[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TV) issues (nonTV)
In a message dated 4/5/00 11:27:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> My friend on the other hand was not at all bothered [by bands using backing
> He said I was a hypocrite, since I can enjoy acts like
> Fatboy Slim or the Chemical Brothers where practically nothing is played
> live. He sees no difference. I on the other hand believe that part of
> a musician is playing your songs live, and that using tapes is dishonest.
> If you've recorded songs that for practical reasons can't be played live as
> they were in the studio, I say you should re-arrange the songs and play
> acoustically or something, or else not play certain songs at all.
In general, I'm with you. I don't mind tapes if they're used sparingly, or
for something that the band can't practically play without an extra member
and is integral to the song (the synth loops on "Baba O'Riley" and "Won't Get
Fooled Again" come to mind, or Pink Floyd using tapes of the little sound
cut-ins on their albums). But in general, yeah, play it without that part, or
arrange it so that it isn't needed, or skip the song.
I remember going to my first concert in 1980, seeing Queen, and being HUGELY
disappointed that when the "operatic" section of "Bohemian Rhapsody" hit, the
band lowered the lights, left the stage, and played the album! They came back
in time for the ending, and finished it up live. Yeah, it's pretty complex,
but the four of 'em could've at least sung *SOME* of it live!
For acts like Fatboy Slim, the Chemical Brothers, etc, where samples are
essentially used like another instrument, then the tapes wouldn't bother me.
It's part of the sound.
http://shadowy.brainiac.com (The Shadowy Page On A Shadowy Web)
"I've suffered for my music, now it's your turn"
-- Neil Innes, "Protest Song"
To post: Mail firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe: Mail email@example.com with message "unsubscribe tv"