XPost: rec.sport.football.college   
      
   In rec.sport.football.college tom_sawyer70@yahoo.com    
   wrote:   
   > On Sep 11, 2:03 pm,  wrote:   
   >> Nope - in fact duplicating studio perfromances live is the worst   
   >> performance. Rote memorization at its worst. I want different,   
   >> interesting, and equally as competent as in the studio.   
   >>   
   >   
   > I would disagree...it's like going to a show and not being familiar   
   > with the band/songs at all. You end up standing around thinking,   
   > "this is cool, but I'd like to hear it again...." or "wtf is this?"   
      
   Then I just track down some tapers and get a copy of the show,   
   or download it from archive.org.   
      
   If I wanted to hear the album, I'll listen to the album.   
      
   I also think I should be able to see the same band two nights   
   in a row and see completely different shows.   
      
   > I don't mind some improv or if it's an extended ending to a song, but   
   > most of the time (as a musician...or at least was at one time), I   
   > wanted to see them play the intricate parts or to see if there are   
   > multiple musicians involved.  I like bands who make music that they   
   > find interesting enough to challenge themselves live, and b) can   
   > produce a quality live performance without 20 extra musicians.   
   > There's nothing worse, imo, than waiting to hear a song played that   
   > has a great instrumental component, only to find it either dumbed down   
   > for a live performance or altered.   
      
   In general the bands I enjoy alter it, but in the exact opposite direction   
   of "dumbed down" - full-on group improvisation is as good as it gets   
   IMO.   
      
   I'm talking about jazz-esque group improvisation, not "we can't play   
   that stuff we put together in the studio so lets dumb it down".   
      
   --   
   Aaron   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)