Unrealistic and/or unreasonable audience expectations

[Neil McCauley]

Extract:

"I wonder what the expectations are of people in general when listening to tracks – reproduced live – that are really part of their musical DNA? I’m not currently talking here about tribute bands – although at some point I will get around to it. What’s in my mind is something a bit different than that. For example, are bands ‘entitled’ to reinterpret a known song? Or in so doing, are they misunderstanding the aspirations of the audience?

Are the audience, or at least members of it, being unreasonable in expecting an exact facsimile of the original? Do they even expect a facsimile? If so, why? Does a band dressing in the style of the original recording artist look dumb, are being dumb or merely being respectful? Or intentionally funny? Or all of these?

For example, and I have asked myself these questions and come to no conclusion – am I hoping for a reproduction of the track as I know it – of precisely the same length with the same guitar breaks and so on, but at a sound pressure level which would be worthy of an ASBO anywhere else?"

http://bit.ly/qa7Pyg

********************************************

[Stratmangler]

Interesting one this.
Basically you're asking whether a performer should rehearse the ad libs too.

I personally like a bit of spontaneity

[John]

I think it depnds on the band. If a band is a tribute band (i have not really heard one) I would expect them to cover the songs as close to the original as possible, but if a band is doing a cover then I am hoping they can add something of their own for instance Black Magic woman orignal track by Peter Green Fleetwood Mac and a great cover by Santana, the band has made it their own and I think when done well this can really work.
I tend to perfer bands that trust their own muse even if this pisses off their fans, this helps keeps creativity.

[Beechwoods]

I expect bands to give me something special when they play live. If it's a facsimile of the original I'll be disappointed. The important thing of it's the original artist performing is to be true to the original; let's not do a reggae version of a rock track; better to extend the bits that your fans enjoyed in the original and make them better.

The flipside is cover versions of tracks by other people - the best live versions I've heard of the track Willin' by Lowell George (of Little Feat) are covers... The Byrds' version (off the Untitled reissue) or Linda Ronstadt's - there are honest reinterpretations that take ownership of the song - not cash-money ones that don't deserve a second listen

[Reid Malenfant]

I think i'd generally expect a live performance to be different from the track that is layed down on an album. After all there is a heck of a lot that goes into a good deal of album tracks, with vastly more that are interlaced with one another. Different intruments at different levels etc that have to be morphed into the finished product.

What i often find pretty amazing is that live performances can be so good!

I have quite a few blu rays & DVDs with live concerts & i often find it astonishing that not only is the quality top notch, but the composition itself is frankly just as good as it would be on an album, if not better in a good few cases

Sometimes it just all comes together, right place, right time, right musicians. The result is often superlative.

Perhaps i have just been lucky

[The Grand Wazoo]

I generally prefer to hear something new in a song when I hear it live because I like to think that performers are capable of developing their style and being able to interact with each other in a more fluid way that the music by numbers approach.
In the same way, I hate cover versions that are just carbon copies of the original - what's the point? I'd much rather that the musicians would try to convey just a tiny bit of what the song means to them in their performance.

What really makes me cringe is when I see someone doing a cover version and they reproduce the ad-libs and/or mistakes in the 'official' live version.

[Vinyleyes]

Extract:

"I wonder what the expectations are of people in general when listening to tracks – reproduced live – that are really part of their musical DNA? I’m not currently talking here about tribute bands – although at some point I will get around to it. What’s in my mind is something a bit different than that. For example, are bands ‘entitled’ to reinterpret a known song? Or in so doing, are they misunderstanding the aspirations of the audience?

Are the audience, or at least members of it, being unreasonable in expecting an exact facsimile of the original? Do they even expect a facsimile? If so, why? Does a band dressing in the style of the original recording artist look dumb, are being dumb or merely being respectful? Or intentionally funny? Or all of these?

For example, and I have asked myself these questions and come to no conclusion – am I hoping for a reproduction of the track as I know it – of precisely the same length with the same guitar breaks and so on, but at a sound pressure level which would be worthy of an ASBO anywhere else?"

http://bit.ly/qa7Pyg

********************************************

Ask Bob Dylan ..........

[Neil McCauley]

Ask Bob Dylan ..........

Funnily enough i did. He mumbled something about 'not following leaders and not to hump parking meters', and then he was gone. Odd really.

**********************

[Vinyleyes]

Yeah .. I've heard a lot of people say that about him ... I guess he must have been referring to your question ... and the fact he would never dream of playing the same song in the same way twice ... but with him one always got the impression that he was just a bit bloody minded about it .. !!
I think however with less stellar performers who do not have such a great improvisational gift one's favourite song can often be completely spoiled by them going off on tangents with it ... Or quite possibly they have simply forgotten it and don't care about what the audience wants.

I remember seeing King Crimson in the early 70's and being completely peed off that they did not play Larks Tongues in Aspic just as it was on the record .. for me they completely missed the killer hook that I was waiting for them to hit ... spoiled the whole gig for me really ... but at least those guys could play and now looking back with more experience I can see that there is no way a really good set of musicians are going to play the same thing the song the same way every night .. unless you are Pink Floyd of course .. as every song of theirs is a beautiful sculpture that cannot be defiled .

[Neil McCauley]

Yeah .. I've heard a lot of people say that about him ... I guess he must have been referring to your question ... and the fact he would never dream of playing the same song in the same way twice ... but with him one always got the impression that he was just a bit bloody minded about it .. !!
I think however with less stellar performers who do not have such a great improvisational gift one's favourite song can often be completely spoiled by them going off on tangents with it ... Or quite possibly they have simply forgotten it and don't care about what the audience wants.

I remember seeing King Crimson in the early 70's and being completely peed off that they did not play Larks Tongues in Aspic just as it was on the record .. for me they completely missed the killer hook that I was waiting for them to hit ... spoiled the whole gig for me really ... but at least those guys could play and now looking back with more experience I can see that there is no way a really good set of musicians are going to play the same thing the song the same way every night .. unless you are Pink Floyd of course .. as every song of theirs is a beautiful sculpture that cannot be defiled .

Very nicely put. your comments resonate with me. Truly. Thank you. Howard

**********************