PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Do you enjoy going to rock concerts with special effects and pyrotechnics?



Prettymaid
03-22-2011, 04:52 PM
If you visit the Gearhead thread you recently saw WalshFan88 and MikeA's posts about this. WF posted this pic of Rick Nielsen of Cheap Trick using a 5-neck guitar and the debate was on!

http://www.guitargallows.com/bios/biophotos/Rick_Nielsen.jpg

I'd just like to add that these two guys know how to debate without being mean-spirited. Wait to go guys. Their discussion starts here. (https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1101&page=80)

MikeA
03-22-2011, 05:13 PM
LOL............Stirring it up again huh Cathy! :yay:

I voted for "no atomic bombs during performances" but that's a rather extreme scenario. I wouldn't want it restricted so the performers were glued into place and required to not express emotion during the performance (like a guitar face). The extreme there would be Ted Nugent jumping off a Marshal Stack or swinging across the stage on a Tarzan vine!

Now, with that said, I'll also say that even at Eagles concerts (one of the most sedate groups touring), after 18 of them or however many Verna and I went to, I was starting to become distracted by the cool video on the screens back behind them. It got to where I was trying to concentrate on what they were using to illustrate the scenes of each song with rather than paying attention to the performers, what equipment they were using, and who was doing what differently than at the last concert!

As you might deduce and deduce correctly, I don't "multitask" very efficiently.

WalshFan88
03-22-2011, 05:16 PM
Thanks PM!

I enjoy the whole rock concert. AC/DC with cannons on "For Those About To Rock" or the bells on "Hells Bells", for instance. Cheap Trick with the 5 neck guitar on "Surrender". Rolling Stones with Jagger's movements or the blow up woman on "Honky Tonk Women". I could go on.

I don't think it takes away anything. It might not be for everyone but I think people that go to these kinds of shows enjoy the entertainment.

I go to concerts to be entertained. I'm not saying every band has to do it but I CERTAINLY disagree that the band's who don't do the effects are automatically better live than the ones who don't. That I have a problem with.

But it's all a matter of opinion. I'm a rock n' roll guy. 70s/80s is my stuff. I love the whole loud amps, crazy guitars, and raunchy images! :lol: I am a Classic Rock and Hard Rock junkie and that's the stuff that I listen too most. I'm not saying is a requirement for me to go to a show (I went to the Eagles in Chicago and enjoyed it VERY much) but it definitely doesn't take anything away from it and I love it when they do that. I also like the video screens and all of that. But I am a rock and roll guy. I don't like robots or statues onstage. I like high energy rock and roll (AC/DC, Aerosmith, etc). But that's just me! I am a Classic Rock guy.

Freypower
03-22-2011, 06:14 PM
To me that photo just screams 'Spinal Tap'. The over the top special effects were parodied so effectively in that film that I find it hard to take them seriously. If people want special effects, fine, but none of the concerts I have been to have anything like that. I associate it with heavy metal, and that is not my type of music. Rightly or wrongly, I also associate 'spectacle' with acts like Lady Gaga & Australia''s own Kylie Minogue, where the suspicion of lip synching raises its head. If you need a procession of dancers & backing singers to me that shows you don't have much to offer yourself. Also if I wanted to see dancers I would go to a traditional Broadway style musical.

WalshFan88
03-22-2011, 06:34 PM
I don't see what's wrong with some fog/smoke machines, cool looking guitars, and all of that..... I must not be the only one because MILLIONS of people go to AC/DC, Aerosmith, and Rolling Stones shows...

I don't think they NEED it, because believe me, if they were a crappy band no lights or effects in the world would keep people coming to their shows. That would be all flair, no substance.

The bands that are GOOD that have effects just add it for the audience's enjoyment. AC/DC is a legendary band, with the 2nd best selling album worldwide (Back in Black) of all time. Also the 2nd biggest grossing tour of last year. They must be doing something right! ;) Seriously, the people who don't like that must not like classic rock or hard rock as they go together like a ball and a glove. I also wouldn't compare them to Lady Gaga or anything like that. She is nowhere near being close to being in the league of AC/DC. These are historically legendary bands that have more money and success than you could ever imagine. These bands are GREAT. Effects alone could not sustain a career like that. Their music IS GREAT!

I can't imagine seeing AC/DC without the bell on "Hells Bells" or anything like that. If people want laid back concerts with not much movement or passion or energy, they go see Barry Manilow or somebody like that who is IMO boring to watch. I want someone who is FEELING it and is moving to the music and is lightened up and have a good time and enjoying it. Not just someone who looks bored or like he/she doesn't care to be there.

I go to a concert to be ENTERTAINED. Not just for music. If I wanted that I might as well stay at home and put on their CDs. I go for everything: music, stage antics, lighting effects, fun, energy, whatever. What I'm saying is that people that enjoy and like rock concerts either love the effects, or are simply ok with them either way. And these bands sell millions of tickets so my point is that most people like them (effects) or are at least okay with them that go to these shows. So my statement here is that bands who have shows with effects aren't bad bands and are just as good (generally speaking) as the ones who don't. Saying that bands who do effects aren't as good as the ones who don't is unfair and not correct and plain wrong.

JMO here.

Freypower
03-22-2011, 06:50 PM
I thought mentioning acts like Lady Gaga was valid because of the way the question was posed.

You emphasise the word 'entertained'; yes. I find the performance of songs I love entertaining enough in itself. If you think they need to use effects, OK. I have no problem with that.

You've repeated that people are saying that bands who use effects aren't as good; nobody in this thread has said that. But uitimately we are talking about personal preference.

WalshFan88
03-22-2011, 06:54 PM
You emphasise the word 'entertained'; yes. I find the performance of songs I love entertaining enough in itself. If you think they need to use effects, OK. I have no problem with that.

You've repeated that people are saying that bands who use effects aren't as good; nobody in this thread has said that. But uitimately we are talking about personal preference.

First paragraph - I don't think they all NEED it. But there is nothing wrong with it. I of course go and see the Eagles and they don't use smoke bombs. But I also go and see AC/DC and it depends on the band. I can't imagine AC/DC without the cannons and I can't imagine the Eagles WITH them. It depends on the band. I want energy and passion and fun in ALL of the shows but the special effects are on a band-by-band basis really.

Second paragraph - I was referring to the posts in Gearhead where it kind of sounded like that what was being said without using those exact words.

Not all bands NEED them, but there is nothing wrong with them if they use them and still play great music. That is what I am getting at here. Not saying all bands have to have them for me to go (I obviously go to Eagles shows and whatnot) but I'm saying it's not a bad thing if they do either.

I just want to make sure people are not automatically ignoring or boycotting bands just because they use effects (ie, someone saying they don't go to AC/DC shows just because they use effects regardless of their music). That I have a problem with - but you are right, it's all preference.

Prettymaid
03-22-2011, 09:26 PM
If people want laid back concerts with not much movement or passion or energy, they go see Barry Manilow or somebody like that who is IMO boring to watch.

Hey, let's not have any Barry-bashing here! :fingerwag: :hilarious:


I can't imagine AC/DC without the cannons and I can't imagine the Eagles WITH them. It depends on the band.

Bingo! Give that man a cigar. I voted for #3 because the kind of artists I prefer to see now (Eagles, Jackson Browne, James Taylor, etc...) do not play music conducive to using special effects. Paul McCartney sets off firebombs during Live and Let Die at his concerts and I can take it or leave it, but the bands and artists that regularly use(d) the special effects or gimmicks were never favorites of mine anyway. That's not to say I didn't own Back In Black and For Those About To Rock. ;)

And speaking of gimmicks, I'm glad FP brought up Lady Gaga. I know that that kind of gimmick was not what was intended during the initial discussion, but I think it's relevant to this one. I personally do not like the acts that wear costumes and have dancers onstage. It all seems very fake to me.

WalshFan88
03-22-2011, 09:38 PM
Hey, let's not have any Barry-bashing here! :fingerwag: :hilarious:


Sorry - he was the only one I could think of that would convey my message. :lol::lol::lol: I like Soul music myself to listen to. RnB type stuff (Marvin Gaye, etc).

WalshFan88
03-22-2011, 09:42 PM
And speaking of gimmicks, I'm glad FP brought up Lady Gaga. I know that that kind of gimmick was not what was intended during the initial discussion, but I think it's relevant to this one. I personally do not like the acts that wear costumes and have dancers onstage. It all seems very fake to me.

Yeah I don't like that either.

But IMO that is different than AC/DC firing off cannons during For Those About To Rock!

MikeA
03-22-2011, 10:07 PM
Seriously, the people who don't like that must not like classic rock or hard rock as they go together like a ball and a glove.

Careful there...getting close to a generalization! <LOL>

But I do sort of agree with you as far as attending the live concerts goes. I love their recordings for the most part, but have never gone out of my way to see them live.

And, I will admit freely that those to whose concerts I attend do tend to be the ones that entertain me by their musical performances and not their special effects. They are also the ones I've spent the lions' share of my hard earned bucks on recordings.

Now I don't know where the big stage production bands with all the special effects fit in here....maybe they don't fit in at all. And maybe some of them fit and others don't:

But I do know that the Eagles work to the nth degree on perfection of rendering a performance live on stage that is exactly what fans have bought with they purchase their recordings. No surprises. They carry this to an extreme that some find distasteful because there ARE NO SURPRISES.

Some bands aren't like that. The Grateful Dead were almost the mirror image. They sucked on recordings but there was never a band who performed better live than they did. And other than being doped to the gills, they didn't use special effects...the audience did however and maybe that is why they were such a fantastic Live Band.

I emphasize here that I do NOT know these other bands like the AC/DC reference that keeps coming up. I don't know if they were or are as good on stage "technically" as they are on the recordings that come out of the studio.

I have a close friend who toured with Ray Price playing Violin in his backing band. He could make that fiddle talk. He could play a guitar with accomplishment also but wouldn't play anything other than acoustic....except for bass...he played electric bass. He was at my house one summer afternoon and there was a garage band with the knobs all on 11 making noise that would cause the dead to twitch. The distortion was so over the top that you could hardly fathom what they were attempting to play. But everyone at that party was pretty well primed on booze and whatever else was available and probably didn't care. But Rob looks over at me and says, "Mike, there is a time for distortion and a time NOT for distortion. When you hear that much distortion on everything, it is a mask to cover up all the mistakes." In that case, I'm quite sure he was right because you couldn't recognize the their songs from the instruments....sometimes you could recognize what they were trying to do by the lyrics...NOT the Vocals <LOL>

At Crossroads Guitar Festival, I attended a guitar clinic. The artists' name will come to me before long, but suffice to say he is well known. He made a statement that stuck with me. He said that the test of a great guitarist is how well they play acoustic with no more assistance than enough electronics to amplify the natural sound of the acoustic guitar they are playing. In this guys words, "With an Acoustic Guitar, there is no place to hide. It's just you and the guitar and every mistake you make is obvious to everybody." He went on to praise the guy who was to be the winner of the Amateur Guitarist Contest. This guy played nothing but acoustic and he was going up against schreaders who were playing 128 notes a measure!

I wonder if at times some of the "big guys" may be using the props to make a performance more acceptable? Not because they are not capable of superb performances but because maybe they can't equal their studio work in a live performance.

I think most bands have to make concessions in live performances in reproducing on stage what they did in the studio. With all the overdubs it might take 5 or 6 guitarists to replicate what was released as a recording of a Power Trio. Maybe they can't reproduce that recorded sound so they give the audience something at the concert that they couldn't experience on
CD.

In that case, I'd about as soon just listen to the CD.

Give me someone like the Eagles or Three Dog Night or the Band of Heathens for a live concert. They all give you their best and their best is as good in most cases as their recordings and they don't throw all the glitz and glam and sensational at you.

WalshFan88
03-22-2011, 10:12 PM
I don't think I was generalizing at all Mike. I fully believe that. Most classic rock/classic hard rock shows have at the very least lighting effects or smoke or unique guitars or something. It's just a part of the rock show experience. I love the whole show. The music, the energy, the lights, everything. I go for FUN.

The AC/DC reference is just talking about their use of cannons, bells, etc in their LIVE SHOW. I was using them as an example. This could apply to any GREAT band that uses effects but is a great musical band that plays amazing music. There is a lot of people that go to their shows, so they either don't care either way, or they like the effects. Because they had the 2nd biggest grossing tour last year (Bon Jovi in 1st place). But I was using that band as an example. That could go for Cheap Trick, Aerosmith, Stones, etc.

As far as distortion. I mainly play with overdrive. I don't use extreme distortion, but I always use crunch. I like the fat guitar sound it makes and the chunk of those power chords - again, its the classic rock coming out in me. But I'm definitely not METAL or PUNK and I don't use insane amount of gain, but I always usually have crunch on or a bluesy overdrive. My philosophy on playing electric guitars clean is that if I'm playing an electric guitar completely clean, I might as well be playing an acoustic. I don't agree with heavy distortion because it covers everything up, but I dislike playing completely clean on electric. I run through a blues overdrive. You have heard my clips - I like a mild-to-medium amount of overdrive. Clean is good when comparing guitars dry but playing live or even by myself jamming even with friends, I prefer overdrive on my guitar. I want crunch, but I want to hear my notes too. But I dislike playing completely clean. I want a LITTLE bit of dirt on my sound. But I'm coming from a rock 70s background where most of it has overdrive. Just like "Life's Been Good', it has the same amount of overdrive I use. I can't imagine playing that song without it. It would be too bland. Hence why it's driven.

WalshFan88
03-22-2011, 11:00 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3619/3442467875_20b09a5a4d.jpg

Mike - here is a picture of one of my favorite guitarists - Angus Young of AC/DC. This is the stage lift that at the VERY END of the show he gets on and it hoists him up in the air so that EVERYONE in the audience regardless of seats can see him clearly and he plays a 10 MINUTE LONG blues rock guitar solo. A solo I'd dare any other guitarist in the world to attempt. It is amazing solo he does. The crowd goes WILD!!!!!! Then confetti falls down and the show ends. Talk about a great ending to an already great show.

I saw this first hand in Chicago. It was amazing. It's my 2nd favorite concert I have ever been to and probably one of the best if not the best experience.

What do you think about that?!?! :lol: I know I can guess your response but I think this in particular is cool. It gives everyone in the audience a chance to see him play his guitar up close. The lights shine down on him. So if you are in the nosebleed section you still see Angus rock that SG. He is the reason I own Gibson SGs. They have that bright gritty AC/DC tone.

Ive always been a dreamer
03-22-2011, 11:48 PM
I voted for Option 2. I don't mind some special effects because, as Austin said, I like to be entertained when I go to a concert. When done effectively, they can actually enhance a song. A case in point would be the way the Eagles use video to enhance The Long Road Out of Eden in their shows. It helps hold the audience's attention during a very long song that many may not be familiar with. However, I also agree that usually if it is a great song, I don't need many special effects. Where I object to them is where there is more emphasis on the special effects than is on the music. If the special effects detract from the song, then it is too over the top for my taste.

As far as Lady Gaga, I haven't ever seen her live so it's hard for me to judge this. Even though she isn't really my cup of tea, I think she is a talented singer and songwriter and don't think the gimmickry overpowers her videos that I've seen.

Koala
03-23-2011, 02:25 AM
I need no special effects and pyrotechnics at a concert, I go to concerts because of the music! But if somewhat is present of both or only one, I always hope it's not too much and it not too much from the music deflected!

MikeA
03-23-2011, 07:24 AM
Angus Young of AC/DC. This is the stage lift

I recon that's okay but not all that practical. He just higher, not closer to the people in the nose-bleeds and what of the ones down front....they would be looking at the underside of the lift. But maybe the thought is that they've seen enough of Angus on stage.

Lifts are used a lot in concerts. But usually they are used to bring the artist onto the stage from somewhere underneath. Gotta make an entrance. Even the Eagles "make an entrance" though it is usually totally dark and you can't see them before they start playing....like with "Hotel California".

But with AC/DC and their lift....that's marginal in my opinion. It is really not the kind of effects that I have been thinking of though I'd be rather pissed if I were front and center and had paid out the nose for that seat and for the fannalie the star was taken out of my view! That lift looked as though it might be sort of translucent so maybe you could see somewhat between the lift's braces and get a glimpse of Angus. It would be a lot better for the guys underneath the lift if it was Stevie they were lifting. I'd pay extra for that. And I wouldn't give a Royal Hoot what she sang!

I'm really more talking about not liking the exploding drums, fireworks and stuff like that. The Dry Ice Smoke, that can impart an ethereal backdrop when not overdone. It is not "noisy" so is just "visual". I can see Stevie Nicks using that effect with her "Good Witch Look" or even Eagles in Witchy Woman using it. But I would enjoy the song just as much without it.

WalshFan88
03-23-2011, 09:20 AM
I recon that's okay but not all that practical. He just higher, not closer to the people in the nose-bleeds and what of the ones down front....they would be looking at the underside of the lift. But maybe the thought is that they've seen enough of Angus on stage.

But with AC/DC and their lift....that's marginal in my opinion. It is really not the kind of effects that I have been thinking of though I'd be rather pissed if I were front and center and had paid out the nose for that seat and for the fannalie the star was taken out of my view!

Well, I WAS in the nosebleeds in Chicago Mike and it sure made a big difference on being able to see Angus. As far as people in front, he only did it after the last song was over. He just went up there to give a blistering 10 minute long guitar solo, then he came back and they left.

As far as the finale - What the people did in front row in Chicago was just turn completely around and then looked at him on the lift. At the very end he comes back to the stage. The lift is actually further away from the front row stage than you think. There is a little path he walks on in the middle of the main floor seating and then in the middle of the floor he gets on.

But hearing people talk after the concert the lift was one of the highlights of the show for them. But it was probably because Angus played a 10 minute long rock guitar solo that melted everyone's faces. It was the best "long" guitar solo I've seen live.

TimothyBFan
03-23-2011, 09:38 AM
Great topic! I seldom look in on Gearhead (sorry guys!) but will have to check that out now.


The extreme there would be Ted Nugent jumping off a Marshal Stack or swinging across the stage on a Tarzan vine!


Saw that at the age of 17 and didn't sleep for 3 nights because every time I closed my eyes, I saw Ted in that loin cloth, swinging across the stage. :drool::lol:


If people want laid back concerts with not much movement or passion or energy, they go see Barry Manilow or somebody like that who is IMO boring to watch.

Just lucky you didn't say Wayne Newton!!!! :steviesmack: :lol:

Here's my opinion.... I swing both ways! ;) Kinda like Austin's been saying...there are certain groups that just HAVE to do it! Rick Nielsen's with his strangely different guitars (do they actually make different sounds or are they just for show?), Angus with his lighted, rising stage or Tommy Lee in a pair of Speedo's :drool: with his spinning drum kit overhead. But in my opinion--these bands and performers have talent to go along with all the special effects.

But as Soda mentioned, performers (I use the term loosely) like Lady Gaga, I feel are doing it more because there isn't much talent to fall back on if you don't have the special effects to go along with it.

Then their are groups like the Eagles, that I'd rather just hear the music and sure don't need or want anything to distract me from that.

So that all being said, maybe we should add another poll choice of "I swing both ways" or such.

WalshFan88
03-23-2011, 10:12 AM
Here's my opinion.... I swing both ways! ;) Kinda like Austin's been saying...there are certain groups that just HAVE to do it!

But as Soda mentioned, performers (I use the term loosely) like Lady Gaga, I feel are doing it more because there isn't much talent to fall back on if you don't have the special effects to go along with it.

Then their are groups like the Eagles, that I'd rather just hear the music and sure don't need or want anything to distract me from that.

So that all being said, maybe we should add another poll choice of "I swing both ways" or such.

Amen! Totally agree with all of it!!!!

EagleLady
03-23-2011, 10:16 AM
I happen to think Lady Gaga has talent.

TimothyBFan
03-23-2011, 10:28 AM
And you know what's really funny EL? While I was typing that, I just KNEW you'd come on and tell us that! ;)

WalshFan88
03-23-2011, 10:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOzjYkI_VVE

cynd1231
03-23-2011, 12:10 PM
Give me the MUSIC! It is, after all, what makes me a fan in the first place!

MikeA
03-23-2011, 12:44 PM
That Neilson video was interesting to me. Not because of the gimmic double neck or the 36-string 5-neck jobs, but because of his references to Les Paul guitars. He stated that he has more than one '60 LP and then he sort of glossed over the value and desirability of that '59. I wonder if he really prefers the early '60 LP? Both are very collectable but most people are in love with the '59s.

I certanily don't falt him for his obsession of collecting those historic instruments. But he takes them on the road and plays them in concerts! That implies a LOT of confidence in his road crew!

Joe Walsh will not even use the SLIDE that he got from Dwayne Allman! I know Joe has a very large personal collection but you rarely see him playing one on stage. I'm betting he's using them in the studio though.

Jimmy Page is another one I've heard of who has a huge collection of vintage guitars.

WalshFan88
03-23-2011, 12:55 PM
That Neilson video was interesting to me. Not because of the gimmic double neck or the 36-string 5-neck jobs, but because of his references to Les Paul guitars. He stated that he has more than one '60 LP and then he sort of glossed over the value and desirability of that '59. I wonder if he really prefers the early '60 LP? Both are very collectable but most people are in love with the '59s.


Mike - '60 Les Pauls have MUCH thinner necks on them. '58s have a baseball bat cut in half neck (BIG), '59s are really in the middle/rounded, and '60s are VERY slim and tapered off. Maybe he just likes slim necks. I personally prefer the rounded, not too big or small.

Brooke
03-23-2011, 01:39 PM
Here's my opinion.... I swing both ways! ;) Kinda like Austin's been saying...there are certain groups that just HAVE to do it! Rick Nielsen's with his strangely different guitars (do they actually make different sounds or are they just for show?), Angus with his lighted, rising stage or Tommy Lee in a pair of Speedo's :drool: with his spinning drum kit overhead. But in my opinion--these bands and performers have talent to go along with all the special effects.

But as Soda mentioned, performers (I use the term loosely) like Lady Gaga, I feel are doing it more because there isn't much talent to fall back on if you don't have the special effects to go along with it.

Then their are groups like the Eagles, that I'd rather just hear the music and sure don't need or want anything to distract me from that.

So that all being said, maybe we should add another poll choice of "I swing both ways" or such.

This is the way I feel too. I think it depends on the band and that option should be in the poll.

I really love Steven Tyler's and Joe Perry's antics on stage with Aerosmith, and Mick Jagger's like with the Stones, but I just can't see the Eagles doing anything like that. It just doesn't fit! :lol:

As far as the videos the Eagles use, I find them a bit distracting and I'm torn on whether to watch the screens or the guys. I choose watching the guys cause I just have to watch them sing and play. I don't wanna miss a thing! I might glance up once in a while, but my attention is focused on them.

I don't think I've been to a concert with any pyrotechnics! If there were any, they didn't impress me cause I was watching the band.

WalshFan88
03-23-2011, 01:47 PM
Exactly Brooke. It doesn't seem humanly possible that those bands perform a show without doing that. I certainly wouldn't enjoy it as much. But it depends on the band. I can't stress that enough. For instance as you said, the Eagles wouldn't look so good doing that but I cannot imagine myself going to a show if AC/DC didn't have their bell or their cannons or the blow up doll or the stage lift or the Stones without Jagger's moves. For THOSE types of bands, it's a part of the whole experience. I go to a show for entertainment and to have fun. I don't go just for the music, I go for the whole experience. :D

If there is going to be no passion or energy involved in the show or in the bands that do it, effects, it would not be very entertaining to me to watch them. It would be boring. I might as well just stay home and listen to a CD. In order to get it all from a concert, you go for EVERYTHING and not just the music. The whole experience is fun and is why I go to concerts.

MikeA
03-23-2011, 04:09 PM
But Austin, you do enjoy going to see the Eagles perform. Would you enjoy it more if they set off bombs? If you go to an Eagles concert, you'd better be going with the expectation of enjoying their music because you really aren't going to get anything else. Certainly not the extravaganza of special effects that we've been talking about.

Myself....I'm not disappointed in AC/DC's stage performances...oh wait...I've never been to one and the reason is exactly the thing we've been talking about...yet I DO LIKE THEIR music. I'd just much prefer listing to them on my CDs.

But with me, it is NOT JUST the fact that they have a lot of distractions when they perform (not just AC/DC). I have other criteria that determines whether or not I'll go to a concert.

First, do I really like their recorded music? If not, then I darn sure WILL NOT be going. I don't "collect concerts".

Second, how inconvenient is it for me? Is the inconvenience worth it?

By that I mean how far am I going to travel and how much expense is involved in getting my wife and I there? I'll travel a long ways to attend a James Gang or Joe Walsh solo show. Same thing with the Eagles. Not many restrictions on either of them.

Thirdly, one thing that has kept me away from a lot of concerts that I otherwise might have considered is the weight of how much I like the band versus how much annoyance am I going to have to endure outside the arena and inside from the crowds of often very inconsiderate people?

REO Speed Wagon came to Wichita a while back. I really enjoy some of their music, but not enough to fight for tickets and battle the crowds once I got there! I have no idea what kind of show they put on.

I did attend a Heart cert up in Kansas City a few years ago. ZZ-Top too. Both were at Ameristar Hotel/Casino and we were planning on going there anyway. Gordon Lightfoot was at another casino a while back and I sure would have liked to have seen him (never seen him and really like a lot of his folksy music). But I couldn't get off work. In all three cases, since the Venue was NOT a huge arena where parking was a hassle (valet for a $5 toke when they bring your car to you and help you load your luggage!) and the crowds large and unruly, I had no qualms about getting tickets and attending.

Hmmm, Meatloaf is playing a casino in Oklahoma within the next month or so. But I don't care enough about him to even drive the 60 miles <LOL> I did like "Paradise By The Dashboard Lights" though.

Well, you get the idea. I would have gone CRAZY to have been able to see Janis Joplin, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Grateful Dead, Three Dog Night (I did see them a couple of years ago, but would have loved to have attended a live concert of theirs in their hey-day). Others would have included BTO (Bachman Turner Overdrive) the original Jefferson Airplane and here's one that might surprise you coming from me: Sam and Dave! I'd loved to have seen Muddy Waters, Ligntnin Hopkins, Gatemouth Brown and Albert King. I have seen Buddy Guy several times and would go see him again if the stars aligned. BB King, I've seen three or four times but probably wouldn't go see him again other than as an act of appreciation.

Johnny Lang I'd love to see again. Clapton too.

And one I VOW to go see just as soon as I can get off to make a trip to one of their venues: Band Of Heathens. I think we are going to be hearing a lot about them and believe me....both vocally and instrumentally, they are just about the best I've heard...especially of the "new" crop of artists.

In all cases mentioned (except BTO), I've seen DVDs of their concerts and they weren't over the top with extra curricular stuff....just put on the MUSIC.

Back in the late Seventies, I was dragged to a Don Williams concert in Wichita. I went kicking and screaming but all my family here in Wichita is into that Goat Ropeing scene so I had to go. The thing that made it endurable: Don Williams wasn't up to top form. He was having horrible back aches. He walked out on stage, sat down on a stool and his roadie brought his guitar and helped him strap it on. He sat there the entire concert...spoke very little between songs. But he belted out each song with feeling and I ended up surprized at myself for actually enjoying it!

But then, I go for the music. I could give a flip for anything extra. And the better they render that music, the better I like it! It doesn't have to be note for note identical to a recording such as the Eagles strive for. I like the James Gang where Joe would tear off on a solo and play until the song fell apart. Then you could compare notes with prior concerts you'd seen him play talk about how the solo differed each time! I loved that and miss it with the Eagles but appreciate them for their mastery of their craft.

tequila girl
03-23-2011, 04:43 PM
I've refrained from commenting on this thread so far...mostly because it's over 30 years since i've been to a concert (apart from Van Morrison in '08
however, I mostly agree that I would go to see/hear my favourite artists play the music
I know we all like different types of music and in the 70's I would have been among the "heavy rock" category....but Mike's quote here
The thing that made it endurable: Don Williams wasn't up to top form. He was having horrible back aches. He walked out on stage, sat down on a stool and his roadie brought his guitar and helped him strap it on. He sat there the entire concert...spoke very little between songs. But he belted out each song with feeling and I ended up surprized at myself for actually enjoying it! Well, I would have been in heaven, 'cos along with the Rock music I also love/d country - and still do!

I did see Pink Floyd in about 1976 I think, and that was the first real show of lights/pyrotechnics in the UK (I stand corrected if i'm wrong here) and to be honest, even in those "far out" days it didn't do a lot for me!

WalshFan88
03-23-2011, 05:26 PM
But Austin, you do enjoy going to see the Eagles perform. Would you enjoy it more if they set off bombs? If you go to an Eagles concert, you'd better be going with the expectation of enjoying their music because you really aren't going to get anything else. Certainly not the extravaganza of special effects that we've been talking about.


Mike did you not read where I said:

I can't imagine AC/DC without cannons and I can't imagine the Eagles with them. It depends on the band.


I enjoy Eagles concerts. I'm not saying effects are a requirement but I enjoy it when it's there. I can't imagine the Eagles with that stuff, and I can't imagine AC/DC or the Stones without the stuff they do. I probably wouldn't like the Eagles WITH smoke bombs. But I also wouldn't like AC/DC WITHOUT them.

But regardless of special effects - ALL of the shows I go to have to have passion, enthusiasm, and energy. I don't want it to be boring. I never said the Eagles fit into that category. I very much enjoyed their concert. But I also enjoyed AC/DC, Aerosmith, and Cheap Trick when I saw them too. It depends on the band. I go both ways really on THAT particular thing.

I'm not saying it's a requirement - but I do enjoy it when it's there. All I'm saying is that it's not bad if a band DOESN'T do them and it's not bad if a band DOES do them. And that people shouldn't judge a band poorly just because they use special effects. That is unfair and being judgmental.

To each his/her own.

Prettymaid
03-23-2011, 05:37 PM
Hmmm, maybe I should have had a fourth choice...but too late now!

This was the first poll I've ever started and I'm really enjoying the discussion.

Mick Jagger's strut has never done anything for me, but then I've never been a Stones fan. I'm sure Mick never in his wildest dreams thought he'd still be strutting around onstage at 67, and I'll bet the Eagles never thought they'd still be touring into their 60's. But I feel the Eagles can still perform now just as they always have and look like the valid creative statesmen they have become, while Mick just starts looking....well, old.

tequila girl
03-23-2011, 05:48 PM
Mick Jagger's strut has never done anything for me, but then I've never been a Stones fan. I'm sure Mick never in his wildest dreams thought he'd still be strutting around onstage at 67, and I'll bet the Eagles never thought they'd still be touring into their 60's. But I feel the Eagles can still perform now just as they always have and look like the valid creative statesmen they have become, while Mick just starts looking....well, old.
I agree with you entirely Cathy......and would love to add to the Mick thing - but might well be ostracised for doing so..

ETA Interesting Poll BTW! :grin:

MikeA
03-23-2011, 06:06 PM
Mike did you not read where I said:


Hey man, you gotta let me yank your chain a little bit. :rofl:

Freypower
03-23-2011, 07:45 PM
I agree with you entirely Cathy......and would love to add to the Mick thing - but might well be ostracised for doing so..

ETA Interesting Poll BTW! :grin:

No you won't... I love Sir Mick with a passion but understand why people now feel he is 'overdoing it' or is 'past it' at his age. I've seen him twice; on a solo tour and with the Stones. But I was there to see him sing those wonderful songs; the 'strut' was a bonus.

As far as the Eagles go my major objection to their shows is the rigidity and the unchanging format. I have now seen, however, them drop a couple of songs because of what they seemed to think was an unresponsive audience; I never ever thought that would happen. Never.

I'll be seeing Bob Dylan next month; you go to see him because he's BOB and because you wonder will he play guitar or keyboards (last time it was mainly keyboards) and which of his classics will you struggle to decipher. I'll be seeing Randy Newman in August; just him, his piano and an orchestra; while tonight I'm seeing Tim Minchin who will also have piano & orchestra, although he is quite flamboyant as a performer.

TG mentioned Van Morrison; I only saw him once and a lot of people walked out, because he stood there & sang & never spoke. Either you know what he's like, in which case you're prepared for that to happen, or you don't, so you'll be disappointed.

MikeA
03-23-2011, 08:20 PM
[quote"As far as the Eagles go my major objection to their shows is the rigidity and the unchanging format.[/quote]

There are a lot of peeps who feel that way about them. But Them is what Them is and they are about perfect replication of their recordings when doing them live and that doesn't leave any room for improvisation. No shame in that. Nor is there any shame in recognizing it for what it is.

Freypower
03-23-2011, 08:29 PM
[quote"As far as the Eagles go my major objection to their shows is the rigidity and the unchanging format.

There are a lot of peeps who feel that way about them. But Them is what Them is and they are about perfect replication of their recordings when doing them live and that doesn't leave any room for improvisation. No shame in that. Nor is there any shame in recognizing it for what it is.[/quote]

There may be no shame in it; but as a fan, I am only human and I think a bit of spontaneity would only help their shows. If they don't agree, OK, but I still feel it needs to be said.

Freypower
03-23-2011, 08:31 PM
[quote"As far as the Eagles go my major objection to their shows is the rigidity and the unchanging format.

There are a lot of peeps who feel that way about them. But Them is what Them is and they are about perfect replication of their recordings when doing them live and that doesn't leave any room for improvisation. No shame in that. Nor is there any shame in recognizing it for what it is.[/quote]


There's no shame in it; neither is there any shame in being a fan and wishing for some spontaneity. Contrary to what they seem to think, spontaneity would bring them closer to their fans.

WalshFan88
03-23-2011, 09:22 PM
Hey man, you gotta let me yank your chain a little bit. :rofl:

I didn't know you were joking! :D

If you can't tell - I'm very passionate about 70s rock and hard rock (AC/DC, Aerosmith, Guns n' Roses, Led Zeppelin, etc).

Just for anyone curious my top ten favorite bands are:

Eagles
Rolling Stones
AC/DC
Lynyrd Skynyrd
Led Zeppelin
Aerosmith
Guns n' Roses
Fleetwood Mac
Def Leppard
Journey

That isn't a set in stone list once you get past the top 5. The Top 5 ARE my favorites. But the other 5 are just bands I REALLY love. I have more to list but I don't have the time to type them all out. But those are the tops!

Classic Rock is the stuff I love. I go from lighter rock to heavy rock. It depends on my mood. If I'm pissed off or I am really feeling evil I will put on something heavy, if I'm calm or sad I'll put on something lighter. But the fact of the matter is I have no favorites OUTSIDE of the Classic Rock genre. I'm a purist to the 110th percent. I like blues too, but it's gotta have some rock in it too. Same with country, it's gotta have rock in it too.

As far as Classic Rock bands I dislike... And I better get my flame suit on but they are: Pink Floyd, Rush, The Who, Grateful Dead, Santana, Jethro Tull, Queen, Sex Pistols, and The Police. So there are some classic rock bands I dislike but 95 percent or more I really love and never get tired of hearing. I don't get into the whole overplayed thing. I never get tired of hearing songs from that genre. I listen to Hotel California once daily because I love it so much. I just am a 70s rocker guy at heart. That's just what I love to listen to and play on guitar in a band. It's what I love!

MikeA
03-23-2011, 10:48 PM
There are a lot of peeps who feel that way about them. But Them is what Them is and they are about perfect replication of their recordings when doing them live and that doesn't leave any room for improvisation. No shame in that. Nor is there any shame in recognizing it for what it is.



There's no shame in it; neither is there any shame in being a fan and wishing for some spontaneity. Contrary to what they seem to think, spontaneity would bring them closer to their fans.

I think it would also FP. That is my only complaint about the Eagles. I do wish that they would come out and surprise us every once in a while and do a different take on a song. Or just take off on something and do an improv letting each member rip off a solo....or at least make a bend in one note in One Freakin' Song what wasn't on the record! <LOL>

Heck, even their stage jokes are the same concert after concert. All I can say is that it is a darn good thing that they have generally released star quality recordings and that they can duplicate them on stage with the same perfection that most bands couldn't do outside the studio after multiple takes and overdubs!

No doubt, it is ONLY their musical talent that made them popular and keeps them popular...Okay, that last line is BS! There are at least a couple of women who think they are hot or something. Probably a few guys too. Not me though. I like them from a purely altruistic angle in appreciating the vibrations made by the stretchy things in their throats that air passes over. And somewhat in the mechanical devices that vibrate in sympathy with those living sinues bodily contained within certain members of that musical association. It's purely and solely an objective observation on my part.

Freypower
03-23-2011, 11:01 PM
Absolutely. I could not agree with you more. The 'hot' bit though; I have no idea what you mean by that.... :lol: ;-) :nahnah:

The funny thing though is that they CLAIM they play different notes sometimes. If it happens it's in Joe's songs where they seem willing to stretch it ever so slightly. But not on songs sung by the other three.

The jokes part is a sore point with me; particularly because of who does most of the jokes. The funny thing was that when he did his Detroit line at the last show I saw he said 'that always gets a laugh' & looked directly at me. I always when I see them laugh at his jokes out of loyalty, perhaps. So he noticed.... :rockon:

TimothyBFan
03-24-2011, 08:35 AM
First, do I really like their recorded music? If not, then I darn sure WILL NOT be going. I don't "collect concerts".appreciation.

Johnny Lang I'd love to see again.

These 2 points got my attention. I discovered something a few years back when I attended a Styx concert that had Kansas as their opening act. Was never a Kansas fan. Of course I knew songs like Dust In The Wind and Carry On Wayward Son, etc... but had never even bought one of their albums.

That night, I was absolutely mesmerized by them and their sound! They were truly amazing! That lead singers voice was spot on, the violin was spectacular and the drums...WOW!!! At one point, can't tell you which song, but the drums crashed and it actually echoed and shook the whole theater. They could of played another hour and I would of been all kinds of happy. Have since, picked up a couple of their albums and once again, not impressed. I don't know why, but their live show was awesome and I would pay money to see them again.

And then Jonny Lang.....Awwwww Jonny---Love that man and his voice and his guitar and have since I first heard Lie To Me on the radio on my way to work one morning. I have all his cds, have watched everything I can on YouTube and have downloaded everything I can find on my Ipod and anxiously awaited for the moment I would finally get to one of his concerts. Found out he would be 1 hour away about a year ago, waited patiently and was able to get 3 2nd row tickets for us (my daughter is a fan also). Raved about him to my husband who really didn't know if he would like him, told him he would NOT be disappointed, etc.... Guess what---I walked out of there almost in tears because I was so disappointed. He came no where close to my expectations and apparently not to many others in the theater who repeatedly yelled at him to "sing the blues" as he went off on his "gospel" sounding "amens" and such. It was a blues concert with several other blues bands so even tho I knew he had also gone gospel, I expected him to be all blues for this one. My poor husband even actually fell asleep. I hope it was just an off night and will gladly go see him again if I get the chance.


There's no shame in it; neither is there any shame in being a fan and wishing for some spontaneity. Contrary to what they seem to think, spontaneity would bring them closer to their fans.

Got that right!! I really do wish they would speak a bit more and be a bit off the cuff at times. Most fans don't know them like we all here do so I guess they figure what the heck--let's keep telling the same jokes. Personally, I say, mix it up a bit boys!



Mick Jagger's strut has never done anything for me, but then I've never been a Stones fan. I'm sure Mick never in his wildest dreams thought he'd still be strutting around onstage at 67, and I'll bet the Eagles never thought they'd still be touring into their 60's. But I feel the Eagles can still perform now just as they always have and look like the valid creative statesmen they have become, while Mick just starts looking....well, old.

LOVED seeing them in concert and watching Mick run all over that stage, back and forth, up and down ramps. He was crazy! And still sounding as great as he always has! IMO---he's still got it. Did you happen to catch his performance at the Grammy's this year? AMAZING and not looking any older that some other musicians in their 60's. Check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGevlZiQ0Oc

MikeA
03-24-2011, 11:22 AM
I saw Jonny only once and that was a very brief set at Crossroads Guitar Festival on either Friday or Saturday night on a stage just outside the Vendors Building...not the main arena where the big all day concert took place (inside the Cotton Bowl). Jonny wasn't in that Sunday performance. When he played, it was only a couple of songs and I remember liking it a LOT...except that it was too short!

After reading what you posted Willie, I likely wouldn't spend the money going to one of his concerts. I wouldn't want to gamble on whether he'd be playing Blues or Gospel. I really dig his Blues...reminds me so much of SRV.

There is another performer who predates Jonny on going "Christian" with their music genre.

Back in the '60s, there was a group called "Glass Harp" who featured a guitarist/vocalist by the name of Phil Keaggy. Some thought him the best guitar player on the Planet. Ted Nugent went to him so he could learn a lick that Phil did that Ted couldn't replicate and he dearly wanted to learn it.

Anyway, not long after he started "Glass Harp" he got religion and stopped performing for quite a while. When he resumed, he played ONLY Christian Rock type music...most of it original compositions. I think he has loosened up a bit since 2000 and is now performing some Secular music again.

The guy really is amazing. There is a song on Youtube called "Salvation Army Band" that is acoustic. Phil performs it solo using a sequencer to record backing instrumental. He does a lot of that in his solo concerts.

Here's a couple of Youtube vids to get an idea as to what I'm talking about.

In this first one, he's doing "Here Comes The Sun".. Does it completely solo using loopers. He even sings into the sound hole of the guitar to loop vocals for harmony here....amazing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPgbNl8H_gU&feature=related

In this one, he is just tearing up a Les Paul with some amazing play. Note that he hold his pick sort of "funny". That's because he is missing the end of his middle finger. Pinched it off on an old well pump when he was a kid. Says it doesn't bother his playing any <LOL> Obviously NOT

On a Les Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T3to3DHLIE

MikeA
03-24-2011, 12:45 PM
By the way, this is a good thread. It should result is several people being gagged and banned from the Forum <LOL>

We're WAY OUT OF CONTROL. :yay:

Ive always been a dreamer
03-24-2011, 01:19 PM
But seriously folks - you'd think this was a discussion board or something!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, but really seriously, this is an entertaining discussion. I've got to catch up on the last several posts though. Have to do that later when I get a little more time.

MikeA
03-24-2011, 02:24 PM
It's all good IABAD...no blood yet.

WalshFan88
03-24-2011, 02:34 PM
It's all good IABAD...no blood yet.

I actually thought this was a good discussion.

MikeA
03-24-2011, 02:45 PM
Me too Austin.

tjrrockandrollmaster
02-21-2013, 09:42 PM
Pink Floyd were famous for theatrics. They may have gone on stage in T-shirts and jeans back in the day (sans The Wall Tour where they wore street clothes for much of the show sans the section in front of The Wall where David Gilmour, Nick Mason and Rick Wright wore short sleeve Hammer guard shirts with jeans and shoes/sneakers whilst Roger Waters had the leather trench coat and tall jack boots) and just stood/sat there but what other band had pigs fly over the audience (warthogs in 1994 jump from towers), inflatables, show films and wild animations, build and destroy a wall, had beds and planes crash into the stage and dramatic use of pyro.

I saw some 8 mm footage of the band from 1977 and those shows were superb.

VAisForEagleLovers
02-21-2013, 10:12 PM
I can honestly say I've never seen this thread before and it popped up under New Posts. When I went to concerts all the time (in my early 20's) I went to a few that had a lot of special effects and pyrotechnics. Rush was the first concert I went to that used a lot of video in the background (early 80's here) and it was kind of necessary because a three man band with one behind drums and one on keyboards doesn't have a lot of visual things going on.

The thing that made me hate pyrotechnics was the front row seat I had for Neil Diamond. Not sure what happened, but I wore semi-hard gas-permeable contact lenses back then and my cornea got scratched. I remembered being nearly blinded to the point of pain from the unexpected light, but it was dark out afterwards and I don't remember a lot of problems. The next morning there was sunlight and it felt like someone stabbed me in the eye. I had to call off work, beg a ride to the eye doctor, and wear a patch over my eye for days. A few days later, doing laundry, I realized the clothes I'd worn to the concert smelled a little like gunpowder/fireworks. Several of the things had gone off within ten feet of me, they lined the front of the stage for Coming to America as the encore.

tjrrockandrollmaster
02-21-2013, 11:39 PM
Evolution of some of the Pink Floyd stage shows.

The 1973 Tour (recently found footage from Atlanta, GA when Dark Side of the Moon was released)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmOuPAmlOFM

Here is some rare live Pink Floyd footage from Knebworth in 1975 at the end you see the mirror ball from the end of "Shine On". Why they never neither recorded nor filmed the 1975 and 1977 tours is a mystery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S5PtIa--go

Then the 1977 European leg of the Animals tour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLlJcH1DNXg

Footage from the US leg where the flying pig explodes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-tumi1y7-Q

The Wall 1980 Earls Court:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngX5jJVrx8U

Footage from the 1987 leg with flying pig:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYjGTBV2KMQ

Fan shot footage from the 1994 US leg of The Division Bell Tour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osyTMrmtez0

An evolution of the band on stage. Through 1977, the band would not play the tracks the same and David Gilmour and Rick Wright would play solos differently night after night.