All this.
After reading this thread, I, like many before me, started thinking about examples of tight and not so tight bands. Then I realized a couple of truths:
Songs from the studio don’t say anything about how tight the band is, they demonstrate how tight the production and engineering was, which can include things like playing with timing, bringing in session players to substitute for a band member, and cobbling together multiple takes.
Most bands that achieved success and have been together for a while (or consist of musicians with years and years of experience) are going to be tight, if you define that as playing a song exactly as intended.
The only way to tell if a band is tight is to listen to a live performance, but even then, tightness of a band is reflected more in achieving precisely the performance they want more than hewing to one precise beat. Bands trying for a punk sound may deliberately go for a “sloppy” sound, which is probably tougher for skilled musicians than playing on exactly the same beat as everyone else.
So, my conclusion is that whatever problems Rock Lobster might or might not have, it’s a song that sounds exactly as the band intended. I’d call that tight.
Or, as summarized in a scene from Silverado, where our heroes are pursued by a posse from the local town, reaching a rock mesa where they had left their friend to keep watch, who, from about a quarter mile away, proceeds to fire into the ground in front of the sheriff’s horse, stopping it, clip a branch next to the sheriff’s head, and knock his hat off with a third shot, leading to the following exchange:
Deputy: “That them shootin’?”
Sheriff: “No, it’s coming from those rocks.”
Deputy: “Well, let’s go. He ain’t hittin’ nothin’.”
Sheriff: “You idiot, he’s hit everything he’s aimed at.”
Deputy: “Well, they ain’t out of our jurisdiction 'til they reach the flattop.”
Sheriff: “Today, my jurisdiction ends here. Pick up my hat.”
How about any of Zappa’s bands? In the seventies, there was the Roxy and Elsewhere lineup with George Duke, Chester Thompson, Ruth Underwood et al.
Sorry to keep banging on about this, but compare the album version of Rock Lobster with I’m Not In Love by Talking Heads. Both songs were recorded in spring 1978 and both end with 2 minute long mostly instrumental freak outs. If the B52s intended to sound like that then they just sound like less skilled musicians. The fact that the bands come from a similar artistic backgrounds weakens the argument that the punk spirit prefers a looser (which in this case means less danceable) sound.
Having said that, I’ve now listened to the single version of Rock Lobster and I think it’s much better than the album version. The album version doesn’t swing, I think the issue might be with the drumming. Which brings me back to wanting to ask musicians what they think of the playing and production on the 2 versions.
You want tight? Just listen to the recordings of Django Reinhardt and Stéphane Grappelli. No drums and three guitars isn’t the best or even a practical way of making tight music. Nonetheless, on some of their recordings, after the solos and when they return to the main theme, it sounds like they’re on the verge of flying off the bandstand together.
Santana has always impressed me as one of the tightest live bands. Usually, there are seven or eight (or more) players and, as seems to be a common factor in the other posts in this thread, percussion is a key element.
See, I’m not sure I would call the Police particularly “tight.” During COVID I took a realllllly deep dive into their live work – which is so awesome and so much better, to me, than their studio work – and while they played together well, they had a fair amount of slop to their play and tempos often wavered around a bit (in a sense that is pushing the beat sometimes slightly uncomfortably). I would call them relatively tight, especially for the genre, but not a prime example of tightness (except for their studio recordings, which were mostly immaculate.)
I think that until around the 2:50 mark, they’re the same recording. I can sync them up and they don’t differ until that point. They both are played at the same tempo, with the same beat. The singe says it’s an edit instead of a different recording, and I think it’s telling the truth.
That said, this musician thinks the B-52s are plenty tight.
When I saw Boston in concert (2008), they were very tight (possibly to the point of detriment). I honestly hadn’t thought they would be able to recreate Scholz’s studio perfectionism live when he wasn’t doing everything except lead vocals.
I can’t think of two more different songs. Or bands.
This is all they seem to have in common.
Why would the B52s intend to sound like the TH? Even if so why would it be on a putative “tightness” scale?
There were lots of new bands doing different things under punk, new wave and new music banners… It was hard to label then. Why does it come down to “tightness” 40 years later?
I’m confused - are you saying Rock Lobster is less danceable than the Talking Heads song? Because I’m struggling to think of an alternative rock song of that era that makes me want to dance more.
Well, maybe Dance This Mess Around…
Not necessarily, but what I’ve now realised is that the last 2 minutes of the album version of Rock Lobster are pedestrian compared with the last 2 minutes of the single version, and so less danceable.
Never saw them in the late 70’s but my one of my sis’s and BIL report that they were disappointed at how loose they were at a gig around mid-90s or so.
My goodness, one of the best live bands I’ve ever seen. (They did exist in the late 70s but I didn’t see them until ‘89.) If I ever had to name an “ultimate bar band”, no other band would come close to the New Rhythm and Blues Quartet. Your wife can leave you, shoot your dog, then lose your house, and then after a couple of Stellas and a half-hour of rabble-rousin’, roundhousin’, hootenany good-fun times with Big Al Anderson and Co. - boom - everything’s just toe-tappin’ fine again. IIRC it was Sam Stone who referred to “being in the pocket”, and if my name isn’t Thurl Ravenscroft, dang were NRBQ ever that.
There’s a youtube video with Chris Squire reminiscing about Noel Redding having difficulty learning the bass lines for (I think) “Purple Haze”, which Squire had been off to the side actually witnessing at the time, and somewhat aghast at how long it was taking NR to get it down. Wasn’t NR originally hired because Jimi thought NR’s 'fro was cool?
Right, getting less derail-y - a late 70’s band that was as tight onstage as in the studio was the British band Wire. Even more minimalist than early Talking Heads.
ETA: Forgot about the Minutemen (formed Jan. 80) They apparently really got on each others’ cases about being tight.
I think Wishbone Ash in '72 might qualify as being tight. I started this clip where they start to show off their chops:
Would I be asking too much for someone to post examples of tight and not-tight bands in the same genre?
I suspect for the non musically inclined among us, it might be a lot easier to comprehend the difference if we had that contrast describe. Like say… (and I have no idea as to their tightness, this is just examples) Poison described as “tight”, and Warrant described as “not-tight”. Or Metallica vs. Megadeth, or Loverboy vs. Cheap Trick. Or whoever.
The much discussed B-52s and Talking Heads were the same genre.
I’m guessing my non-musical ear is missing something vital here, because I’m not sure what the difference is in terms of the music. (I mean, I can tell the bands apart obviously, but not what would make Talking Heads tight, and the B-52s loose.)
Well, I strongly favour The B-52s, so I’m clearly no judge, either.
I will give it a try, with two studio recordings by punk rock bands. The first example are Bad Religion, which I consider a very tight band, compared to the Clash, who always played looser, there’s more chaos in their music. Maybe you can hear the difference:
I think what’s going on here is me hearing 2 different versions of Rock Lobster without realising it. There’s a 4:56 single version** on Spotify that to me has a more swinging rhythm than the 6:52 version, especially over the last 2 minutes of each. I must have heard the 4:56 version at some point, liked it, but later heard the 6:52 version and thought I’d overrated the original one I heard. That led me to drunken musings on why some bands’ recordings stand up to repeated listenings while others do not, hence the discussion on tightness - if you think my reasoning is bogus you might be right.
In any case can’t put my finger on what is different about the 2 versions, you might well think I’m imagining it and I wouldn’t argue, but if I was a DJ I would only use the 4:56 one.
**It turns out there also 4:40 single version on Youtube which is absolutely not what I was referring to earlier.