Topic: Do you expect a band at a concert to sounds like the CD or something different?

[Halloran]

When you go to a concert, do you expect the band to play the songs closely to how it was recorded for the album? o Do you perfer them to do something different to the songs?

[David E.]

A little of both. 

[Eternally Learning]

I'm more concerned with maintaining the level of quality between the two.  I love Linkin Park's albums, but until recently they were completely unlistenable live.  Chester could not sing live to save his life.  I remember seeing Audioslave at HFStival in DC and walking away when Cornell was singing drunk.  If they want to improvise artistically though, I'm cool with that.

[lukebourassa]

I've had both good and bad experiences with this.  Sometimes the band plays live songs so close to the CD version that you wonder why you bothered showing up.  But other times, the band "experiments" with the track so much that it seems not as good.  I especially hate when the singer sometimes "talks" the lyrics to a song.

On the other hand, anyone who's ever seen Phish play, or watched Weezer play "Only In Dreams" live knows that the right type of expansion of a CD track can be like an orgasm in your ear-pussy.

[stands2reason]

I've had both good and bad experiences with this.  Sometimes the band plays live songs so close to the CD version that you wonder why you bothered showing up.  But other times, the band "experiments" with the track so much that it seems not as good.  I especially hate when the singer sometimes "talks" the lyrics to a song.

On the other hand, anyone who's ever seen Phish play, or watched Weezer play "Only In Dreams" live knows that the right type of expansion of a CD track can be like an orgasm in your ear-pussy.

Well I've only been to a concert once, but live recordings usually sound like crap compared to a studio release.

[Nat 20]

I've gone to alot of shows threwout the years.  Personally I don't wont to hear the CD sound.  I want to hear something different.  Thats really what the live experience is about.  Its amazing what a little (or big) stretch here or time change there can do to a song.  Interaction with the crowd, break downs, blending songs... all that shit is what makes it worth the price of admission.  Just gotta keep it tight.  If a band sucks live… well they suck live, regardless of whether or not they try to change it up or not.

That’s my 2 cents.

[GodSlayer]

Schandmaul's massive live DVD (or 2 CD set) was so awesome it was difficult for me to go back to the album versions.

[GodSlayer]

in my experience (which is only with mp3s), singing tends to be worse live, but playing is usually fine, and depending on the mix, might even sound better.

[kb]

I like live music, booth "live live" and recorded live that is. But sometimes if the artist tries to do something different it just doesn't work. I have this fantastic Zappa bootleg (1973-06-25 Sydney) in which they completely mess up Inca Roads, if I had gone to that concert I would have been so disappointed.

From the Sydney bootleg (not Inca Roads).

Frank Zappa - Uncle Meat Medley, Live 1973

[moj]

it really depends on the band. Some bands will play their music exactly as it is on the CD. Some bands, like jam bands will play the same song very differently every night.  Some bands just suck live and only sound good with heavy editing and producing.  I agree that most the time the singer will be the weak link live.  I think though in pop music now some of that is the heavy reliance on auto tune.

[T.A.P.O.R.]

I like 'em to be different, rather than try to do what's on the CD.
Sometimes the performances are better, but usually the P.A. makes the mix sound shitty, even when you stand by the mixing booth.
In just about every show I've ever been to, the P.A. has been far too loud for the space it's in, which just makes my ears crackle.
So I use ear plugs, but they too kill off your top end.

I haven't been to a show since I got my "hearos" though. They're supposed to preserve most of the frequncies and onlu attenuate a little bit. Not sure if that's true, as I was doing some routing the other day and the top end had rolled right off. Which was fine, because who the heck cares about the sound quality of wood being cut at high speed?

[Eternally Learning]

I think a lot of it boils down to energy and gravitas.  I remember going to an HFStival in DC where Godsmack was headlining.  Now, I'm not a fan of theirs in general (though they do have a few decent songs) but my wife, who dabbled in Wicca, is all about them since their a Wiccan band.  Went through the day, saw a bunch of local and mainstream bands, (and ran for the hills when Good Charlotte came on), but then AFI came on.  I'd always liked their music, but I'll be damned if their live performance wasn't one of the more amazing shows I'd ever seen.  It was just plain rocking out and they nailed it.  Then Godsmack comes on later that evening with shitloads of pyrotechnics and girls in bikinis and light shows and fog machines and all sorts of props, and I couldn't have been more bored.

Bottom line, as long as the band really draws you in then I couldn't care less about how similar or disimilar they are to the studio work.

[Green Ideas]

An artist worth their salt should either be better on stage or stay away from it.

[stonesean]

Most of my favorite bands sound far superior live than on their recordings.....but I tend to like hard rock.....which should be played live and in your face....

[Eternally Learning]

I just realized that there's another kind of modification I sometimes prefer over the studio albums; when a rock band goes acoustic.  Nirvana unplugged is a great album, Korn unplugged wasn't too bad either, and while I cannot stand Godsmack in general their acoustic version was pretty good (though it was still in a studio).  Sometimes the overly-produced bands really shine when they don't have 10 layers of the lead singer's vocals on top of each other.