I hate you a little bit for making me Google that.
I take the exact opposite stance. This drummer needs a better band to carry him, he should either be firing his bandmates, or auditioning replacements.
Live music is entertainment. If your musical skills on stage aren’t capable of holding the audience enthralled while you introspectively shoegaze, then you’d better damn well be busting guitars, jumping off of amps, twirling sticks, etc. I want my KISS platform boots, my Alice Cooper python, my Pete Townsend guitar busting, and my David Lee Roth high kicks.
Rock and roll doesn’t have to only be about the music. In fact, I would say the history of rock-and-roll is firmly rooted in a little flair and showing off (see Chuck Berry’s duck walk, Elvis’s pelvis dance, etc.) I am a musician, or at least have been in a touring indie rock band in a previous life, but a rock show is also theatre. Sure, I was a tee-shirt-and-jeans guy, and there wasn’t much theatre in our show, but I definitely have an appreciation for the more flambouyant shows. I’ve actually burnt out on the regular-guys-off-the-street-playing-their-instruments look to rock music that was popular in the 90s/00s, and am happy to see a little of the showmanship and spectacle come back to rock. It’s fun to go to a show like, say, the Flaming Lips or White Stripes where the theatrics is just as much part of the entertainment as the music.
Not all rock music needs to be this way. But it undeniably is part of the fun of seeing an act live.
I thought it was great, particularly their version of “Wipeout.” I’ve seen cover bands do ZZ Top songs a million times. Kudos to them for having an entertaining shtick. I’d hire them.
That kind of flashiness wouldn’t fly in my band, but they’re not the same kind of band as we are, either.
But I put both of those in the category of “displaying energy and enthusiasm” and being “fueled by genuine, natural involvement in the music you’re playing.” (There’s an early interview with Elvis in which he says exactly that when asked about his on-stage moves.)
I suppose the dividing line that separates this from just “showing off” is an arbitrary one, but I know where it falls for me.
I just don’t like to see theatrics as a substitute for great music (KISS comes to mind) or to have it get to the point where the visual spectacle outweighs the music being played (Pink Floyd comes to mind). I’ve never seen Flaming Lips and have seen only one video of a White Stripes performance and don’t recall any visual component of that, so I don’t have a reference point.
At least some of this probably has to do with the scale and the venue. I like my rock close to the ground, and prefer smaller, more intimate settings to huge arena shows – though I realize for very popular acts the latter is the only option. So in a big setting like an arena, the tendency is to go for large-scale visuals.
But I think what I’m saying is somewhat of a corollary to my disdain for music videos. I would rather have a song inspire my own unique, individual visuals, created by my imagination – as opposed to having them dictated to me for all time by one person’s (often a director who had nothing to do with creating the song) particular vision for it.
If the music is good enough on its own, that can also happen in a concert setting without any help.
OK, then Pink Floyd will work well as a reference. (And I have a thorough appreciation for KISS, too.)
There’s no doubt. But why limit the concert experience to just music? Why not make it a multimedia experience if that’s what you want to do? I’m not saying all bands need to do this, but a rock concert need not be only about the music.
Ditto. A good drummer will keep a solid beat. A great drummer will keep a solid beat and make it look way cool while doing it.
This almost killed me. I was eating.
See, I love a good music video, a la Michel Gondry, Chris Cunningham, Spike Jonze, Mark Romanek, etc. Or those OK Go videos everyone loves. You’re obviously in it just for the music. I’m not. I enjoy seeing what talented visual artists can do within the limitations of a 3-minute music video. A great music video is the marriage of both visual and audio creativity.
I understand. It’s just that it comes at a price – a forever association with someone else’s visuals rather than your own – and it’s one I would rather not pay.
Again, I acknowledge that my views on this and visuals at a concert are woefully out of step with most of the rest of the world.
[codger] In my day, we didn’t have any damn MTV. We listened to songs on the radio…that’s all we had…and we LIKED it! [/codger]
I don’t think that’s a big deal, personally. Also, some (perhaps even many) of those bands work very closely with the visual artist in development of those videos. OK Go, in particular, are rather directly involved from concept to co-direction to distribution.
As someone who comes from both musical and visual fields (I make a living as a photographer), I can say that there is great excitement in interdisciplinary collaboration between artists. There’s no good reason to limit the exchange of ideas this multimedia approach inspires. One of the things I miss most about the “old” days of CDs and records, which has largely been supplanted by digital downloads, is the actual product of the CD: the artwork and design involved in creating the physical product. While the music is first and foremost, it was always exciting to get an interesting, well-packaged product. I will forever associate “London Calling” with Pennie Smith’s iconic photo of bassist Simonon smashing his instrument onstage, coupled with the layout and typography of Elvis’s debut album. It doesn’t cheapen the album in any way, this association of somebody else’s visual art with your own music. In my opinion, it strengthens it–that a great song, or a great album, has equally great cover art or a video to go with it, that the music can inspire other forms of artistic creativity.
**puly **- I totally hear you and agree.
What this thread ultimately gets to is the ***sincerity *of rock **and how important that is to you given the specific musical event in question. When rock broke in the 50’s and 60’s it was seen as both dangerous and sincere - the voice of a generation/teenage demographic, not just entertainment. While that hasn’t been as true as it was initially for decades, it is still understandable that a criteria that can be used to evaluate a musician is how sincere they come across.
Simonon shattering his bass came across as sincere within a punk context.
A dude in gold lame’ going Animal at a casual gig may be entertaining and what the customer paid for, but doesn’t smack of sincerity.
There’s enough of a difference that if I was recording it, I’d have us stop and re-start it faster. This is live, so obviously it’s an unfair comparison. I hadn’t considered that before.
Either way, we both seem to agree he’d probably sound better if he’d concentrate on something other than excessive crash hits. Hell, if he wants to move around a lot, swing and miss the damn cymbals.
I suppose partly my issue is this: I haven’t met a person that calls themselves a drummer that couldn’t do this shtick, so he doesn’t stand out to me. You can’t bring the Jackson Pollock argument because this drummer is far from the first to do it in a show. Go watch most hair metal drummers from the 80’s, they do this sort of thing. They don’t do it for the whole song usually, so maybe you can make an argument that his contribution to art is his excess. I don’t find it enriching.
I have zero problem with effective showmanship. I am a big fan of the Flaming Lips and many other psychedelic bands who have an amazing stage show. I’ve never felt that their antics ever detracted from the music. Even the band Crust playing their first 3-4 songs in costumes made from blowup sex dolls and designer dresses wasn’t a problem. Hell, the lead singer later stripping down to a g-string mid-song, burning his pubic hair, and slapping the audience in the face with a beef tongue that was sewn into the g-string wasn’t a problem. Why? Because they do not suck musically imho. This guy is not in the same league.
Edit: oooh, oooh, and what WordMan said! Way to live up to your name.
When I tapped it out, the cover is actually slightly faster than the original. You can tap it out here: Tap for Beats Per Minute BPM
I’m getting 125 bpm on the money for the recorded ZZ Top version, and about 125.25 for the live version. They are exactly the same tempo, for all intents and purposes.
Now, maybe what you’re hearing is an uneven groove between the drummers and guitars. The guitars don’t quite groove and propel the song like the ZZ Top version does. That said, it’s not a tempo difference you’re hearing.
I don’t disagree about the musicianship. I’m arguing about the greater point of theatre vs. music. I’m saying it needn’t be one or the other, and some bands will concentrate more on the theatrics, some more on the music. There’s nothing wrong with that. If people are entertained and enjoy the music, they’re doing their job. The band linked to is not a band I would ever want to see in concert. They don’t interest me at all. But I can appreciate their carnival-like approach to the stage show.
Thanks - and here’s hoping that we don’t see you live up to yours! ;)
I’m not arguing about what is sincere and what isn’t. A lot of “sincere” music is crap and self-important garbage, a lot of “insincere” music is quite fun and entertaining (I put KISS, for instance, in that camp. Do you consider the Monkees “insincere.” If so, add them here, too.)
While, as I said above, I have no desire in seeing such an act live, I appreciate a band that doesn’t take themselves so seriously.
Absolutely true. I have often said that the reason I cannot take Glenn Danzig seriously, is because he does.
I totally agree with you again, **puly **- my only point is that you appear to be evaluating the band on a purely entertainment level. Folks like **DChord **appear to be including a “sincerity factor” in their evaluation. In my initial post to this thread, I tried to say “hey, I prefer to play with musicians who are entertaining but try to come across as sincere about what they are doing, so this guy is not my cuppa, but for what he is trying to do (entertain and get paid) more power to 'em…”
To late to edit.
I will also add this: as a guy in a “mid-life crisis” rock band, there is a fine line between rockin’ the joint and looking…well, tired or hackneyed or just kinda sad. If you go to too many open mic nights and see the guy with the bowling shirt and Strat make a lame attempt at Pride and Joy, or those Rock-Away Fantasy Camps - well, you get the idea. So we MLC rockers tend to overcompensate and have hyper-sensitive radar - am I still rockin’ or am I a cheesy vestige of what I used to be? And when you see a gold lame’ blazer and over-the-top moves - well, my gut kinda tweaks a bit - personally, I don’t want to be that guy. I totally get that that is *my *problem.
All in all, YMMV…