The narcissism continues

[Macfan4life]

The live versions of all songs were changed during the Dance era. I would not call it "watering" down although I can see why someone would say that. Fleetwood Mac like bands in the late 90s used technology that helped them create a live sound much more similar to the album versions. Stevie's Stop Draggin My Heart Around in 2017 had very little rock edge compared to her early 80's versions. Over My Head used to rock in the 70s when they played it. When the Mac started playing it again in the late 90s, that arena rock sound was gone and we got something similar to the album version.

I have always said I loved arena rock and 1990 was the last of it with the Mac as well as other bands. I much prefer the raw rocking sound compared to the tame technology based sound.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by Macfan4life

The live versions of all songs were changed during the Dance era. I would not call it "watering" down although I can see why someone would say that. Fleetwood Mac like bands in the late 90s used technology that helped them create a live sound much more similar to the album versions. Stevie's Stop Draggin My Heart Around in 2017 had very little rock edge compared to her early 80's versions. Over My Head used to rock in the 70s when they played it. When the Mac started playing it again in the late 90s, that arena rock sound was gone and we got something similar to the album version.

I have always said I loved arena rock and 1990 was the last of it with the Mac as well as other bands. I much prefer the raw rocking sound compared to the tame technology based sound.

I love the Live album version of OMH. That "drop D" guitar intro is f*cking awesome!

I hate it that bands decided they had to sound exactly like the albums. Adding an orchestra of players/playing with tracks.
Mirage was the last time they were even close to being an actual BAND.

[jmn3]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

I love the Live album version of OMH. That "drop D" guitar intro is f*cking awesome!

I hate it that bands decided they had to sound exactly like the albums. Adding an orchestra of players/playing with tracks.
Mirage was the last time they were even close to being an actual BAND.

I was way too young to understand any of this at the time, but clearly something happened during the 80's because a lot of bands made this pivot at the time. I'm a pretty big Stones fan and the concert approach from 1981/82 as compared to their 1989-90 tours are indescribably different. They added a mini-band behind them and approached their catalog with the intent to mimic as best as possible, the sound of the album recording. Stones fans lament the change to the "Vegas-era" of the Stones in 1989 as compared to their live approach from 1969-82.

My take has been that the bands were older, the audience was older, there were less drugs and the ticket prices were much much higher. Middle-aged (and now senior citizen) baby boomers had, and were willing to shell out, larger dollars to see their heroes and relive a piece of their youth for one night...but were going to be a lot more critical of bands playing loose with the live performances. I don't know if I'm right at all, but just a theory I have had on it.

Personally, as someone who was born two months after those last Tusk shows at the Hollywood Bowl, it's a hell of a lot more interesting today listening to bootlegs off of the Tusk Tour with their varied approaches and outputs vs. any bootleg off of the Say You Will or On With the Show Tours with their standardized, sanitized, and consistent performances. Of course, the band isn't really going to a give a crap about me listening on YouTube vs. the paying audience getting their one night at the local hockey rink with their favorite band sounding "just like they did 40 years ago!"

Compare Over My Head from Live to the performance on The Dance DVD. Blah to the latter.

[UnwindedDreams]

Originally Posted by jmn3

I'm a pretty big Stones fan and the concert approach from 1981/82 as compared to their 1989-90 tours are indescribably different. They added a mini-band behind them and approached their catalog with the intent to mimic as best as possible, the sound of the album recording. Stones fans lament the change to the "Vegas-era" of the Stones in 1989 as compared to their live approach from 1969-82.

I'm in agreement that I think with people willing to pay the premium prices for shows, the live experience changed. You had the Stones sounding more like they were in a recording studio on the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour than on a stage. I will say, I think they really let loose on the Bigger Bang Tour and even some on the 50 & Counting Tour. I was at the show where they debuted Emotional Rescue and it sounded so FRESH.
Totally with you on the mini band too. I think in 89 they added Lisa, Bernard, Chuck. Now, I think they added more horns and they actually have 2 keyboard players. Maybe that was just to play She's a Rainbow

[jmn3]

Originally Posted by UnwindedDreams

I'm in agreement that I think with people willing to pay the premium prices for shows, the live experience changed. You had the Stones sounding more like they were in a recording studio on the Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour than on a stage. I will say, I think they really let loose on the Bigger Bang Tour and even some on the 50 & Counting Tour. I was at the show where they debuted Emotional Rescue and it sounded so FRESH.
Totally with you on the mini band too. I think in 89 they added Lisa, Bernard, Chuck. Now, I think they added more horns and they actually have 2 keyboard players. Maybe that was just to play She's a Rainbow

That’s just it - not to take this all Rolling Stones, but I think songs like Rainbow or Ruby Tuesday were only unearthed after ‘89 because of the “new” approach.

Bottom line is, everyone got older, the money got way more intense, and expectations changed. And with that came the doldrums that are Rhiannon since 1997 (piano intro as an exception), truncated blah versions of The Chain, and basic studio recreations that lack any oomph like Over My Head.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by jmn3

That’s just it - not to take this all Rolling Stones, but I think songs like Rainbow or Ruby Tuesday were only unearthed after ‘89 because of the “new” approach.

Bottom line is, everyone got older, the money got way more intense, and expectations changed. And with that came the doldrums that are Rhiannon since 1997 (piano intro as an exception), truncated blah versions of The Chain, and basic studio recreations that lack any oomph like Over My Head.

When I first saw the Dance Chain, I was completely underwhelmed.
Did someone give LB a valium? And the greeting, "Welcome Everybody"

[jmn3]

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr

When I first saw the Dance Chain, I was completely underwhelmed.
Did someone give LB a valium? And the greeting, "Welcome Everybody"

"Run run run run run run run"...and the ending without a solo "chaiiiiinnn keep us TO-GETH-ER!" *HARD STOP* and then that lame greeting.

Though, not as lame as what started in 2009..."let's get this party started" before Steph goes into another droning, monotonous session of Dreams.

[vivfox]

Originally Posted by jmn3

I was way too young to understand any of this at the time, but clearly something happened during the 80's because a lot of bands made this pivot at the time. I'm a pretty big Stones fan and the concert approach from 1981/82 as compared to their 1989-90 tours are indescribably different. They added a mini-band behind them and approached their catalog with the intent to mimic as best as possible, the sound of the album recording. Stones fans lament the change to the "Vegas-era" of the Stones in 1989 as compared to their live approach from 1969-82.

My take has been that the bands were older, the audience was older, there were less drugs and the ticket prices were much much higher. Middle-aged (and now senior citizen) baby boomers had, and were willing to shell out, larger dollars to see their heroes and relive a piece of their youth for one night...but were going to be a lot more critical of bands playing loose with the live performances. I don't know if I'm right at all, but just a theory I have had on it.

Personally, as someone who was born two months after those last Tusk shows at the Hollywood Bowl, it's a hell of a lot more interesting today listening to bootlegs off of the Tusk Tour with their varied approaches and outputs vs. any bootleg off of the Say You Will or On With the Show Tours with their standardized, sanitized, and consistent performances. Of course, the band isn't really going to a give a crap about me listening on YouTube vs. the paying audience getting their one night at the local hockey rink with their favorite band sounding "just like they did 40 years ago!"

I love everything you wrote. Fleetwood Mac changed dramatically after Lindsey left in 1987. Stevie took over the band and had a good chunk of her solo touring band onstage with FM. This is when everything began to sound just like the records. Oh how I miss the live sound created by just 4 people(Mick, John, Lindsey & Christine) and of course SN's vocals. But just FOUR people created an incredible live sound that made those shows from the White Album to Tusk so memorable for me. A lot of you guys became fans after the release of The Dance. For me at that time (1997) there was nothing in their live performance that could duplicate the magic of the 1970's except Silver Springs. That SS was filled with raw emotion.

[jmn3]

Originally Posted by vivfox

I love everything you wrote. Fleetwood Mac changed dramatically after Lindsey left in 1987. Stevie took over the band and had a good chunk of her solo touring band onstage with FM. This is when everything began to sound just like the records. Oh how I miss the live sound created by just 4 people(Mick, John, Lindsey & Christine) and of course SN's vocals. But just FOUR people created an incredible live sound that made those shows from the White Album to Tusk so memorable for me. A lot of you guys became fans after the release of The Dance. For me at that time (1997) there was nothing in their live performance that could duplicate the magic of the 1970's except Silver Springs. That SS was filled with raw emotion.

I think there was still some fire for The Dance. Silver Springs is something to behold and it just came off right. I also think they took SOME risks with the arrangements. Silver Springs for one, Landslide with just Lindsey and Stevie (no keyboard solo), Say You Love Me, the piano intro for Rhiannon (a first in the band setting and it didn’t drone on like some of her solo performances of it prior to 1997), and Farmers Daughter pulled out to close each show. I think the problem is for the most part, they created a formula that they never changed from during the Dance. Some subtle setlist changes and some minimal arrangement choices. The sound has more or less been steady since then. The only real difference is less playing by Lindsey and Chris, lowered keys, and worse voices from all of them.

Oh - and my biggest gripe with 1987+ Fleetwood Mac, those damned background singers. I know the sound needs to be filled out but I’ve always thought Stevie’s “girls” have overtaken her solo and band performances.

[bombaysaffires]

Originally Posted by vivfox

I love everything you wrote. Fleetwood Mac changed dramatically after Lindsey left in 1987. Stevie took over the band and had a good chunk of her solo touring band onstage with FM. This is when everything began to sound just like the records. Oh how I miss the live sound created by just 4 people(Mick, John, Lindsey & Christine) and of course SN's vocals. But just FOUR people created an incredible live sound that made those shows from the White Album to Tusk so memorable for me. A lot of you guys became fans after the release of The Dance. For me at that time (1997) there was nothing in their live performance that could duplicate the magic of the 1970's except Silver Springs. That SS was filled with raw emotion.

Can't like this enough.

[David]

Originally Posted by jmn3

I was way too young to understand any of this at the time, but clearly something happened during the 80's because a lot of bands made this pivot at the time. I'm a pretty big Stones fan and the concert approach from 1981/82 as compared to their 1989-90 tours are indescribably different. They added a mini-band behind them and approached their catalog with the intent to mimic as best as possible, the sound of the album recording. Stones fans lament the change to the "Vegas-era" of the Stones in 1989 as compared to their live approach from 1969-82.

My take has been that the bands were older, the audience was older, there were less drugs and the ticket prices were much much higher. Middle-aged (and now senior citizen) baby boomers had, and were willing to shell out, larger dollars to see their heroes and relive a piece of their youth for one night...but were going to be a lot more critical of bands playing loose with the live performances. I don't know if I'm right at all, but just a theory I have had on it.

I think all of that came into play—the “philosophy” of live music changed in the industry. In the sixties and seventies, bands just drank a bottle of tequila and wailed. Whatever came out of the amp is what the show was. It was loose enough (and the musicians were still young enough) that inspired bits had plenty of room to surface. You attack your instrument (and your set list) very differently when you’re 28 and again when you’re 48 or 58. Rock concerts were bigger business and ticket prices were higher, so all the business people want you to be immaculate. If you had said to a psychedelic sixties band like Vanilla Fudge or to any number of hard-rocking seventies bands, “Be immaculate,” you would have been laughed out of the room. But it became the rule in the eighties.

Another thing that pushed things in a new direction—I think—is the transformation of the technology of live music. In a nutshell, you went from electric and electronic in the seventies: analog synths, tube technology, vocoders, wah pedals, two-channel stereo for keyboards (like Christine’s own late-seventies board, the Yamaha CP30), manual samplers like the Mellotron (which used Cr02 tape), and all the fun stuff musicians screwed around with in the studio and onstage (usually they played shows with the same instruments they were using in studios). In the early eighties, what changed? The digital revolution and an initial turn away from vintage sound. It’s funny but digital technology down the line was actually used to replicate vintage sound. This revolution in the size and sound of microprocessors really influenced what all these bands sounded like in concert. The technology in recording has always been great because it eliminated leakage without having to put everyone in separate rooms. But in a live setting, you look for a kinetic strength that the vintage approach was so great at capturing.

And let’s face it: drugs, too.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by David

(like Christine’s own late-seventies board, the Yamaha CP30)

Hey nerd boy, a friend was axing me what keyboard Christine used on Think About Me(in the studio). I told him I wasn't quite that nerdy, but had a friend who would know! Yes, I was bragging on you.

So what was it?

[David]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

Hey nerd boy, a friend was axing me what keyboard Christine used on Think About Me(in the studio). I told him I wasn't quite that nerdy, but had a friend who would know! Yes, I was bragging on you.

So what was it?

You won the bet! That is a CP30.

https://youtu.be/Z5xRtJoX0jI?t=371

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by David

You won the bet! That is a CP30.

https://youtu.be/Z5xRtJoX0jI?t=371

Thanks, David!