Expletive Deleted

So bands who sound great in the studio, but suck live should stop playing?

swim

Bands who suck live aren't good bands. What orchestra can't play well live? I don't care how a computer or play back can make you sound like a good musician, after you've given it a few hundred shots. Live performances pretty much seperate an ok band from a great band. If you're a good writer but not a performer become a studio musician. Or like boo boo said if you suck live don't make me waste my money on you sucking ass. Just record studio albums and when people ask why don't you tour say, I suck.

__________________
http://nakednaps.bandcamp.com/

boo boo

Aren't you a White Stripes fan?

Just throwing that out there.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

swim

Not really I've listened to their albums I like about 3 songs off of each.

I'm just saying a good musician can play music instead of just write music.

__________________
http://nakednaps.bandcamp.com/

boo boo

But saying that if a band isnt good live then that band isn't good at all is just ridiculous... Most bands are worst live than they are in the studio anyway.

IMO, a studio can be a musical instrument, so saying that if someone uses the studio as a tool for music making makes them a bad musician is a pretty closed minded thing to say.

I'm a weirdo though, there are only a few bands whose live material i'd even bother listening to.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

swim

I should've said great, I meant to say great. If it's half ass decent live then I'll think it's pretty good just because I'm considering it's live. If it's unbearable shit that's where my comments apply. It should be recognizable and enjoyable. It doesn't have to be perfect.
What I can't stand is when bands write extremely easy music, like straight eighth notes and manage to make it sound completely rancid live.

__________________
http://nakednaps.bandcamp.com/

Urban Hat€monger ?

Not really , they are 2 seperate skills & I think it`s a myth that you need both.
I think Bob Dylan is a fantastic songwriter yet most of the high profile covers (Hendrix , Byrds etc) of his songs piss over his versions of them.

Just like there are great singers who are better at having other people write their songs for them (Sinatra , Tom Jones , Elvis etc)

__________________

boo boo

Again a very arrogant comment... It's simply easy for a lot of people to play in the comfort of silence in their little studio than to play in front of big crowd... Some people just prefer the former, why is that a bad thing?... Because they care more about making audible, listenable music than putting a lot of emotion, passion and all the other bullsh*t that music shouldn't be judged on into their music?... Pfft.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

swim

If your music is horrible live why should I have to pay to go see it?
That's good and fine that you're a great writer but you should atleast be listenable to live.

__________________
http://nakednaps.bandcamp.com/

boo boo

Ok, but if a band made music that they chose not to play live would that make them bad musicians?... If you believe that, then you likely think The Beatles are bad musicians.

In which case i would have to punch you in the face.

Theres nothing wrong with prefering live music to studio music... But i don't see the logic behind how one way is a good way and another way is not... If a band can suck in the studio and be good live and that makes them a good band, it shouldn't be any different if a ban sucks live but are good in the studio.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs