For me the live experience is the whole package; performance, crowd, venue, lighting etc etc. Whilst you can get an idea from some old tapes, can you really say how good a live act someone was from it? I think not.
Dates
· UTC
Can you really say how good a band is live without having seen them?
Archived29 replies · 964 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
← Back to Behind Closed Doors
30 posts
I've never seen Kasabian live, but thought their Glastonbury set (same year as New Order I think) was fookin ace. So much so I got the album. And I'm not really one fer "new music" 
Saw Kasabian live on at Winter Wonderland 04 I think it was,with The Zuttons and I can't remember who else,all supporting Embrace..Kasabian did indeed steal the show.I'm not an Embrace fan anyway,but the crowd went mad for Kasabian.Not a big fan of Kasabian either,can take or leave their Studio stuff,great live,mind
To answer the question though,I have a live Dvd of JAMES Getting away with it(All Messed up)that I think is better than any of their studio albums.Much,much better infact...Though then again I've also seen JAMES several times.But supposing I had'nt,I could'nt really see me thinking any different..They just ARE better live..I can see where you are coming from mind JT..To appreciate the fullish,you have to be there!
Anyone who's ever been on one of those Management Psychobabble courses is doubtless aware that one of the golden rules of conversation is that you pick up - supposedly, and fuck knows where you get this information from - only seven per cent of what the other person is trying to convey from their words alone.
The vast majority of stuff is picked up from intonation, facial expressions, body language, etc, etc, etc. Which is why, I s'pose things get blown outta proportion on t'net so quickly, cos it's nigh on impossible to pick up the entirity of what someone's saying from what's down here in black and white.
Which leads me to think gigs are like that. If you're not there, can't experience something in its own right, then you're not even getting a 1/10th of the picture.
No 
The "whole" experience is needed... Venue, quality of sound, mood of the band, lighting, drink, what your mates were up to...
Kasabian were mentioned on this thread a few posts ago and I thought that they were a pretty average band having only seen gigs on the telly and heard their studio albums. But when I saw them at Brixton Academy last Christmas they blew me away... (live, that is, probably wouldn't listen to their records, though) Sheer power and attitude can never really come across on record or DVD- the experience is too diminished.
In the olden days Echo and the Bunnymen were another band who made more "sense" live
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: So according to this theory...Bob Dylan SUCKS!!!!
According to any theory...Bob Dylan SUCKS!!!!
LeggyD wrote:
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: So according to this theory...Bob Dylan SUCKS!!!!
According to any theory...Bob Dylan SUCKS!!!!
Right. That's the first celeb Viking Boxing Match sorteed.
Has anyone seen The Alarm perform live??
And has anyone listen or heard this album:
Electric Folklore Live. Released back in 88. Live in Boston. I have that album before in cassette tape, and was borrowed back in the early 90s, and was never returned.
Finally, I was able to download the album. I really love the album, especially Rescue Me, which is my favorite live audio track ever.
So what do you think of The Alarm? I've seen some live clips in youtube, and I think The Alarm rocks in concert...
Indeed*!*
'79? They were just starting then...
Anyway, that means they were good from the start.
Any objections?
Indeed*!*
James Thomas wrote: For me the live experience is the whole package; performance, crowd, venue, lighting etc etc. Whilst you can get an idea from some old tapes, can you really say how good a live act someone was from it? I think not.
I remember around 1991, I got a bootleg live audio tape of Metallica. It was an audience recording, so I can hear the audience singing as loud as James Hetfield is singing. Nothing really special in this bootleg tape, although Metallica was my second favorite artist at that time (thanks to a girl!). Then I got to see them as part of the Monsters of Rock VHS tape...
I got a chance to watch Metallica live on stage back in 1993. I remember it as the most amazing concert i've watched. Two and a half hours of pure and intense energy and rock.
Then, I just bought this DVD a few hours ago:
I just watched it now. It's the first time I've watched it, even though it was released back in 1998. I just remembered how electrifying this band is live. I can feel the energy watching it on DVD. In fact, I was standing almost the entire show in my living room!
Maybe some of you are not into this band, but then, you don't really have to like the band to appreciate it live on stage.
Indeed!
Yes.
Just make sure you claim to have seen them when you're stating how good they are.
It's a subtle variation of going to see a band a couple of times towards the end of it's career, then stating that the performance wasn't a patch on the early gigs, despite the fact that you saw none (0) of the gigs from the era that you keep harping on about; normally due to the fact that they took place before you were born, but could also be because you just couldn't be arsed to go.
RichShan wrote:
In the olden days Echo and the Bunnymen were another band who made more "sense" live
I saw the Bunnymen live countless times, and loved it every single time. "Shine So Hard" was also a great live record. But then "Live At Eric's" was so-so, and recently I bought "The Bunnymen Live In Liverpool" thinking a hometown gig would just be the icing on the cake, but it's piss poor!
Was at a mini-festival in Ayr when Supergrass (not a band I've ever had time for) played and the crowd seemed to enjoy it. But then Julian Cope came on and just blew them off the stage (he was far better live than I'd expected for some reason.)
I never had the luck to see J.D live, but love the live recordings, video's, etc, and you can tell from them that the gigs would have been brilliant to be at.
I may well get lynched for this; but I've never thought N.O were anything special live, often felt at their gigs that I'd have been as well sitting at home listening to their records.
So to answer the question; eh!? I dunno depends on the band, the venue, the crowd, and whether or not the sun is seasonal and the moon is in Capricorn.
BIGINAMERICA wrote: Yes.
Just make sure you claim to have seen them when you're stating how good they are.
It's a subtle variation of going to see a band a couple of times towards the end of it's career, then stating that the performance wasn't a patch on the early gigs, despite the fact that you saw none (0) of the gigs from the era that you keep harping on about; normally due to the fact that they took place before you were born, but could also be because you just couldn't be arsed to go.
I did see them back in 1993. Read my post clearly.
And yes, they are far better live than on record!
Indeed!
I wasn't referring to your post (I'd not even read it, if I'm being honest).
Some bands are certainly good at producing live recordings. But that's about all you can say from live recordings, surely?
Shug wrote: And I'm not really one fer "new music"
understatement of the year!
i say no, not til you've seen them more than once (to allow for an off night) but col has a point too...
The Sub-Cultured Perfect Kisser*!* wrote:
James Thomas wrote: For me the live experience is the whole package; performance, crowd, venue, lighting etc etc. Whilst you can get an idea from some old tapes, can you really say how good a live act someone was from it? I think not.
I remember around 1991, I got a bootleg live audio tape of Metallica. It was an audience recording, so I can hear the audience singing as loud as James Hetfield is singing. Nothing really special in this bootleg tape, although Metallica was my second favorite artist at that time (thanks to a girl!). Then I got to see them as part of the Monsters of Rock VHS tape...
I got a chance to watch Metallica live on stage back in 1993. I remember it as the most amazing concert i've watched. Two and a half hours of pure and intense energy and rock.
Then, I just bought this DVD a few hours ago:
I just watched it now. It's the first time I've watched it, even though it was released back in 1998. I just remembered how electrifying this band is live. I can feel the energy watching it on DVD. In fact, I was standing almost the entire show in my living room!
Maybe some of you are not into this band, but then, you don't really have to like the band to appreciate it live on stage.
Indeed!
love them 
and cunning stunts is awesome 
hibster wrote:
i say no, not til you've seen them more than once (to allow for an off night)
Or to allow for a night when a shit band pulled a really good gig from somewhere?
[orange]State of Love and Trust [/orange] wrote: love them
and cunning stunts is awesome
Oh, yeah?
So fucking what!
Indeed!
Boatraceface wrote:
To answer the question though,I have a live Dvd of JAMES Getting away with it(All Messed up)that I think is better than any of their studio albums.
Whey I was at that gig at the MEN ARENA!
Last few times I've seen on telly performing,SCISSOR SISTERS,look a good night for a knees up.But not a balls-up.
The Sub-Cultured Perfect Kisser*!* wrote:
[orange]State of Love and Trust [/orange] wrote: love them
and cunning stunts is awesome
Oh, yeah?
So fucking what!
Indeed!
That's excellent. Been playing ENTER SANDMAN a lot lately,top toon.
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: The Sex Pistols in Manchester in '76. Fuck I misweed it. Or give me Burton-on-Trent.
i know you wanted to get the last post n every thread on the page & everything, but couldn't you at least have made your reply relevant somehow either to subject header, or what was being said as opposed to some random sentence apropos nothing?
hibster wrote:
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: The Sex Pistols in Manchester in '76. Fuck I misweed it. Or give me Burton-on-Trent.
i know you wanted to get the last post n every thread on the page & everything, but couldn't you at least have made your reply relevant somehow either to subject header, or what was being said as opposed to some random sentence apropos nothing?
You're pissed cos you were not the first? GOT IT. 
err no, i'm just asking you to at least make some effort to make your posts relevant to the thread, when rocket mick first appeared here & replied to every post on about three pages the replies were relevant.
a bit.
err for him.
