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

[Prettymaid]

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!



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.

[MikeA]

LOL............Stirring it up again huh Cathy!

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]

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! 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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

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

[WalshFan88]

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!