I thought that, too, but then I realized they’re a tribute band, not a cover band. So their goal is to sound as close to the recording as possible, to give the audience the feeling that they’re seeing the real thing for less money. So in that aspect they are a very good band. But yes, I myself have never been much of a fan of tribute bands, because why indeed.
I love Chicago’s 1967-1981 catalogue and I’d be very interested in hearing new interpretations of those songs. I’d be even more interested in new takes on their 1982-1991 stuff because the original releases are now dated and unlistenable because of the cheap-sounding synthesizers.
But Leonid and Friends aren’t offering re-interpretations. What’s the point of a cover that sounds note for note exactly like the original? It’s more like a tribute band rather than a cover band.
Arguing over ‘cover’ vs. ‘tribute’ and then commenting on what songs they do or don’t do.
Can’t you just enjoy a live performance of some classic rock performed by a band that doesn’t speak English as a first language? Is the musicianship somehow subpar? Is it ok to serve a red wine with chicken? (hint: the answer is yes)
Well what did you want us to do, fawn all over them? We’re discussing them, isn’t that the point? They’re good musicians, yes, but there are lots of good musicians. Unless you’re part of the band I don’t see why you would be offended by anything that was said, and even then I would say lighten up and keep playing.