera. Make sure it doesn't sound too good.

[ChordGirl]

Perhaps the music industry itself has some blame in this. With all the hyper-doctoring that goes on, the public ear has gotten used to the perfectly computer-tweeked, overprocessed sound such that even excellent career artists are using autotune and click tracks for fear of missing a couple of pitches or dropping a beat in a live performance.


I saw Rusted Root open for Santana in mid 90's, right after their first album started to gain notoriety. They sucked live as compared to how they sounded on their album. It took them some time to bring their live show up to the level their CD suggested.

[gspointer]

This is kind of depressing . . . . Most video cameras don't have wide angle lenses that will allow you to get close to the band, so you back way up and the low end disappears. Wonder if anyone has tried blending a track from a mic off the PA and another from the camera. Make sure it doesn't sound too good.

Zoom Q-3, great audio, the video is lacking though.

[Lee Flier]

Perhaps the music industry itself has some blame in this. With all the hyper-doctoring that goes on, the public ear has gotten used to the perfectly computer-tweeked, overprocessed sound such that even excellent career artists are using autotune and click tracks for fear of missing a couple of pitches or dropping a beat in a live performance.

 

 

Yeah, there is probably a bit of that going on. But I don't think there's so much of it with people who are into more "organic" music to begin with. I think a lot of bands now are just not very good live - I've certainly seen that often enough, myself.

[BlueStrat]

I actually think your co-worker has a point. I can't count the number of times I've tuned into SNL or some other live TV show and seen the Big New Thing play live and just stink the place up.

 

I think it has a lot to do with bands today being required to start out as songwriters and recording artists out of the gate. "Back in the day" (God, I hate that, but it fits) a band had to work hard and play for many years, as a rule, to ever even hope of being good enough to make a record. They got signed based on their live performance. Now, making a decent record is a must, and every band starts out as a recording artist, before the band even plays many if any gigs. And if they do happen to break, it's only after playing their 14 songs night after night in bars for a relatively short time (a year or two, or three) and suddenly being thrust upon larger venues with not a lot of seasoning. It's no mystery to me why so much emphasis is put on the record rather than the show.

[wades_keys]

I actually think your co-worker has a point. I can't count the number of times I've tuned into SNL or some other live TV show and seen the Big New Thing play live and just stink the place up. I think it has a lot to do with bands today being required to start out as songwriters and recording artists out of the gate. "Back in the day" (God, I hate that, but it fits) a band had to work hard and play for many years, as a rule, to ever even hope of being good enough to make a record. They got signed based on their live performance. Now, making a decent record is a must, and every band starts out as a recording artist, before the band even plays many if any gigs. And if they do happen to break, it's only after playing their 14 songs night after night in bars for a relatively short time (a year or two, or three) and suddenly being thrust upon larger venues with not a lot of seasoning. It's no mystery to me why so much emphasis is put on the record rather than the show.

 

Truth.

 

The road was where bands of old learned their trade.

 

Now they have to figure it out in front of thousands of people. It ain't always pretty.

 

Hell, take even a band like Motley Crue: listen to their first album - it reflected pretty much where they were musically at the time.

 

Then listen to their followup and you can hear how their experience got them tighter and more together.

 

So the record company wasn't going out of their way to cover deficiencies and whatnot, and they let the artists grow and evolve naturally.

 

Now, the pressure is on for that first album to be together and tight, as if the band is well oiled and together.

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, Pat, your post is right on I'm afraid.

[wades_keys]

Yeah, Pat, your post is right on I'm afraid.

It's really just a question of honesty.

People would be more willing to accept a bands' deficiencies if the record companies didn't lean on ghost players and bull{censored} to make everything perfect.

I think Pat has a good point, but at the same time I think he is ignoring the many, many raw-ass bands that came up quickly in the late 70's and through the 80's. Bands like Motley Crue, Black Flag, and U2. Yeah, go back and listen to "Boy" and tell me how polished and slick that sounds: not very, huh?

The record companies are setting these bands up to fail by making everything so polished and slick. It's disgusting, really.

And cover bands are to blame too: taking autotune out, triggering samples, running a light show that would have been out of reach of most bands in the 70's, all slick and polished with their choreagraphed moves......They {censored} in their own mess kit and raise the bar higher than they can tolerate.

Stuff that was "cool" and "raw" back in the day is now denigrated as "sounding like {censored}": the Stones, the Who, Led Zep: all have lost their lustre in the eyes of the critic of today. The critic who expects nothing less than picture-perfect execution, while at the same demanding an all out clown act in order to captivate us visually.

[GreenAsJade]

I'm not sure that the "developed a preference for clean studio music" is going to the heart of it.

 

I think the heart of it is that the technology for "fixing up crap in the studio" is just so pervasive now that bands can produce stuff on CDs that people will love without actually having to be able to make that sound at all.

 

Then they think they can go (or plain old want to go) and perform it and forget that it's not getting fixed up as they play.

 

In fact, I find myself in that exact situation now! The writer in a band I was in "took a break to go record some stuff". She has a wonderful album on tape now. She wants to "go release it". But who the heck can play it the way it sounds on the CD? No-one, and certainly not musicians within reach of the hobby music circle... so as part of the proposed band that is reforming to play it, we have to figure out "how can we arrange this so that we can play it".

 

Of course, good musicians _should_ be able to cover complex music in a rearranged way that still sounds great live, and this is our goal. BUT there is no doubt that it won't sound the same as the CD. And there is no doubt that there's a trap waiting for us, the same trap other bands have, which is that we can fall short of the good CD experience and deliver the disappointment Lee started describing... the point of my story is that this is exactly how it happens: it starts from people being able to record music that they can't play.

 

GaJ

[MrKnobs]

I think, as a previous poster said, people just aren't into live music across the board anymore. Everything that a live show offered (in most people's opinion) is more easily available, cheaper, and less hassle then just being entertained at home. Why drive downtown through heavy traffic, search for a place to park, walk through a run down, scary neighborhood and then pay $8 / drink to sit in some seedy bar with bad sound and hear a (probably) crappy band, then worry about a DUI on the way home when you can just STAY at home and be entertained?

 

The main purpose of a bar has always been drinking and meeting people, and, these days, it's much more effective to find dates on the internet. Alcohol at home is cheaper and safer (see DUI above) too.

 

One thing I've learned in spades on Second Life is that there are plenty of people who will enjoy and purchase your music but never go see live bands. However, it's Catch 22. They'll never buy your music if they've never heard of it, so you have to perform it and then catch them right away while the seed is still fresh in their minds.

 

Another good method is to play at restaurants. People love to eat and they will drive downtown (or wherever) to attend a restaurant that currently has the buzz. If you can get that gig, not only will you be paid but you'll also reach some ears that would never hear you otherwise. We sell physical CDs well doing outdoor shows at restaurants with full bars that charge no cover (other than the outrageous amounts for alcohol and food).

 

In summary:

 

Live music: out

Eating: always popular

Internet: easy access to music, drugs, entertainment, and sex

 

It's a new paradigm, and we're trying to adapt to it. We're also trying to get our songs placed in film and TV.

 

Terry D.

 

P.S. Now, COUNTRY cover bands in small towns is STILL a paradigm that puts cash in the till. Big halls in small towns. I can easily make $150/night running sound doing that, but I'm not gonna actually PLAY country covers anymore. Been there, done that, easier ways to make $100 than that.

[rangefinder]

Of course, good musicians _should_ be able to cover complex music in a rearranged way that still sounds great live, and this is our goal. BUT there is no doubt that it won't sound the same as the CD. And there is no doubt that there's a trap waiting for us, the same trap other bands have, which is that we can fall short of the good CD experience and deliver the disappointment Lee started describing... the point of my story is that this is exactly how it happens: it starts from people being able to record music that they can't play. GaJ

 

 

Yep... and the real money these days is in touring, because of all the piracy, whereas it used to be in album sales.

 

So before, technology sucked, so bands would struggle to capture their live sound on an album. Often the result was a crappy album, and limited money for the band.

 

Now technology rules, so bands struggle to capture their studio sound when playing live... and the result is a crappy live show, and limited money for the band.

 

Just another example of the Fundamental Theorem of Rock: Musicians Starve.

[Hegmatronicon]

Tell your friend to stay away from any Metallica show that's going on from now on.
Saw them in Prague recently....good lord....how the mighty have fallen.

I do agree that there's a LOT of bands that have stellar sounding albums out and then you go see them live (and out here if they are an o/seas band the prices are HUUUUUUGE coz of the cost of them GETTING to us) and they struggle to live up to it.

I find it's mainly singers tho. I usually find that the band themselves can play the songs but the singer is usually the one that struggles to hit the high notes/stay in pitch/keep his/her breath etc. Not always tho (see Metallica where the drummer consistantly falls in a heap etc).

There is still hope however. There's a few bands i'm into right now that i have seen a few times live and they always deliver! I dont want a live show to sound just like a recording. I want it sound like a live show. The odd flubbed note, off pitch vocal etc is fine with me. It's live...perfection is impossible (almost) and thats what makes it an experience!

Example:

Recording:
[YOUTUBE]t59vYoP6LkY[/YOUTUBE]

Live (albeit a video camera recording):
[YOUTUBE]uVI3oEL-sxI[/YOUTUBE]

Or with an extended intro:
[YOUTUBE]71nLFXAVglU[/YOUTUBE]

[tim_7string]

It's depressing, but I can relate to it a bit. There are many bands I have never seen live, but I have loved their albums. In some cases, I was almost afraid to go see them, because I didn't want to be disappointed to discover that they weren't as good (or even close) as the album in a live situation. I have had good and not so good luck with various concerts I did attend, from the small-time level (originals bands in Minot, ND and Winnipeg, MB) to the arena.

 

Sometimes the sound is just terrible, due to the acoustics. Mike Watt opening for Primus at a civic center in the Twin Cities back in 1995 was like that. It was fun to see both acts, but I can't for the life of me remember exactly how well they played. I do remember being blown away by Tim "Herb" Alexander, though. What a drummer!

 

Sometimes it's just that one or more of the band is drunk and can't remember what they're doing. The Van Halen concert at the Fargodome on Halloween, 2004 was very much like that. Disappointing and all I can say is "I finally got to see some of my heroes, although not at their best at all." Probably was my last chance to ever see Michael Anthony play with VH again, so for that alone, I'm glad I saw it.

 

I used to check out originals bands in Minot and Winnipeg all the time. It was fun to see them and interesting to compare their CDs and cassettes to what I remembered hearing. A lot of times, I prefered the live version of what I just saw. Many times it was much more powerful and moving, even though I could hear everything very clearly on the recording. In some cases, I almost preferred not knowing what the hell they were singing about!

 

For me, a big part of the fun of a live show on the concert level is seeing my heroes in the flesh. It's almost like seeing movie stars, except they're on a stage, playing guitar or drums or singing. It's mind-blowing to see people you only saw in magazines and in pictures from your albums suddenly right in front of you. I loved talking to Jay Ferguson from Sloan before the show started. He was a very cool guy and it was a surreal experience, knowing that this was the guy that wrote some songs that I loved. I still remember with fondness watching Pantera in 1996 and thinking, "Wow, there they are!"

 

This generation is the iPod generation, so a lot of them have all grown up with the idea that music is on devices, rather than performed live. It's on video games, movies, television, the internet, and finally, on their mp3 players. That mentality of easy access to a recorded song doesn't really foster the idea of "hey, I'd love to see these guys live."

 

Kids and young people with the attitude like this guy have missed the point. Live music is an experience. It isn't all about "how well did they recreate their recording?" It's about sharing feelings and a vibe, a communal experience. God, I sound like a hippie but you get the point. It's like that for baseball games, where you can't see jack {censored}, but it's fun to hear the crack of the bat, the screams of the crowd and watching the players do it right in front of you, live.

 

It's also a strong reminder that people are listening, people are watching, people KNOW if you're just phoning it in. To not do one's best at all times is to simply be disrespectful for the people that have gone through the hassle to see you play. I see it with a lot of local cover bands (people leaving after a set, set and a half) as well as originals acts on the small-time level. I know that I enjoy seeing a band really pull off a song well musically and vocally, as well as with energy and fun. It's very exciting!

 

I think that's part of it, but maybe it isn't for him. He just wants to hear the music sound like the record. That's why I enjoy seeing tribute acts. It's great to hear the amount of effort they took to recreate songs, and are often times better than the artists that originally recorded the songs. They definitely are reaching a certain critical market and are popular for a reason.

 

I'm not sure what the answer is, other than that bands should always be grateful, always try to do the best they can, every time they are on a stage. People are there to enjoy themselves. They came to your show for a reason. Don't let them down.

[BlueStrat]

 

I think Pat has a good point, but at the same time I think he is ignoring the many, many raw-ass bands that came up quickly in the late 70's and through the 80's. Bands like Motley Crue, Black Flag, and U2. Yeah, go back and listen to "Boy" and tell me how polished and slick that sounds: not very, huh?

 

 

All those bands played bars for years, especially Motley Crue (a cover band in LA) and U2. Black Flag was a staple in LA and was playing clubs when I lived there. The point I was making is it was their live show that got them signed, not the other way around.

[wades_keys]

All those bands played bars for years, especially Motley Crue (a cover band in LA) and U2. Black Flag was a staple in LA and was playing clubs when I lived there. The point I was making is it was their live show that got them signed, not the other way around.

 

Can't argue with that.

 

Actually, Mick Mars of Crue was the cover band guy that Motley hired: If I recall his band was called "White Horse" and they opened for Van Halen a few times at the Whiskey.

 

But think about how fast things are expected to move now and try and reconcile that reality with what you had in the past: our whole society has fallen for instant gratification, instant access to information and knowledge.

 

It's considered a badge of honor anymore to get up and running quickly - we work longer hours, do more work, and take less vacation than ever before.

 

Is it any wonder that our art truly reflects where we are as a society?

 

I mean {censored} dude: just look how easy it is for a cover band to get up and running these days. Don't know how to play a song? Log on the internet and get a tab. That's not accurate? Login to youtube and watch the band play the tune live. Still can't figure out what's up? Login to a musicians forum and ask other cats to help you figure it out.

 

We had none of that {censored} even in the 80's, let alone in generations past. I remember getting in arguments with people about Eddie Van Halen and how he did what he did on tunes like Eruption; people might forget but for the first few years he wouldn't let people see how he did his more famous techniques (Jimmy Page did {censored} like this too; kept people guessing)

 

Now everything is an open book. A kid can teach himself guitar by watching youtube, and he'll get the positions and the notes perfect because he is learning directly off of the cat that played it. Back then I remember learning things by ear and being "wrong" but at the same time, right, because I would put things into a context that made sense for me and still sounded musical.

 

Apparently Eddie did this too: he's said in interviews that he never bothered to learn covers note for note (thank god for that!)

 

So now we have this academic "correctness" thing hanging over us, and a whole generation of players that have learned by rote how to parrot what they need to parrot.

 

It's like we've gone from a nation of innnovators to a nation of imitators, and we want it all and we want it now. It's pretty sad really. I've always been pretty hip to what came before and what will come, but now I just plain feel old fashioned.

 

And no, it's not my age. I just reject outright where our society is moving and what it now values.

[tim_7string]

 

All those bands played bars for years, especially Motley Crue (a cover band in LA) and U2. Black Flag was a staple in LA and was playing clubs when I lived there. The point I was making is it was their live show that got them signed, not the other way around.

 

 

The old model of playing live before recording an album is one that definitely has merit. It definitely shows a record company if there is an audience or not. If an act is selling out clubs on the small level, they just might do it on the bigger level too. What is funny is that it still comes down to that today: have you got the goods live? That's what people want to see. If not, better work on it. Yet some people still don't get it.

 

I love to play live, but I wrote and recorded my songs in a vacuum and I'm not sure that was the best way to do it. I think it would have been better to have a band of the same people for a few years, then rehearse those originals with them. I was stubborn in that I didn't see any lasting band in my future, so I just recorded my songs the way I heard them and figured I would work out the details of how to perform them in the future.

 

I read that Dave Grohl will often hear his songs a certain way, but once he brings them to the band and they add their own creativity to them, it takes on a whole different shape and often a better one. I can relate to that in a small way, with my cousin Dean adding some cool guitar parts to a song I wrote. The way I originally heard it, it was more sparse, just some acoustic guitar and maybe some light keyboards. However, the atmospheric guitar fills he put in whenever we played the song live were actually more inspiring.

 

I do wonder what it would have been like to just have a band, play live a lot, then record the songs. I'm sure the results would probably be much better.

[6StringSling]

Last month I went to see MSG on the 30th Anniversary Tour. Opening acts: Sister Sin and Lynch Mob.

 

Place: Dante's in downtown Portland. Capacity: 300 (maybe a little less).

 

Back in the late 80's I went to see Cinderella & Winger at the Memorial Coliseum. Sat on the main floor about 20 rows back. Loudest show I had ever seen. Until last month.

 

The sound was so damned loud that for Lynch Mob, not a single word of the vocals was heard. For MSG, a few words or sentences now and then. That girl Liv fronting for Sister Sin were the only vocals that you could hear.

 

I mainly went to see Micheal who has been one of my favs for a long time and yes, he tore it up. But I would have to say that that was worst concert I've ever been to specifically because you could not hear the vocals.

 

I have a couple of friends who play in bands and just a couple months ago at one show, the exact same thing: stage volume so loud that no vocals came across to the audience. And the other guy's band I've seen several times and most shows, you either can't hear the vocals or they are unintelligible.

 

All of the shows I've mentioned (4 different venues) have had a house person doing sound. I personally cannot understand how someone can stand there OUT FRONT, hear NO VOCALS and think that the sound is fine. And I've asked others at these shows (without voicing my own thoughts) and everyone I've talked to has said pretty much the same thing: music too loud and very disappointed at not being able to hear the vocals.

 

I can't blame anyone for not wanting to go see bands locally in small venues because my recent experiences have shown me how much it sucks.