XPost: rec.sport.football.college   
      
   In rec.sport.football.college Bill Lang  wrote:   
   > I don't chew my cabbage twice,    
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > When you start with a mediocre 3 minute song and play it for 25   
   > minutes, it's still mediocre.   
      
   I agree.   
      
   > When you start with a great 3 minute song and play it for 25   
   > minutes, it doesn't get greater.  It just gets longer.   
      
   Maybe, maybe not - depends on the talent of the band in question.   
   I can absolutely say I've heard 3 minute songs jammed out to   
   15-20 mminutes that were much greater than the original - see   
   "That's It For The Other One" by the Grateful Dead on the original   
   (Anthem of the Sun) studio recording vs. the version on "Hundred   
   Year Hall" from the Europe 1972 tour.   
      
   I'm guessing you aren't much of a fan of jazz either.   
      
   > Jam bands are fine for bars, they keep the music going while you   
   > throw darts or get drunk.  Jam bands in concert just put your butt   
   > to sleep.   
      
   Bad jam bands are maybe the most boring thing in existence. Good "jam   
   bands" (whether they be rock, jazz, bluegrass, or other) are   
   transcendant.   
      
   --   
   Aaron   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)