New Appreciation for a Band After Seeing a Live Performance

Mike682

Ok, I have always thought Matchbox 20 was an "ok" band. My wife likes them a lot so the other day I bought her a concert DVD called "Show.." We both watched the concert on Sat night and I was really impressed. Now I have the CD in the car...you get the rest.

Anyway, I was really impressed with the way they played. For me, one criteria of a good band is how they sound live. If they can sound close to the CD recorded in the studio, I am impressed. Well, they sounded very good and it was a great concert.

Am I a die-hard Matchbox fan now? Not a die-hard fan but I have a new appreciation for their ability to play live.

Anyone else go see a band they really could care less about and after actually like the band (live dvd or real live)????

AsSiMiLaTeD

I guess a live performance has never really had that effect for me. I've seen plenty of awesome groupslive, but I knew they were talented musicians and I expected nothing less than a good show. So what I typically get is more of a confirmation of what I already know to be true, rather than an enlightenment.

I've also seen mediocre bands live - I'd consider Matchbox 20 a mediocre band, along with groups like Metallica, Creed, etc. With groups like this, it's usually the same thing - they all put on a good show. Most of them do a decent job, never really seen anybody stink up the place. But then again, with groups like this, you're not talking really complicated music that they're performing - and that's the key IMO. I can get up on stage and play easy rhythms and major chords for you all day long, so to watch an average group do the same thing doesn't really do it for me. It's super easy for a group like Matchbox 20 to get up on stage and replicate what they do on CD, because what they do on a studio album isn't that complicated or difficult.

Now granted Rob Thomas is a better showman than I am (at least I hope), and that's what most people look for in a good live performance, but I personally look more for musicianship as I'm not really in to pop culture.

That doesn't mean I don't like a good show even by a mediocre band, but I appreciate it for what it is.

I do agree with your statement that one of the criteria for being a good band is your ability to play live and do that well.

fireshoes

I know everyone here hates them but Limp Bizkit is really good live.

jgido759

I'll put my flame suit on for this one.

My wife really liked the Los Lonely Boys song "Heaven", so I bought her the CD. I was impressed by the entire CD. Kind of a cross between Santana/SRV/Los Lobos. From there, I bought their live DVD (I think it was an Austin City Limits show) and was very impressed not only by their being excellant musicans, but their showmanship was very impressive.

Demiurge

As much as I have disliked Metallica's studio releases and actics since about 1991, they were fantastic live all the way up until around 1994. Calling them a mediocre band is just laughable. Not to mention James Hetfield was one of the best Rythem guitarists out there with his showmanship AND ability. Kirk Hammet...phenomenal guitarist. Making the songs you want to make the way you want to make them is not always indicitve of your talent level. In the same breath 'complicated' music isn't necessarily 'good' music.

I can still dislike a band and also respect their talent.

jet2001

Agreed that Metalica was not a mediocre band. I think they are now, but their music prior to the 'black' album was and still is amazing.

I saw No Doubt back in college and before Gwen sold out to the pop culture, and she amazed me. Her live voice and her energy really made for an enjoyable show. I bought their CD the next day and was pleasantly suprised that what I heard on the CD was the same as I just heard in the concert.

No Doubt opened for Bush that year and I have to say that Bush sucked live. So I got both ends of this spectrum...one band that I loved their CD and hated their performance, and one band that their performance made me buy their CD.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Deleted.

Mike682

Polkmaniac wrote:

Metallica WAS a great band who produced great music, but that ended a while back. They've gotten sloppy, Lars can barely handle a simple double bass beat anymore...they're overall a mediocre band at best. Is Kirk a badass, well of course, but when was the last time you saw him use that talent???

So true......so true. We could thank the lame clown Bob Rock for not letting Kirk do some solos on the POS St. Anger...

Demiurge

You said:

I've also seen mediocre bands live - I'd consider Matchbox 20 a mediocre band, along with groups like Metallica, Creed, etc.

Just going off what you said.

Kind of like "Depends on what your definition of is is."

*sigh*

These conversations are so incredibly boring and pointless. Mostly because people can't separate subjectivity from musical theory, quality, etc. I can dislike (subjective) something and have respect for it at the same time as a musician (theoretics). For example Kirk Hammet is a very diverse musician. If you've ever heard his other noodling in the world of Jazz & Classical (which you hear influenced on the older records) you'd know what I mean.

I didn't get the impression from your post you were talking about 'now'. In which case, I obviously agree with you and apologize for rightfully postulating the way I did. In the end they're still the same talented group of individuals they always were...they're just not making music people like nor utilizing their talents at the same time. So there really was no need for the descension into the world of musical terms. I've been playing guitar for over 16 years and I don't see the value of any of that in this discussion. Oh my, I'm impressed...he's talking about scales?

And...we're talking about LIVE, NOT RECORDED!

I saw Metallica last in 2000 and they were as good as they were when I saw them in 88, 90, and 94. Maybe it's because James hadn't kicked the sauce yet.

Metallica now are just a bunch of nozzles.

Demiurge

Zero wrote:

Ok, now its time for the supreme flame suit... One of my most memorable concert experiences was - believe it or not - rap. Yep, I said it.

Red-man and Method man opened up with just a fantastic show - great beats, incredible performances. DMX pumped up the place with raw energy. Jay-Z, someone who I normally could care less for, did an admirable job concluding the show. Perhaps it was my inhilation of all the weed in the air (Both from the stage and from the crowd).. but it certainly was a cool show.

That's because the Wu is the ****.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Deleted.

Demiurge

Polkmaniac wrote:

is = present tense. Maybe 'is' means something different to you, but to the majority of us it means present, we have another word for the past-tense, that's called 'was'...

Maybe it's just somantics, but you called my statement laughable, yet misinterpreted what I said. If you don't think Metallica is a mediocre band, then that's fine, but I'd imagine you're in the minority there, and that statement is far from laughable. Sure they were great once, but they're mediocre now.

It is semantics. Let it go. And no, they're talent is not mediocre now. They can still crush like they did back in the day, they're just writing bad music.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Deleted.

AsSiMiLaTeD

Mike, I apologize for derailing this thread. My initial post still applies and I stand by my opinions, but the rest of my posts were rebuttals directed at Demi in self defense and have been deleted as they really don't contribute to the question at hand...

Mike682

Polkmaniac wrote:

Mike, I apologize for derailing this thread. My initial post still applies and I stand by my opinions, but the rest of my posts were rebuttals directed at Demi in self defense and have been deleted as they really don't contribute to the question at hand...

It's all good bud......

A good point did come out: this can be a very subjective thread/topic.

In all, I was just wondering if anyone really enjoyed a live performance of a band that one initially didn't care for, but then actually liked the band after....