Wow... this was kind of depressing

[wades_keys]

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.

That's probably because they are too goddamned loud on stage, and all that {censored} comes right back through the vocal mic.

I've seen Lynch live back in teh heyday and he likes it loud.

There's not much a soundman can do with that: if he turns up the vocals, the guitars and everything else bleeding into the vocal mic just get louder too (and still drown out the vocals). Then you gotta figure the monitor mix is a mess so the singer is hearing all that {censored} or nothing at all up on the stage.....

That's a band fail, not a soundman fail.

You're right: a lot of bands don't work together and keep their stage volume under control.

Instead, they buy more gear, bitch about their soundman, buy more gear, fire a few mother {censored}ers, bitch about their soundman, buy more gear.....

[rangefinder]

instant access to information and knowledge.

 

 

Wait a minute -- you're saying that's a bad thing???

 

I mean, you can point to a few negative effects (like we all are doing in this thread) but the sort of instant access you describe is immensely liberating for a whole bunch of people, and you don't need to be a kid to take advantage of it.

 

There's no way I'd want to go back to the Dark Ages as far as information access and recording/effects technology.

 

The challenge is to maintain the underlying artistry while still leveraging those new methods. Sure, some (or even most) up-and-coming musicians won't give a crap. But those who do care will generally be the true success stories IMO.

[Corpsey]

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.

Totally agree with this. I'm 23, and luckily I had an older brother to get me into aggressive music at an early age (he was part of the 80s OC/LA hardcore punk scene), he got me into bands like Black Flag, X, Fear, Dead Kennedys, TSOL, Adolescents, etc, etc. I never got to see any of those bands live (except for TSOL, X, and Adolescents, but only recently) in their heyday, but their recordings pretty much captured what you were going to get at the show, except for the riots, fights, and general problems. I was talking to my nephew (he's 18) the other day and he was telling me about this kid he knows who thinks bands should sound the exact same live, as they do on the record. I couldn't believe that. I'd rather see a band live, and have a raw, in-your-face, get lost in the music (and the pit) kind of experience, than a "recreating the album" experience. Also, as far as attendance to shows go, I think it has to do with the mentality of the younger kids, and the age-limits on a lot of places. Here in Southern California, a lot of places are 18+/21+ so younger kids won't be able to experience live music until that age, and when they do, they'll be so used to studio recordings, a live setting will sound like complete {censored} to them. That's just my two cents, anyway.

[mshifflett]

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.

 

 

+1

[samtrips]

I see the two as distinct entities.

 

Some music is made in the studio, some is made in the live environment. Going from one to another takes adjustment and skill to get right.

 

I'm perfectly happy to go and see a band who play really differently to the record. And if I see a band live first, I expect that their record will not be exactly the same as that.

 

Obviously it's great if a band can pull off both, but I don't see bands as any less if they fail at one while nailing the other.

 

The Grateful Dead weren't often very successful in the studio.

The Smiths were terrible live (well, the bootlegs I've got are).

 

I still love both.

 

I do feel sorry for people who don't enjoy live music though - I need both live and recorded in my world, I couldn't pick one or the other. Been lucky enough to see many awesome shows over the years and nothing those artists can do on record matche sup to the memories of seeing and hearing it in my face with a specific group of friends at a specific time of my life.

[JailTime]

It's not that difficult to understand, folks. The available supply much exceeds the demand for live music. Factor in that much of it stinks, or is very contrary to the listeners appreciation, and you have the cream having a tough time finding its way to the top. I like the general direction of music these days and the tools that are available to make it. I consider it an evolution of sorts. I don't want my music to be sloppy, nor do I want the recorded/live music of others to be sloppy. So that whole notion of being "raw" is kitschy nostalgia, and I don't buy it. If the Stones existed in their prime right now, you better believe that they would be using the available tools.

I agree it's depressing, because legitimate bands who have the whole package - great recordings and great live sound - are out there. I actively seek them out, and have never been dissapointed with the available content - when I find it. There's is just so much to wade through, it can daunting, and I can certainly understand why some people would give up trying.

[Dancebass]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but where it concerns modern "rock" or "alternative" music, many of the prevailing styles over the past several years have simply been boring in the live setting.

If you embrace a minimalist ethos and look down your hipster nose at anything that hints at a large production, you're going to lose the public's interest. They're going to drop off like flies.

If every "hip" band the system churns out sounds like Modest Mouse and looks like Napoleon Dynamite, what does seeing that in a live setting do for anyone? Fine, go a head and be too cool for the room Mr. Shoegaze serious "artist", everyone at your show is nodding off!

[samtrips]

If every "hip" band the system churns out sounds like Modest Mouse and looks like Napoleon Dynamite, what does seeing that in a live setting do for anyone? Fine, go a head and be too cool for the room Mr. Shoegaze serious "artist", everyone at your show is nodding off!

 

 

 

I see what your saying but if you went to see a real good shoegaze band like My Bloody Valentine, I don't think you'd be dropping off. They're probably the loudest thing ever. A different experience to the records, totally.

[BlueStrat]

 

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.

 

 

Yes, it used to be sort of the equivalent of the path to the majors for ball players. Just like baseball players, they might get signed right out of high school or college, but then they had many levels to prove themselves before they were ready for 'the show': AAA, AA, A, Winter League, etc. A small fortune is spent on each player developing his talent.

 

Today's music business is somewhat like a team signing a kid out of high school, putting him in the majors without the needed talent development, and hoping for the best. When he fails, no big deal, because there are millions more kids to take his place.

 

 

It's not that difficult to understand, folks. The available supply much exceeds the demand for live music. Factor in that much of it stinks, or is very contrary to the listeners appreciation, and you have the cream having a tough time finding its way to the top.

 

 

Partly, this could be because of the rise of the 'self esteem' generation who have grown up having self esteem imparted to them absent any real achievement. This enables success to be divorced from effort and hard work and make it more the stuff of whim. Thus, kids decide something is cool because it's new, unheard of, has a quirky name, is really rough, and is anti-slick, anti-polished and anti- melodic. Most importantly, it's cool because they could imagine themselves doing it as much as the band they're listening to. It is not cool because someone worked really hard to make it. Cream doesn't rise to the top anymore because te kids who make or break a band aren't looking for cream, they're looking for the sprinkles on top of it.

[kmart]

Yes, it used to be sort of the equivalent of the path to the majors for ball players. Just like baseball players, they might get signed right out of high school or college, but then they had many levels to prove themselves before they were ready for 'the show': AAA, AA, A, Winter League, etc. A small fortune is spent on each player developing his talent. Today's music business is somewhat like a team signing a kid out of high school, putting him in the majors without the needed talent development, and hoping for the best. When he fails, no big deal, because there are millions more kids to take his place.

 

 

This, exactly.

 

If I ran a major label, and had the option of either spending serious money to develop a single artist over a long period of time in the hopes that THEY ALONE might have that mega big hit (or hits) to keep my doors open the next few years (while I developed their replacement) OR spending almost no time and 1/100th of the money up front on 100 flavor of the moment artists, where I reasonably might see a dozen or more of them with a big hit single (and then no more), and ended up in financially the same spot as option one at the end of the day, I'd be foolish to spend the time & money on A&R/development from a purely financial standpoint. Efficiency-wise as well.

 

And while I see that the labels/music industry have done a lot to push the 'singles' market and 1 hit and done artist agenda...

 

 

...ultimately, music consumers are to blame as well; the public doesn't need to be music savvy at all in order to recognize something that's got no lasting value vs. something that will stick around a while longer. But the average consumer doesn't care; they only want to think about the hit that makes them feel good right now, because that's easier.

[Kramerguy]

I didn't read this entire thread, it's pretty long!

I just wanted to convey my thoughts on the OP and some of the sentiments about live music.

I also go out when not gigging and see other bands. Like ANY local scene, you should expect the "usual" guys in T-shirts & jeans, moderate musicianship, not much of a show outside a bunch of guys groovin on stage. (speaking of the local "B" clubs)

So when a band comes along and really engages the crowd and actively wants to grow (not just play the local circuit), then they probably will succeed. It's not rocket science. It's been this way for years.

The only difference is that now, yes, much fewer people go to bars, for a variety of reasons we've discussed here ad-nauseum. So the bars expect the bands to bring the crowds, and nobody really follows bands anymore anyways.

In the end, it's still $5 for a cheap night out (plus drinks lol), I really can't say the quality of 'musicianship' or 'show' in local bars is any better or worse than it was 20 years ago, with exception to hair metal bands which tended to be a bit more wild with gigs (and I miss that!).

I also have to agree with the other side of the coin- the festivals / big shows, and even full-scale concerts are total. freeking. failures. They make you feel like a rat in a maze.. follow the cheeze, go here, go there, do as you are told... Way overpriced {censored}ty food, extortion-priced water (during the summers), {censored}ty sound, {censored}ty performances.. even local festivals are loaded with overpriced foods and {censored}ty bands.

The worst part of the local festivals is that the bands are even {censored}tier because the only bands playing are the ones who were willing to do it for free, or even pay to play...

I think most young people now put THAT face onto live music when mentioned and don't realize that the local club scene (A-clubs) tend to have a lot of fantastic bands.

I don't believe many people care for experiencing "musicianship" like they did in the past. People seem to want to just get to the hook already and damn the rest of the song. Who cares if you can do a savy chord structure followed by an even savy-er jazz scale? Not today's listener.

I mentioned in another thread last week about 80's pop having far more depth than today's, on a musicianship scale. It's true- idiocracy is in effect - we're down to 3-chord melodies. Soon we will be down to 2-note melodies and the top movie in the country will be an ass that just farts for 90 minutes.


lol- not to sound too bleak- the savy listener will always exist, but for now, supply and demand is the problem, and it seems like it's solving itself, as S&D usually does.

[Howie22]

it's too loud and distorted."

 

 

I have to agree with him here. Even with real professional level major recording artists, often the shows are distorted and I've heard a lot of clipping.

 

OTOH, I saw Zac Brown Band recently, and thought they weren't loud enough. You could hardly heard them, sounded like background music in an elevator or something.

[wades_keys]

So when a band comes along and really engages the crowd and actively wants to grow (not just play the local circuit), then they probably will succeed. It's not rocket science. It's been this way for years.

Succeed.....what does that mean exactly?

Too often on this forum the ideal is put forth that a band must "engage the crowd" and "bring the party"; the implication being that bands that don't do this are inferior.

I'm sorry but that's some jive-ass {censored} right there.

Donald Fagen doesn't jump around up on that stage, but damn he and the boys lay down some mesmerizing music.

There is no reason on this planet why musicianship and a quality sound should not be explored by local bands; actually there is a reason - you have to be able to play music with a high degree of skill.

For all of this hyping up of bands that "engage the crowd": answer me this....

Then why does every locale have multiple bands that do this and do this well?

Compare that with the number of local bands that really emphasize musicality.

Sure, one could say that "musicality doesn't sell". I'm not buying that. Unlike the work that goes into "engaging the crowd", musicality cannot be made to happen through desire or work ethic; it takes talent, skill and dedication.

I'm sorry, but anybody with the right "look" and cajones can get up there and "engage the crowd".

{censored}, I had to give a jazz dance recital in front of over 200 people as an 8 year old; are you gonna tell me that busting out some robert plant moves in front of a bar crowd is tougher than doing synchronized, rehearsed dance moves?

So why don't more bands bring the SKILLS? Maybe cuz they aint' got em?

Maybe because it's humbling to try? It won't happen overnight, that's for sure - it takes time for a band to gel, especially on difficult material.

I also have to agree with the other side of the coin- the festivals / big shows, and even full-scale concerts are total. freeking. failures. They make you feel like a rat in a maze.. follow the cheeze, go here, go there, do as you are told... Way overpriced {censored}ty food, extortion-priced water (during the summers), {censored}ty sound, {censored}ty performances.. even local festivals are loaded with overpriced foods and {censored}ty bands.

Not around here. The WaterTower blues and reggae festival always gets some real heavy hitters - kickass bands. Hell, they just did a Bluegrass Festival there last week or so and the music I heard sounded mighty fine.

It sounds like your local festival organizers suck.

[playlikedanko]

This is an interesting discussion. Certainly, the "live sound vs. recorded sound" debate is something that a lot music fans consider in their consumption habits, but it's hardly a new thing.

 

There is a reflexive argument that perhaps bands today are putting too much emphasis on replicating their recorded sound.

 

When you think about some of the most successful live bands from way back, I mean it's not like they could duplicate their recorded sound accurately. Hendrix live was a completely different animal than his meticulously overdubbed/multi-tracked records. Ditto the Stones (before, say, 1980), Zeppelin, the Who, etc. Yet seeing them live, you were bound to see something completely new and exciting. They didn't try to play their records note for note, and were likely better off for it.

 

I know that the jam-band scene is sort of maligned here, but from my experience they are pretty successful on the live scene. And their records are often merely afterthoughts. If they tried to repicate them live, their audience would be pretty upset.

 

As for the guy in the OP, I tend to think there are just some people who would rather hear what they expect to hear and some people who want to hear something different. For many of those in the former category, I'd imagine just listening to record is preferable to going to the concert.

[playlikedanko]

There is too much apples-to-orangism happening in this thread. Fact is, there are many different reasons why bands become successful (and there are different standards for "success"). And there always has been. Bands are different from one another, and focus on different things. You can't just broadly declare that musicianship does or does not matter, and then pick and choose a few groups that "prove" this.

[ChordGirl]

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. .

This is exactly how I view live music. It's about the moment, crowd included. A good band will find and stay in the collective zone. There, they are listening to each other and reacting musically to the subtle nuances of the entire band in real time. I know a band is in the zone when there's nothing else I could focus on even if I tried. They own my attention, and I just sit there speechless. Most bands, even very good ones, fall in and out of the zone.

[TrickyBoy]

Too often on this forum the ideal is put forth that a band must "engage the crowd" and "bring the party"; the implication being that bands that don't do this are inferior. I'm sorry but that's some jive-ass {censored} right there.

 

 

I agree that you don't have to be a party band, but you do have to engage the crowd. This doesn't mean creating a circus, but even a good Jazz band engages the crowd, they just do it via their musicianship. There's a million ways to get the crowd interested in what you are doing. However, if you consistently play to apathetic crowds, your band is inferior to one that can go into that same room and engage the audience into what they are doing.

[MyOLPRocks]

So what does this thread prove?

You don't talk to people that have spent a lifetime playing covers in bars for advice on how to succeed in music.

It's like what Lee Flier was saying...the the 80s musicianship was great, but she was happy to see Grunge take over...how disconnected is that from reality?

If you are going to sell Tacos you might consider your demographic......with music, it's the kids that are listening to music...can they get into bars? What about the drunk driving laws? How are people meeting up these days? At bars?

Wake up, this isn't the 70s, and people aren't listening to swamp, funk, geriatric jump harmonica blues either....

[BATCAT]

Dante's

I've played Dante's a number of times and seen bands there too, and I'm surprised by your post, because for the last six years or so it has always seemed to be the same guy, and he always made it sound really good both on the stage and off.

Too bad, maybe it wasn't him, or maybe he has having an off night.

[TrickyBoy]

Wake up, this isn't the 70s, and people aren't listening to swamp, funk, geriatric jump harmonica blues either....

 

 

Enlighten me o wise one. What are people listening to today?

[kmart]

Enlighten me o wise one. What are people listening to today?

 

 

Blues jams, with tons of head cutting.

[BATCAT]

Blues jams, with tons of head cutting.

The cool kids love it!

[maxnew40]

So what does this thread prove? You don't talk to people that have spent a lifetime playing covers in bars for advice on how to succeed in music. ..

 

 

Don't talk to people in original bands that have not graduated from playing the local venues either, because they have not succeeded and obviously have no idea how to succeed.

 

Don't ask advice on how to do something from someone who has never done it, it doesn't take rocket science to figure this out.

 

Max

[BATCAT]

There is too much apples-to-orangism happening in this thread. Fact is, there are many different reasons why bands become successful (and there are different standards for "success"). And there always has been. Bands are different from one another, and focus on different things. You can't just broadly declare that musicianship does or does not matter, and then pick and choose a few groups that "prove" this.

Stop trying to introduce nuance and reason to this thread. It has no place here! Consider that a warning!

[BlueStrat]

You don't talk to people that have spent a lifetime playing covers in bars for advice on how to succeed in music.

Better to ask an insane small plane pilot who can't play his way out of a wet paper bag and thinks blues jams are the height of musical nirvana, I suppose.

I thought this was backstage with the band, not the banned.


BTW, where have you seen anyone in this thread asking for advice?