Jeroen Leijten
New member
We've all heard it. "OMG, did you see (insert band) on (insert TV show) last night? THEY ARE TERRIBLE LIVE." This, of course, is in reference to a vocal mishap during the performance, regardless of how tight the band were, regardless of audience reaction, regardless of whether or not they're regarded as one of the best live bands in the word, and whether or not they're selling out stadiums all over the planet.
By this logic:
Acts like Bob Dylan, The Clash, New Order and the Stone Roses are consistently appalling live, and have turned in very few, if any, satisfactory live performances in their entire careers.
Queen were appalling live on their final tour in 1986, as Freddie's illness took hold and his aging voice struggled to hit the high notes he'd been known for, despite the crowd going insane on their Live at Wembley DVD.
Robert Plant was an appalling live performer at the Freddie Mercury tribute in 1992, when he turned in an awry version of "Crazy Little Thing Called Love", despite the crowd singing along to every word and loving every second of it.
Pink Floyd were appalling at Live 8, as Waters and Gilmour failed to access the vocal power and control of their heyday, with Waters particularly struggling to stay in key at times. The set was lauded by many British publications.
U2 become more appalling live year by year, as Bono's voice ages and descends into a hoarse bawl on their 80's anthems, despite being one of the best-reviewed live bands of all time.
Radiohead are often appalling live, as, while Thom Yorke has certainly turned in some great live vocal performances, his voice has weakened with age and his very loose live style deviates wildly from the studio recordings. Again, like U2, they're consistently cited as a phenomenal live band.
Any band who has a singer who can sing perfectly live from a technical standpoint, regardless of whether they have a rhythm section that's falling apart, can't write a song to save their life, can't evoke any reaction from a crowd or are joke figures in the music industry, are "AMAZING LIVE".
Am I missing something? Surely it's all about the passion and energy. I'd like someone else to weigh in on this. Over the years, I've heard that all of the above named acts were "TERRIBLE LIVE", along with many others, who I've enjoyed either in concert, or on DVD. Thanks in advance.
By this logic:
Acts like Bob Dylan, The Clash, New Order and the Stone Roses are consistently appalling live, and have turned in very few, if any, satisfactory live performances in their entire careers.
Queen were appalling live on their final tour in 1986, as Freddie's illness took hold and his aging voice struggled to hit the high notes he'd been known for, despite the crowd going insane on their Live at Wembley DVD.
Robert Plant was an appalling live performer at the Freddie Mercury tribute in 1992, when he turned in an awry version of "Crazy Little Thing Called Love", despite the crowd singing along to every word and loving every second of it.
Pink Floyd were appalling at Live 8, as Waters and Gilmour failed to access the vocal power and control of their heyday, with Waters particularly struggling to stay in key at times. The set was lauded by many British publications.
U2 become more appalling live year by year, as Bono's voice ages and descends into a hoarse bawl on their 80's anthems, despite being one of the best-reviewed live bands of all time.
Radiohead are often appalling live, as, while Thom Yorke has certainly turned in some great live vocal performances, his voice has weakened with age and his very loose live style deviates wildly from the studio recordings. Again, like U2, they're consistently cited as a phenomenal live band.
Any band who has a singer who can sing perfectly live from a technical standpoint, regardless of whether they have a rhythm section that's falling apart, can't write a song to save their life, can't evoke any reaction from a crowd or are joke figures in the music industry, are "AMAZING LIVE".
Am I missing something? Surely it's all about the passion and energy. I'd like someone else to weigh in on this. Over the years, I've heard that all of the above named acts were "TERRIBLE LIVE", along with many others, who I've enjoyed either in concert, or on DVD. Thanks in advance.