Play it Like the Recording or Improvise - which do you prefer?

[Sturgeon's Lawyer]

...there will always be a few "Can they pull it off live?" moments that I look forward to hearing.

I concur. KC were always good for that; my first concert of theirs, on the Discipline tour, I was all about seeing how they managed to end some of those songs together, simultaneously (I did not figure it out at that time). I've also been lucky enough to see Fripp play both "Fracture" and "FraKctured," which are just amazingly difficult, Paganini-type difficult, pieces to play.

I also like improvisation or jamming (see also KC... but see also the Dead, the Who in their prime, Chicago in their prime... so many...), but when something is through-composed I want to hear it through-played.

Rush pretty much through-composed all their toonz and I have no problem with them playing (having played...) them that way.

[ronmac]

I couldn't fathom the notion of Hendrix playing Purple Haze straight like the record. Every performance was new. And I'm thankful for it.

[Staun]

When I first started going to concerts I wanted everything note for note. It was kind of a safety blanket and I wanted to hear everything that got me there in the first place. Of course the more shows I went to, the older I became and the more familiar I became with music in a live setting, the less I minded things being changed up.

[Paul]

Generally (and depending on the band I'm seeing), I want it to sound like the record but better. More dynamic, more powerful, more light and shade.

[Dave (in MA)]

Improvised, all the way.
I had to accompany the Mrs. to countless Moody Blues shows in the 80s and 90s when they even said the same stuff between songs, year after year.

[Tangram]

A little bit of both. In my younger days I liked the concert to sound like the studio version. Genesis, while the keys are pretty much the same, gain a lot in concert with the two drummers. Yes, with the orchestra, was excellent. Peter Gabriel rearranged everything for orchestra. I know many found it boring but I thought it was brilliant. Pink Floyd pretty much had to play the same every night to stay in sync with the light show. But the final solo on Comfortably Numb in DSoT exceeds the already great original.
I’m not the biggest KC fan but the Radical Action concert was just unreal. I’ve gone thru some of their older sets and they are amazing.

Basically, if you’re going to change it, you have to bring the goods. Otherwise play it as it was. Nothing worse then waiting for a song and the band ruins it by noodling around

[moecurlythanu]

^ I saw Elvis Costello last week, and he broke out a 10 minute or so "Watching The Detectives." It was sublime.

Give me the extended/improvised/altered/enhanced show every time.

[mozo-pg]

^ I saw Elvis Costello last week, and he broke out a 10 minute or so "Watching The Detectives." It was sublime.

Give me the extended/improvised/altered/enhanced show every time.

Right on!

[3LockBox]

Improvise as in tangential exploration on a theme or just making up shit as you go? I don't mind variations on a theme, but... improvisation is like multi-tasking; many claim to do it well, but so few are actually good at it.

[Dan Maske]

While improv can be fun, playing something that is different from the original recording does not always mean it was improvised. Sometimes, bands re-compose sections or whole tunes, or add on extended endings that have been composed and rehearsed, before playing it live.
I think that a composer who records a composition can still get more ideas about the piece after it’s been recorded [and released]. And if in the case of a rock band, they have the opportunity to play it live, repeatedly, they can create and play what they think/hope are improved versions of the works.
I’ve always enjoyed when a band plays a tune differently from the record. However, extended endings, when they just jam on the same chord progression as the final chorus or whatever ended the tune, originally, can get too monotonous.

[Bob Drake]

Though any great performance is a great performance, I like the approach Gentle Giant took, adding (very good) new arrangements and surprises to the familiar songs. In a video interview, one of the members says something along the lines of the album version of a song being like a very good sketch, and that the song really "lives" in the varying live performances. I certainly use that approach in my solo shows, and most (all probably) bands I've played with did the same.

It's why I have a few songs I won't make album versions of, only play them live so they change organically, along with myself!

BD
www.bdrak.com

[progmatist]

If every performance is going to be the same, I might as well stay home and watch the DVD or Blu-Ray. No point in spending $100 or more on a ticket, then fighting traffic and crowds to get to the venue.

[ronmac]

^^ THIS!

For most artists, that is.

[Dave (in MA)]

the Who in their prime

I always considered Live at Leeds to be a great example of this, and was surprised that they were able to make Live at Hull releasable by plugging in the Leeds bass tracks because the recordings were so similar.

[Plasmatopia]

It depends heavily on the material. With Rush (for example) a lot of their music was carefully put together and it would be weird to deviate from the original solos. I tend to like music that is mostly through-composed, but with room for improvised solos (Frank Zappa is a prime example as others have mentioned).

But to say that seeing a band playing the album version "note-for-note" is the same as just staying home and listening to the original album doesn't hold true for me. Most bands aren't really going to be note perfect and there will be various micro timing variations, slightly different feel, and a sort of you-had-to-be-there energy that is conveyed in the live setting.

[Gravedigger]

Re: Seeing a band live vs. watching a dvd performance...
If I am seeing it live, I can look where I want as opposed to being at the mercy of the camera. I don't need to see an "audience flyover" every two minutes.
I can look at the person playing a solo as opposed to a singer clapping or hitting a tambourine.

On the other hand, you get to see things up close if the director/editor gets it right.

[Werbinox]

Both. Play it as good if not better than the recording, then throw some improv and / or some new arrangement in it. Live music should be an event and needs both precision and surprises.

[pb2015]

I always considered Live at Leeds to be a great example of this, and was surprised that they were able to make Live at Hull releasable by plugging in the Leeds bass tracks because the recordings were so similar.

The tracks with the replaced bass sounded like a mess to me, but good enough to release I guess.

[EBES]

The thing that frustrates me about live GG is that I feel a lot of the subtlety is often lost, especially in the keyboard sounds and arrangements, and the vocals. I get sick of hearing Kerry's damn clavinet on virtually everything, and I miss his lead vocals on his studio tracks. They also skip some of the best parts of songs by squeezing them into medleys, which I feel is kind of a gyp. They play great, but I usually prefer their studio albums.

That's funny -- the first Gentle Giant I ever got was the King Biscuit FLower Hour live release (I was 14 and it was offered through one of those CD club things) and when I started buying their studio albums a few years later they initially seemed anemic compared to the volume and punchiness of live GG. Of course I adjusted before long but their best live stuff kicks ass in a particular way that their studio albums don't. I'm sure much of it is about which you hear first, and most people probably hear the studio stuff first.

In general - if I'm buying a live album I'd prefer some variation; if I'm going to a show I want to hear the songs as-is. Fortunately the bands never ask my opinion so it's OK if it's self-contradictory.

[rcarlberg]

To quote the last word:

If memories are all I play,
I'd rather drive a truck.

[Rarebird]

I think a bit of both. I want to recognise the songs, but like it if solos are different, and how they work around the studio-trickery like overdubs, orchestral parts and things. Please do some re-aranging and don't rely on backing-tapes. I don't mind some extra musicians, as long as they share the stage, so no hiding behind curtains or under the stage.
Joe Jackson often did re-arangements. And if we are talking classical. Wim Mertens re-arranged his work for concerts.

[GuitarGeek]

Third option: e.g. Dire Straits stretching out Sultans Of Swing to around 10 minutes, but every live version I've heard is exactly the same. Mark Knopfler plays the exact same five minute guitar solo on all of them.

Likewise for Free Bird, they added a piano solo and they added a couple false endings to the song after they recorded the first album (or maybe, they were there to begin with but Al Kooper made them cut them), but all the live versions seem to be pretty much the same.

[ronmac]

Third option: e.g. Dire Straits stretching out Sultans Of Swing to around 10 minutes, but every live version I've heard is exactly the same. Mark Knopfler plays the exact same five minute guitar solo on all of them.

Likewise for Free Bird, they added a piano solo and they added a couple false endings to the song after they recorded the first album (or maybe, they were there to begin with but Al Kooper made them cut them), but all the live versions seem to be pretty much the same.

Yeah, I was disappointed when I first heard the live album, which is why i never bought it. In fact, I ended up giving away the only album I ever had of theirs (Gold & Platinum).

[pb2015]

I think the other Skynyrd thread mentioned that they had a reputation for planning out the solos and playing them the same way every time.

Jimmy Page had a middle approach in Zep where he would play some of the same licks at certain points in each solo every night, but the stuff in between could be different. Martin Barre did that with Tull too.

[Jerjo]

On the satellite radio in the car, I check out the Tom Petty channel (whenever the wife isn't in the car) every now and then for live stuff. It seems he was often going with different arrangements in concert. I've heard warhorses in his catalog get extended sections that go in very different ways, not just jamming or changing the tempo.

Robert Plant does very different arrangements of old Zep songs, often to the point of making one wonder what song it is until the lyrics kick in. I know some Zep fans consider that blaspheme but Page himself said that records are just the blueprints, what happens live can be entirely different.