Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinHead
I'm curious to know which artists you're thinking of?
Not all artists are beholden to some arbitrary rule that studio recordings are required to be replicated on stage. Big Love, anyone?
In the Rumours era 1975-1982 they didn't tour with a band of support players - guitarists, keyboard players, synths, percussionists, backup vocalists.
Without all of the fussy vocal overdubs and heavily layered instruments, the songs took on a slightly more earthy tone and assertive manner. This was what at a real rock show was all about.
As a burgeoning fan in the late seventies, having little knowledge of any live shows, I was fascinated to know how their songs sounded in live performance. I began trading cassette bootlegs with fans through snail mail (ancient cave man times). It was exciting to hear how the songs translated live I never compared them to the studio versions, because they are two separate worlds.
|
Interesting that you brought up Big Love. As much as I can appreciate that the one man live arrangement showcases Lindsey's unique talents, I much prefer the studio treatment. I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, but I enjoy lush, full compositions over those spare, earthy ones. Give me thirty eight layered harmonies, six guitars, a piano and two keyboards, drums and seven different percussion add ons...I'm being silly, but you get the idea, just beautiful layered pieces that don't always translate well without the "fuss". That isn't to say that I can't also enjoy something like a simple, one person at a piano song. I just think I'll always prefer what you can do in a studio with time and production over what you can do on the fly with a small group on stage. We're all different and that's just my preference.