Music acts that are bad live

nyarlothothep

El Pr0n wrote: »

So it was a bad gig because you don't like the music they make anymore?

Drummers are bad drummers if they'd rather play tight drum beats instead of looser rock stuff? Songs are boring if chord progressions repeat? Guitars are only interesting if they're distorted?

No energy? Electronic jazz club?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-4BMvXt0mI

Insignificant singing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyfkTIc57s

There's nothing experimental about Radiohead, never has been. They're very good, and they started moving away from rock music after The Bends. You give out about them sounding like jazz and using clean guitars, but you love OK Computer... Ever heard The Tourist? I mean, if you don't like electronic music, fair enough (well not really, how can you prefer types of music just because of the instruments used?), but it isn't a bad gig just because you hadn't like their music for the preceding 11 years.

Ugh, I can see where this is going...No, no no to all three questions, you're willfully misunderstanding my points or else we're talking on two completely different wavelengths. I don't mind clean guitar sounds, I just hate that tinny distorted yet clean sound, its sounds muck they use it for their more rock out songs on the later albums. They used to be renowned for their three guitar part style, the guitars actually had power, force, texture and richness, now it sounds like they don't enjoy the guitar as an instrument so instead sulkily use these rubbish "anti rock" guitar sounds which sound ass.
Define experimental, what does it mean to you, what's your opinion of what experimental is and we can go from there.

Bad gig because they played mostly their new material, what about their hits, their genuine hits, the ones that propelled them to superstardom so that they could make self indulgent drivel like Kid A? Yes, where were those songs apart from a token Airbag here or a token Paranoid Android there? Instead we were treated to Thoms warbling and atrocious piano playing. "Hey this is my new song guys, hope you like it." Oh please spare us! People forked out good money for a lacklustre experience. They were good in Marley Park, they actually played what people wanted to hear, now I'm all for going against your audience in pursuit of artistic goals on the albums, (I dislike Radiohead but fair enough, they're doing what they want to do) but live, if people are shelving out 40-70 euro to see you play, give them what they liked you for in the first place! And I like some electronica, I don't listen to guitar music exclusively, its just that Radiohead write crap songs now and hide it with bleeps and bloops and journalists go "wow deep man."

Body Snatchers is a song without energy which tries to sound like it does, its uninspired, boring, derivative and the worst song off In Rainbows. Its not even a b side, its a z side. And the guitar sound is exactly what I'm talking about, the guitars sound absolutely horrible, I can't think of a better example to showcase the aural hell that is Radiohead's new guitar style. Nude is a rip off of Maggot Brain by Funkadelic, still a nice song despite Thom Yorkes vocal massacre of it. The live performances you've cited aren't as good as what they were capable of in their heyday, Thom Yorke can't sing anymore he just does that stupid annoying voice, he's such an asshole.

This the Radiohead I remember

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBGkLy2yt8A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG-adf3Z7_A

This the crapolla they have become

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7c9X9A8ErY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhdEpsL9xyA

Just notice the complete lack of energy or enthusiasm in Thoms vocals for My Iron Lung and the half assed attempt of a solo by Johnny, using effects to cover up for the fact that he's just striking random notes. There's no artistry in this. This is in total contrast to the momentum and energy they had prior to 2000. I mean looking at all these videos, they were never an outstanding band live but there has been a decline, this much is evident.

crazygeryy

Kold wrote: »

Crystal Castles and Daedalus were both atrocious live.

good thing ive never heard of them so.

rcaz

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Ugh, I can see where this is going...No, no no to all three questions, you're willfully misunderstanding my points or else we're talking on two completely different wavelengths. I don't mind clean guitar sounds, I just hate that tinny distorted yet clean sound, its sounds muck they use it for their more rock out songs on the later albums. They used to be renowned for their three guitar part style, the guitars actually had power, force, texture and richness, now it sounds like they don't enjoy the guitar as an instrument so instead sulkily use these rubbish "anti rock" guitar sounds which sound ass.
Define experimental, what does it mean to you, what's your opinion of what experimental is and we can go from there.

'Distorted yet clean' is a contradiction. I think you mean 'crunchy' or 'slightly overdriven'. And if you listen to their early music closely, especially Jonny Greenwood's guitars on Pablo Honey and The Bends, it's 80s metal distortion, with really harshly-cut mid frequencies - physically, the antithesis of 'richness'. And you're saying that, in order to show off a guitar at its best, it has to be a powerful distorted one? And to not enjoy the guitar is to be 'anti rock'? Why does the guitar always come down to rock sounds?

Experimentalism isn't a matter of opinion, it's a definition. Have a read here, it's music that's composed with some uncertainty about the result. Radiohead like to stick a lot of disparate influences together, which I think is cool, but it's not experimenting at all.

Way too many bands get away with using a synthesiser once and getting called experimental, I don't think any band I've heard described as 'experimental' ever set out to experiment.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Bad gig because they played mostly their new material, what about their hits, their genuine hits, the ones that propelled them to superstardom so that they could make self indulgent drivel like Kid A? Yes, where were those songs apart from a token Airbag here or a token Paranoid Android there? Instead we were treated to Thoms warbling and atrocious piano playing. "Hey this is my new song guys, hope you like it." Oh please spare us! People forked out good money for a lacklustre experience. They were good in Marley Park, they actually played what people wanted to hear, now I'm all for going against your audience in pursuit of artistic goals on the albums, (I dislike Radiohead but fair enough, they're doing what they want to do) but live, if people are shelving out 40-70 euro to see you play, give them what they liked you for in the first place!

I ****ing hate this argument! "I payed money so do what I want!" is such a bull**** complaint about gigs. When you bought your ticket, you bought the right to be in the audience when Radiohead put on whatever show they wanted to. That isn't my opinion, that's how gigs work. You pay money to be in a place because you want to see what someone's going to do. If you don't like what they decide to do, tough, it's not your gig.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Body Snatchers is a song without energy which tries to sound like it does, its uninspired, boring, derivative and the worst song off In Rainbows. Its not even a b side, its a z side. And the guitar sound is exactly what I'm talking about, the guitars sound absolutely horrible, I can't think of a better example to showcase the aural hell that is Radiohead's new guitar style. Nude is a rip off of Maggot Brain by Funkadelic, still a nice song despite Thom Yorkes vocal massacre of it. The live performances you've cited aren't as good as what they were capable of in their heyday, Thom Yorke can't sing anymore he just does that stupid annoying voice, he's such an asshole.

The guitar in Bodysnatchers isn't 'distorted yet clean', it's very distorted. I think there's some ring modulation on it but I'm not sure. Completely different to what you're trying to describe - I think you've got the sound of House of Cards or Jigsaw Falling Into Place when you say 'distorted yet clean'? That's a delicious guitar sound that they've spent 20 years getting right. Listen to the guitars on No Surprises, Let Down, Bulletproof, it's the same sort of thing.

And yeah, a four minute ballad is a rip off of a 10 minute guitar solo. Have you got ears?

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Just notice the complete lack of energy or enthusiasm in Thoms vocals for My Iron Lung and the half assed attempt of a solo by Johnny, using effects to cover up for the fact that he's just striking random notes. There's no artistry in this. This is in total contrast to the momentum and energy they had prior to 2000. I mean looking at all these videos, they were never an outstanding band live but there has been a decline, this much is evident.

A lot of this is you saying a band is objectively bad because you don't like what they're doing. There are loads of other bands out there doing loud distorted rock music. Just 'cause you don't like what Radiohead are doing doesn't mean you can say they're bad at anything.

nyarlothothep

El Pr0n wrote: »

'Distorted yet clean' is a contradiction. I think you mean 'crunchy' or 'slightly overdriven'. And if you listen to their early music closely, especially Jonny Greenwood's guitars on Pablo Honey and The Bends, it's 80s metal distortion, with really harshly-cut mid frequencies - physically, the antithesis of 'richness'. And you're saying that, in order to show off a guitar at its best, it has to be a powerful distorted one? And to not enjoy the guitar is to be 'anti rock'? Why does the guitar always come down to rock sounds?

Experimentalism isn't a matter of opinion, it's a definition. Have a read here, it's music that's composed with some uncertainty about the result. Radiohead like to stick a lot of disparate influences together, which I think is cool, but it's not experimenting at all.

Way too many bands get away with using a synthesiser once and getting called experimental, I don't think any band I've heard described as 'experimental' ever set out to experiment.



I ****ing hate this argument! "I payed money so do what I want!" is such a bull**** complaint about gigs. When you bought your ticket, you bought the right to be in the audience when Radiohead put on whatever show they wanted to. That isn't my opinion, that's how gigs work. You pay money to be in a place because you want to see what someone's going to do. If you don't like what they decide to do, tough, it's not your gig.



The guitar in Bodysnatchers isn't 'distorted yet clean', it's very distorted. I think there's some ring modulation on it but I'm not sure. Completely different to what you're trying to describe - I think you've got the sound of House of Cards or Jigsaw Falling Into Place when you say 'distorted yet clean'? That's a delicious guitar sound that they've spent 20 years getting right. Listen to the guitars on No Surprises, Let Down, Bulletproof, it's the same sort of thing.

And yeah, a four minute ballad is a rip off of a 10 minute guitar solo. Have you got ears?



A lot of this is you saying a band is objectively bad because you don't like what they're doing. There are loads of other bands out there doing loud distorted rock music. Just 'cause you don't like what Radiohead are doing doesn't mean you can say they're bad at anything.

And you don't think that by combining disparate elements you get a result which wasn't expected? Is that not experimental.

Now you're picking at my words, you know what I'm talking about. The guitar sound in Bodysnatchers sounds awful, I have superb ears, so much so that I can hear a very sinuous clean sound with a frizzly icing of distortion/box filter on the guitars and it sounds like someone sh1tting into my earphones. Their guitar sound in the 90s was most certainly not 80s metal and it was rich, compared to the sparser guitar sounds of their later albums. I don't mind the clean stuff, but I hate the distortion sitting on top of clean sounds that they use.

In relation to gigs I don't intend to see Radiohead again. I don't really like the reasoning behind I bought the right to be in the same place as Radiohead, that makes them seem like royalty and I should be grateful to hear them play, I like to see them play, I respect them as artists but I am not going to beg on my knees and be grateful. When you put on a gig there are certain expectations and while I nor anyone else has the right to dictate what they play, they likewise should respect the informal contract they have with the audience who have paid big bucks to see them play. If it was a free gig or cheap I wouldn't mind but its not and as such they should put on a good show and play at least half of the songs which made them famous, the classics, the ones people really like to hear, the ones that get those big rising cheers. They can do whatever they want, they can have a prog rock wig out on stage (that would be cool if they did) but ultimately a good show is what they should put on and all I heard was a tired band going through the motions and playing their later material.

Kold

I've seen Radiohead about 4 times and they'd all be in my top 10 gigs I've been to. And yes, I've been to a lot of gigs.

Plumpynuter

Ian Brown is crap live

rcaz

nyarlothothep wrote: »

And you don't think that by combining disparate elements you get a result which wasn't expected? Is that not experimental.

No, it's not. Experimental music is literally musical experiment. Steve Reich's Pendulum Music, Alvin Lucier's I Am Sitting In A Room, they're experiments.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Now you're picking at my words, you know what I'm talking about. The guitar sound in Bodysnatchers sounds awful, I have superb ears, so much so that I can hear a very sinuous clean sound with a frizzly icing of distortion/box filter on the guitars and it sounds like someone sh1tting into my earphones. Their guitar sound in the 90s was most certainly not 80s metal and it was rich, compared to the sparser guitar sounds of their later albums. I don't mind the clean stuff, but I hate the distortion sitting on top of clean sounds that they use.

I'm not picking at your words, I'm pointing out that your arguments don't make sense. You're telling me a sound is 'awful' because you don't like it. You can dislike it, sure, but you can't say it's bad. And funny you should say that it's 'not certainly not 80s metal' because Jonny Greenwood used a Marshall Shredmaster a lot back then, a pedal made famous in the 80s for metal guitar sounds.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

In relation to gigs I don't intend to see Radiohead again. I don't really like the reasoning behind I bought the right to be in the same place as Radiohead, that makes them seem like royalty and I should be grateful to hear them play, I like to see them play, I respect them as artists but I am not going to beg on my knees and be grateful.

Aha, now that isn't what I said. You buy a ticket so you can be in the venue while a Radiohead gig is happening. Buying a ticket doesn't guarantee you will like the gig, but it guarantees you will see the gig. Radiohead have absolutely no obligation to anyone that bought tickets.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

When you put on a gig there are certain expectations and while I nor anyone else has the right to dictate what they play, they likewise should respect the informal contract they have with the audience who have paid big bucks to see them play.

No they shouldn't! If they did that, they wouldn't be artists.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

If it was a free gig or cheap I wouldn't mind but its not and as such they should put on a good show and play at least half of the songs which made them famous, the classics, the ones people really like to hear, the ones that get those big rising cheers. They can do whatever they want, they can have a prog rock wig out on stage (that would be cool if they did) but ultimately a good show is what they should put on and all I heard was a tired band going through the motions and playing their later material.

You're basing all this on opinions and tastes. You want to hear songs that you like. If I like different songs and I use your definition of what a show should be, then when I go to see your perfect Radiohead concert, I'd be arguing that it was a bad show. The listener's preference, popularity, and ticket price have absolutely nothing to do with what a band should do on stage.

nyarlothothep

El Pr0n wrote: »

No, it's not. Experimental music is literally musical experiment. Steve Reich's Pendulum Music, Alvin Lucier's I Am Sitting In A Room, they're experiments.



I'm not picking at your words, I'm pointing out that your arguments don't make sense. You're telling me a sound is 'awful' because you don't like it. You can dislike it, sure, but you can't say it's bad. And funny you should say that it's 'not certainly not 80s metal' because Jonny Greenwood used a Marshall Shredmaster a lot back then, a pedal made famous in the 80s for metal guitar sounds.



Aha, now that isn't what I said. You buy a ticket so you can be in the venue while a Radiohead gig is happening. Buying a ticket doesn't guarantee you will like the gig, but it guarantees you will see the gig. Radiohead have absolutely no obligation to anyone that bought tickets.



No they shouldn't! If they did that, they wouldn't be artists.



You're basing all this on opinions and tastes. You want to hear songs that you like. If I like different songs and I use your definition of what a show should be, then when I go to see your perfect Radiohead concert, I'd be arguing that it was a bad show. The listener's preference, popularity, and ticket price have absolutely nothing to do with what a band should do on stage.

lol, this is the ultimate thread derail. 1. Pedals don't make the sound, pedals and playing style do. 2. If I dislike something I'm entitled to say its bad, if I didn't think it was bad then I wouldn't dislike it. 3. Experimental is a term which is broader or narrower depending on how you approach music, just like any label really, metal, rock or the oh so tedious what constitutes indie arguments. 4. Agreed but Radiohead can't complain if they get a lower turnout next time. 5. Touring and respecting your fan base are parts of the job of being an artist. Intrinsically being an artist is a different thing. 6. Maybe so, however most people light up when they hear the tracks of their classic albums and go along with the later material but I can tell where their preference lies, and I think dividing it half and half between older material and new stuff is basically respecting your fanbase, its just about being cool, if you're going to play new material, fine, but expect a drop in sales next time round unless that new material is out of this world, as it was on Ok Computer.

Kold

Godrich's Law?

Android 666

Kold wrote: »

Godrich's Law?

Aright then, Radiohead picking up samplers is as bad as the holocaust. Or as bad as being an electronic jazz club. I can't decide which...

SpatialPlanning

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Just notice the complete lack of energy or enthusiasm in Thoms vocals for My Iron Lung and the half assed attempt of a solo by Johnny, using effects to cover up for the fact that he's just striking random notes. There's no artistry in this. This is in total contrast to the momentum and energy they had prior to 2000. I mean looking at all these videos, they were never an outstanding band live but there has been a decline, this much is evident.

:eek: Good god.

Malice

Kold wrote: »

Godrich's Law?

I think Godwin's Law was what was meant.

Table Top Joe

Nigel Godrich is Radioheads producer;)

Malice

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Nigel Godrich is Radioheads producer;)

Ah fair enough, that's what I get for speed reading the thread .

Table Top Joe

@nyarlothothep......couldnt disagree more with your Radiohead assessment,i think "Pablo Honey" is one of the dullest albums ive ever heard in my life(aside from "Creep" which probably wouldnt make my top 20 Radiohead songs anyway)but that clip you posted of "Idioteque" is possibly the best song ive ever heard live(twice!)its also my first or second favourite song of theirs


Just sayin....carry on:)

Darkglasses

Smashing Pumpkins were balls last time they were here, although it took me a while to realise it.

inthefade

I've been told by a good few people that Arctic Monkeys are pretty poor live.

karaokeman

inthefade wrote: »

I've been told by a good few people that Arctic Monkeys are pretty poor live.

I've also been told that by my cousin whose seen them live twice.

Tbqf they are gone to s*** now.

Oasis_Dublin

Absolute nonsense. Fantastic band live. Get up, play their tunes, leave the distracting stage shows to U2, Muse and Metallica!

rcaz

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Fantastic band live. Get up, play their tunes, leave the distracting stage shows to U2, Muse and Metallica!

Why not just listen to the record if you just want to hear the tunes? :pac:

For me a show has to be something more than just playing their tunes. I saw Arctic Monkeys in Malahide Castle in 2007, it was a bit boring for me. "Hi, we're Arctic Monkeys, here's a song." *song* "Thanks. Here's another song." *song* "Thanks, here's the next song."

No presentation or setting for the tunes, just the tunes. Not a rubbish live band maybe, but definitely not a particularly good one. IMO of course.

Oasis_Dublin

I can't believe it! That was possibly the best gig of my life! Loads of energy and the crowd at the front knew every word. It was like hearing the (amazing) records on CD, but in a field with loads of other people who appreciated how great the albums were :P (also Dublin were preparing to beat Meath in the Leinster Championship, and the weather was great!)

rcaz

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

It was like hearing the (amazing) records on CD

See there's my problem :pac:

karaokeman

El Pr0n wrote: »

"Hi, we're Arctic Monkeys, here's a song." *song* "Thanks. Here's another song." *song* "Thanks, here's the next song."

Thats what Beady Eye were like when I saw them at Oxegen:p.

I still remember Liam Gallagher coming out "hey were Beady Eye and this is our Four Letter Word" and they just played as if the whole set was a rundown promotion of their album and not a festival set.

For me when a band plays live they should try as much as they can to get the crowd going, whether it be ask them to sing along to their tunes or to jump into the audience as the Kaiser Chiefs would do.

This is what I like to see, especially with bands like Kaiser Chiefs.

If you show good connection with the fans it must mean you appreciate they buy your records and have helped you to sell out massive venues.

Of course thats just MO everyone has their own taste in live shows, I love Coldplay live and other people don't but there's other bands I don't enjoy live and other's would.

Music is totally subjective, that is the truth of it at the end of the day.

Oasis_Dublin

I agree that everyone is entitled to opinions and that they are equally valid.





Still though, mine is the most valid!

rcaz

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I agree that everyone is entitled to opinions and that they are equally valid.





Still though, mine is the most valid!

No no no, everyone can have opinions, just your opinion is wrong

jaffacakesyum

Kings of Leon definitely the worst band I've seen live. So boring

Bob Dylan is an absolute legend and hero of mine. I'm glad I saw him live but let's just say I wouldn't pay €90+ to see him again.

rcaz

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Bob Dylan is an absolute legend and hero of mine. I'm glad I saw him live but let's just say I wouldn't pay €90+ to see him again.

Out of interest, is there anyone here that would pay €90+ to see anyone play a show?

Having a hard time figuring out who'd be worth 90 blips. I got a present of a Tom Waits ticket for the show in Phoenix Park which was like €120 or something. Ridiculous but the best show I've ever been to.

hidinginthebush

El Pr0n wrote: »

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Bob Dylan is an absolute legend and hero of mine. I'm glad I saw him live but let's just say I wouldn't pay €90+ to see him again.

Out of interest, is there anyone here that would pay €90+ to see anyone play a show?

Having a hard time figuring out who'd be worth 90 blips. I got a present of a Tom Waits ticket for the show in Phoenix Park which was like €120 or something. Ridiculous but the best show I've ever been to.

I'd pay that to see Roger Waters doing the wall again, Neil Young (I've missed him at least twice through my own fault :mad:), and probably the Mars Volta, I'd follow them to hell and back.

And I'm in no way flush at the moment, I just think that 90 quid spent on a ticket will give you a much more memorable and enjoyable experience than a night or two spent on the beer.

Recognition Scene

El Pr0n wrote: »

Out of interest, is there anyone here that would pay €90+ to see anyone play a show?

Having a hard time figuring out who'd be worth 90 blips. I got a present of a Tom Waits ticket for the show in Phoenix Park which was like €120 or something. Ridiculous but the best show I've ever been to.

I paid 115ish (I think) to see Leonard Cohen a couple of years back and definitely don't regret it! I've tickets for Radiohead in March that were pricey enough (added up to $80+ but granted it's not as bad as €80+). I do regret not shelling out for one of those Tom Waits gigs... I'd just finished college though, so wasn't exactly flush with money at the time.

Malice

El Pr0n wrote: »

Out of interest, is there anyone here that would pay €90+ to see anyone play a show?

Is that ticket price alone or the whole package including travel, food, drink and merchandise?