Do you prefer concert songs:

Comment

I chose:
To be close to their albums with some random variations

I don't want just a reproduction of the studio album, but I still want to recognize the song.

There are always exceptions, of course. If I ever get to see Bob Dylan before I die (or he does...), I know that if he does any older material it'll sound very different from the album - he's just known for that. But I'd be okay with it because it's Dylan and he's a favorite.

When I saw Brad Paisley last August, he was a perfect example of what I like. Vocally and musically, it matched the album 90%. But in about half the songs, he played an extended solo and on one song he sang the chorus to Mama Tried for a bridge. Still completely recognizable but enough difference you knew they weren't just playing the same thing every night.

When a band is recording an album, I like it if they can record something that's reproducible live without trickery. I did vote for "random variations", though. I like a band that can reproduce themselves almost exactly, but allows itself the freedom to do things differently. Sometimes, total variations can be better than the album version. I guess it depends on who and what.

I agree with ya'all. I also voted for (B) random variations.
I really like the ability to sing along at concerts (quietly, so as to not bug the people around me), but at the same time, a little change up in lyrics or solos and such are welcome.

What I can't stand is when a band goes WAY off and wrecks many of their songs. I don't mind if they're straight shooters and play a near exact replica of their studio albums, but I prefer if they do a lot of that with a little wild stuff here and there.

ishmael81 wrote:

I chose:
To be close to their albums with some random variations

I don't want just a reproduction of the studio album, but I still want to recognize the song.

This!

I have heard variations of songs (from the original artist) that are nearly unrecognizable from the original recorded version and for the most part I don't care for it.  For instance one of my favorite power ballads from the 80's is Heart's radio hit "Alone".  It has this cool acoustic piano intro that builds up into a full on power-chord rock ballad.  However, the artist isn't happy with that, and now when they perform it live it is almost completely acoustic and soft (at least musically) through the entire song.  I mean, it's cool that the band gets to perform the song the way they wish they had recorded it, but when they play it this way it just isn't the song I fell in love with (see vids below).

On the other hand I really don't want to go to a concert to watch a band perform an exact copy of their record....some variation is required to make the experience feel live or else the band could just be lip-synching to the album.

Agreed!

Quote :

and now when they perform it live it is almost completely acoustic and soft

Oh man, one thing I couldn't stand in the 90s was the whole "Unplugged" trend - barf !!
Don't get me wrong, I think a couple good songs came out of that era, like Clapton's mellow version of Layla, but for the most part, I did not buy ANY unplugged, acoustic albums released then. After the first time hearing the songs mellowed out, I immediately wanted to hear the originals again, and ONLY the originals.

It's funny I was kind of a fan of a bunch of the acoustic 90's stuff, but not when they just "weakened" or totally "softened" the songs.  You can play with acoustic instruments and still rock the joint!

Live, a band needs to be able to do what they did in the studio, but I don't mind them playing around and stretching just a bit.  If they do it right, they can come off as though this is how the song SHOULD have sounded in the studio.  Adding a new bridge or an extended solo can be cool as long as they don't do it every song.

I guess like the rest of you they should do about 90% album and 10% variation.

alldatndensum wrote:

I guess like the rest of you they should do about 90% album and 10% variation.

Yup.

Quote :

I guess like the rest of you they should do about 90% album and 10% variation

I can agree with that ratio

Quote :

You can play with acoustic instruments and still rock the joint!

I'm hemming and hawing on that one...   I tend to think if I heard the acoustic FIRST, then I "may" like the songs. But having heard the rock/metal versions first, I just can't swallow a sleepy version

I do like when artists do stripped down sets of their stuff just to stretch.  As long as they do it well, it can be a great way to show how versatile they are as musicians, let them have some fun, and show that their music works in different genres.  I got to see Legend Seven do an acoustic set in the middle of the Nashville Lifeway (back then Baptist Book Store).  It was cool.

My choice was "To be close to their albums with some random variations".