Tuesday, 17 May 2011

An Admission - though I suspect I'm not alone

I don't particularly like watching rock music live. There! I've said it. Go on - brand me a complete square. I know you want to. Or maybe, secretly, you don't.

Never mind the quality

The thing is this. I love rock music. From the Beatles through to the Foo Fighters, I just love it. Age hasn't mellowed that one bit. I love it as much today as I did when I was 13. One thing certainly hasn't changed. I'll take a studio album over a live performance any day. I know that that is not cool, or whatever, but I don't care. It is true for me - and I suspect, it is true for many more people than are prepared to admit it.

The Beatles - gave up performing live to produce their best music

I've made no secret of my love for certain bands on this blog. I have included music videos from the likes of The Beatles, The Beach Boys, and ELO. And if there is one thing that these bands share, it is that they were not afraid to use studio production to its full potential. In fact, they were famous for it. Swapping all that for a drained, limp, shadow of itself - further reduced by standing in a sweaty crowd for hours on end, and paying handsomely for the privilege - is not my idea of a good deal. Don't get me wrong. There have been gigs I have enjoyed enormously, but as a rule, that has not been my general experience.

The Who - a band who could deliver on stage

I doubt that there are many people under the age of sixty who would agree with me - openly. Going to gigs is one of those things that is supposed to define being young and cool. It is essentially a social thing - and I would agree with that - but, in my opinion, it is not a musical thing. The musical experience from a live gig is often a disappointment, though few people have the 'courage' to own up to the fact. I watched a band I really admire - The Foo Fighters - render a washed out set on BBC2 the other day, before switching off and playing one of their albums instead. The ratio of quality - live to studio - is too low, too often, to garner my support. There! I've said it. Now go ahead and sneer - unless of course, deep down, you agree.

Anyway, try it for yourself...

Here are two (supposedly identical) videos of the Foo Fighters performing the same song. The first has had the studio version of the song overdubbed, cleverly, so that it appears to be the live version. The second video is the real performance. One sounds great whilst the other sounds thin and pathetic. (I know, I know - I wasn't there to appreciate the volume, the performance and the sheer energy & charisma of the band or whatever...). Still, judge for yourself...


5 comments:

  1. I'm glad you bought some insurance, by putting in the line about The Who, otherwise I'd have had to travel back from NZ just to beat you up.

    Your point is valid, however there a few bands that are much better live than in the studio.

    The Who of course - the ultimate live band; apart from Quadrophenia their studio stuff pales in comparison. Humble Pie: 'Rockin the Fillmore' still sends shivers down my spine it is so awesomely good. I also rate Deep Purple's 'Made in Japan'. Going back further, Joe Cocker's performance at Woodstock, Jefferson Airplane. Rocktastic!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I should have mentioned Deep Purple. Live in Japan was their best album and one of the best live albums ever.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Other smaller bands were also good live. Thin Lizzy were gutsy and exciting as you would expect, and the Boomtown Rats (yes, I know!) gave what I reckon was the best live performance I've ever attended in terms of energy and going all out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And Rush. They are amazing live.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So when you think about it, most bands are much better live than in the studio.

    ReplyDelete