When bands play their songs faster in concert

[soundsweird]

I was just listening to Gentle Giant's "GG at the GG" CD in the car, and I noticed that many of the songs are played much faster than the studio versions. I have to say that I prefer hearing them at the original tempo. I'm sure some bands do this to keep the energy level up in a concert setting, or maybe get an extra song in if there's limited amount of time. However, I don't want a 5-minute song I love to be squeezed into four minutes, and I don't want it to come across as rushed and sloppy (this performance is certainly not as good as those on my other live GG albums). I guess it wouldn't be a problem if we're talking about a band that plays simple 4/4 rock songs, but Gentle Giant? Anyway, who else does this, and how do you feel about it?

[NogbadTheBad]

Motorhead. Fucking brilliant live, much faster, No Sleep Til Hammersmith, definitive.

[3LockBox]

YES. Their tempos have been slower for decades. Slower tempos smack of being tired. Faster tempos evoke energy.

[Dave (in MA)]

It's not all that fast, but after you hear Man on the Silver Mountain from the live album, the studio version sounds like it's at the wrong speed.

[viukkis]

Zappa's Roxy & Elsewhere and You Can't Do That on Stage Anymore Vol. 2 were recorded nine months apart, but the difference in tempos is staggering. If I remember correctly, Zappa mentions this in the liner notes of the latter and comments that these things tend to happen when you play the same material night after night for long enough.

[No Pride]

I was just listening to Gentle Giant's "GG at the GG" CD in the car, and I noticed that many of the songs are played much faster than the studio versions. I have to say that I prefer hearing them at the original tempo. I'm sure some bands do this to keep the energy level up in a concert setting, or maybe get an extra song in if there's limited amount of time. However, I don't want a 5-minute song I love to be squeezed into four minutes, and I don't want it to come across as rushed and sloppy (this performance is certainly not as good as those on my other live GG albums). I guess it wouldn't be a problem if we're talking about a band that plays simple 4/4 rock songs, but Gentle Giant? Anyway, who else does this, and how do you feel about it?

Lots of bands do this and maybe sometimes it's not intentional, but more often, it is. It's the myth that faster tempo = more energy. I don't buy into it in most cases, although I suppose if a tune is largely fast for the sake of being fast (like The Mahavishnu Orchestra, for instance), it doesn't hurt to play it even faster live... if you can still pull it off cleanly. But I'd like to think that the original tempo of a tune is initially chosen because that's where it feels best; that's where it grooves and a lot of the time, if you play it faster, it doesn't groove in the way it was intended to. As a professional musician, I've learned to keep my mouth shut if it isn't MY band, but while in a situation where we're playing a tune too fast (which happens a lot), I'm often thinking, "man, it sounds stupid at this tempo."

In picking the lesser of two evils, I guess "too fast" is better than "too slow." But the closer to the original tempo, the better, at least imo.

[Yves]

I have to assume that as musicians age, they may not have the chops required to play at the original recorded tempo, and you get a lot of bands playing slower. I think of the anecdote Geddy Lee relates in the Rush movie when he and Alex played YYZ with Dave Grohl during a Foo Fighters show in Toronto. Dave was playing it at album speed but they were used to playing it slower now and were having a tough time keeping up.

[markwoll]

It seems like a lot of shows These Days are timed pretty closely with background videos, set changes, and other programming.
Adjusting the tempo, etc may make a show 'fit' better to the program structure.

[No Pride]

I have to assume that as musicians age, they may not have the chops required to play at the original recorded tempo, and you get a lot of bands playing slower.

Age is no excuse unless you have tendonitis, arthritis, or some debilitating affliction that prevents you from being able to do what you once could. I suppose it's a matter of how important it is to you to keep your chops up. I hate to generalize, but it seems like it's often more important to jazz musicians. Look at someone like Chick Corea; he's 72 now and still has ridiculously heavy chops. If you don't use it, you'll lose it.

[pb2015]

The Miles Davis 60's "second quintet" was a famous example of a band playing songs much faster than the original versions. I like it.

[No Pride]

The Miles Davis 60's "second quintet" was a famous example of a band playing songs much faster than the original versions. I like it.

I do too, but they were a strange anomaly; they made these awesome studio recordings and hardly played any of that material live. Instead, they were playing older Miles material from albums they weren't even on. And conceptually, they were in a whole different (and more modern) ballpark than the players on the original albums where the repertoire was culled from. Anyway, I think it's a little different for jazz, where the tunes play second fiddle to the improvisation, which is the main attraction.

[Ten Thumbs]

It was reported often enough in interviews that Gentle Giant considered recording and live performance as separate entities, different environments. I'll say headphone listening vs arena and multi-use function halls listening. GG rearranged songs or portions of songs live (Knots, On Reflection for example), as well as the Octopus medley and acoustic guitar duet medley. I liked that live, that the music was similar yet different, and that during a set they gave short pieces of some songs in medleys when there wasn't the time to add another full four or five songs into a set. They crafted songs in the studio and they rocked on the road. Recording was creating in a secluded environ, and on stage was loudness, lights, sweat, some showmanship, crowd reaction, so I'm not surprised that some songs were at faster tempo. Live albums and dvds can only convey some elements of a performance, they're just different than being in the room during the show. How many albums have I bought from hearing a band live for the first time, and then feeling the album doesn't live up to live impression I got of them. That happened with both my son and I on the recent Steven Wilson tour, we liked the concert way more than the album.

[Reid]

Look at someone like Chick Corea; he's 72 now and still has ridiculously heavy chops. If you don't use it, you'll lose it.

He's actually 74. Speaking of older cats with great chops, I just found out Larry Coryell is playing at a club about a quarter mile from my house on Sunday night. I'll be there!

[happytheman]

Take a Pebble was played way too fast (IMHO) on Welcome Back.. Keith plays it beautifully on their first album..

[rapidfirerob]

I also feel songs should be played at the original tempo in concert. I'd actually rather do it a hair slower than too fast. When
the vocalist has trouble fitting in all the words, it's time to slow down. As a bassist, I'm constantly working to keep the tempo
in the pocket. Ah, it feels good now!

[trurl]

Sometimes a faster tempo live works- BOC comes to mind; a lot of their songs were a little slow in the studio- but a lot of times playing too fast live takes away a groove the original had. Yes and ELP were both guilty of that, among others but the worst was Focus. Hocus Pocus turned into a comedy polka live.

[arabicadabra]

Speaking of that live album, anybody have any thoughts about the intro to Tarkus?

Take a Pebble was played way too fast (IMHO) on Welcome Back.. Keith plays it beautifully on their first album..

[Halmyre]

I saw a televised Roxy Music concert some time ago, dating from late 80s/early 90s, which rampaged through the songs as if Ferry had a hot date lined up for later.

[llanwydd]

The only example that comes to mind is "Hoedown" (ELP). I much prefer the uptempo live version. I doubt they would have opened a concert with their original version.

[rcarlberg]

Zappa mentions this in the liner notes of the latter and comments that these things tend to happen when you play the same material night after night for long enough.

That would be the drummer's fault. It's up to him -- usually -- to set the tempo live. Sometimes a drummer likes to push the band just to bust their balls. Sometimes he does it because he's higher than a kite.

Sometimes it's because he just watched "That Thing You Do."

[NogbadTheBad]

Sometimes it's because he just watched "That Thing You Do."

Or Whiplash?

That Thing You Do is a pretty good movie.

[trurl]

The only example that comes to mind is "Hoedown" (ELP). I much prefer the uptempo live version. I doubt they would have opened a concert with their original version.

There are songs that exist to be playe as fast as humanly possible; Hoedown is one.

That would be the drummer's fault. It's up to him -- usually -- to set the tempo live. Sometimes a drummer likes to push the band just to bust their balls. Sometimes he does it because he's higher than a kite. Sometimes it's because he just watched "That Thing You Do."

Well Frank is right though; playing a song constantly over and over has the same numbing effect that drugs and sex can have. You need to push the speed envelope to get the same thrill out of it. And the whole band can be susceptible. Of course, that's a rationalization, not an excuse for it. That's what I think happened to Focus and Hocus Pocus; it ceased to be a piece of music to them and became a contest.

[rcarlberg]

There are songs that exist to be played as fast as humanly possible; Hoedown is one.

"Flight of the Bumblebee" is another.

[trurl]

"Flight of the Bumblebee" is another.

Yeah, I almost sad that And Dueling Banjos.

[klothos]

In picking the lesser of two evils, I guess "too fast" is better than "too slow." But the closer to the original tempo, the better, at least imo.

Depends if the band is locking-in and feeling it all at a certain tempo as a collective.....Sometimes, its the musicians themselves doing it - some nights 105 BPM for a song seems slower than the previous night at the same tempo (the variance comes from the preceding songs of the set so its just human error perception). Many times, its the drummer: I find that if a drummer can play on-the-beat with a fatbacked snare in tandem with a push bass player, this usually creates great energy and keeps tempos where they are supposed to be. On the other hand, a "push" drummer usually causes the whole band to go off-to-the-races and I have to work with double-effort to anchor the SOB (I'll wind up keeping time at that point). Then I'll get done with the show, Im way more tired than I should be (its even more of a slap in the face when the drummer gets all the praises from the band for being awesome and Im a sweaty mess thinking "WTF?").....Youre not a bass player (well, you know what I mean) so you dont have to deal with the actual implementation of the timing as much as I do......