Good show.
Has anyone ever said the following you:
I hear [artist] puts on a good show.
Have you ever spoken that phrase? I never quite get what people mean when they say that. I often hear it applied to artists for whom I have absolutely no musical interest, like Lady Gaga or Bette Midler, or for really cheesy artists who only have a few songs I can enjoy hearing for the guilty delights of their processed cheese, like Neil Diamond. The funny thing is, even the people who say this phrase in regard to a musically suspect artist don’t seem to care for the artist’s music. I guess I’ve never gone out for an evening expecting a “good show.”
For me, music is music. Of course some performers are better on stage than others, but if I don’t like the music, how much can their stage presence affect my enjoyment of their show. What the fuck can Neil Diamond possibly offer me live, through his “good show,” I think to myself, when people say stuff like this. Does Neil tell great jokes or do a mind-blowing tap-dance routine?
Madonna is an artist who is purported to put on a “good show.” I actually like a few of her songs, but primarily, when people utter this phrase in regard to her, I imagine they’re saying she’s hot. Is that what they mean when they say Midler or Diamond put on a good show?
I look forward to your thoughts on this matter.
Yeah, I’ve heard that too, but cannot remember about whom it was said.
Along the same lines, I used to get so boiled when people would tell me Yes and Genesis put on a good “light show.” A fucking light show?!?!? I go to a live performance to hear the band. If I wanted a light show, I’d track the next thunderstorm.
Sheesh … it still gets under my skin.
That’s still better than the opposite effect though, isn’t it? I like the Shins music a lot, but the live show I saw from them was among the worst.
I can see this with Madonna though, because I feel like she considers herself a dancer and provocateur first. She’s certainly not a great singer. Would people go to her shows to see her new look or hear her new songs first?
To amend, Madonna is more of an “act” than a recording artist.
Slight tangents:
For me that reminds me of this type of exchange I’ve had in some way many times…Say there is a film that has been out and I’m hearing that the reviews are not that great and thus I’m losing interests in going. Then someone tells me “Oh, no. you really should go. The special effects are fantastic”!!!
That would seal the deal that I would NEVER see it.
There was a local performer here in Minneapolis years ago. People always talked about his great performance. He sucked. Great performance equaled “over the top performance” but little actual talent.
All I know is I recall being very young and going to an Emerson, Lake and Palmer show (high school). I recall the moment of the guys (Emerson?) piano spinning on it’s axis like a giant wheel as he played. He’s and piano spinning in circles. Many in the crowd were in awe and I think many thought this was a great live show (OK, I wasn’t stoned)…
Anyway, seems like the moment where I first started evaluating what is a great show for one….may not be for me.
I shook hands with Bill Clinton once and stood in front of him while he was interviewed for 30 seconds or so. I was shocked by the charisma the man has. Can’t say I’d enjoy listening to him play the saxophone though…..
Ah, the famous Genesis light show! Brings back memories:
https://www.rocktownhall.com/blogs/index.php/genesis-reunites-supper-s-ready-pass-the/
Is there a modern equivalent of the “great light show” band?
Madonna is hot. Absolutely. Bette- nah. Gaga- http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music-arts/lady-gaga-videotaped-smoking-pot-stage-amsterdam-concert-article-1.1162819
Oh, and, I have nothing intelligent to say.
Is that Gaga’s ass or Vic Tayback’s?
A friend who knew I was into alt-country told me that a singer named Martin Sexton “puts on a good show” and that I would like him. I didn’t like him.
Really, I only pay to go to shows if I like the music, but sometimes I see bands live by accident, maybe free, as an opening act or at a festival, and they do put on good “show.” Then I listen to them later and think — the show experience is better way better than the CD.
Grace Potter, Afghan Whigs, Joan Jett, and No Doubt come to mind as bands that I don’t listen to, but I do remeber enjoying the shows. I had to sit through Jason Mraz once before a Liz Phair show (talk about hot) and it was actually a nice display of showmanship — even when Liz interrupted his set by presenting with some sort of sex toy.
I went to a Kansas show in their arena days on that pretense of a “greal laser light show.” Four lime green lasers on either side of the stage. Lame.
I think that English band, Muse, may qualify in this area, though I can’t say for sure….
Madonna is just a big Vegas revue with lip syncing. If a bunch of dancers Fosse-ing it up on stage to prerecorded backing tracks is your idea of “a good show”, then I guess she’d be your (material) “girl”. I see she’s bringing her 12 year old son out onstage these days…Ooooh!
These guys seemed to put on a good (über-mach) show, esp. the whirling dervish guitar “slinger” http://youtu.be/4p3xi8WHVgs
Of course, they no longer exist as a performing outfit.
. . . the cowpunk years . . . thanks for the clip. I still love that first EP — they still had it going on what appears to be 14 years later.
Things that every thinks is great, but is really shit No.1: live music.
Yeah – opposite effect…I’m a big fan of Spoon but have heard that they’re not much of a live act. I’ve seen some things online that seem to validate that. I don’t think I’ll bother with a live show to keep the dream alive.
Never went to see the Grateful Dead. (…never liked them), but later in life regretted not going for the experience.
Everyone talks about Bruce and what an amazing live show he puts on. I never cared for him much either but have thought “well maybe I’ll see him once to see what all the fuss is about…” But after reading the New Yorker profile of him this past summer I won’t bother. At least at this point, it seems all his on stage moves are totally scripted and it is a entertainment performance. Boo!
That is hilariously entertaining to watch. Reminds me of the clip someone posted months ago of the Mad Drummer Steve Moore. I could easily watch an hour of covers with a drunk Busey behind the drums.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItZyaOlrb7E
I really don’t like Prince at all. But if someone had two tickets I would probably go just because I bet he puts on a great show.
Seeing that guy a few times on TV won me over. Not buying anything by him of course … but I was swayed by his showmanship and axe-man-ship.
“Puts on a great show:” let us count the ways. We at Rock Town Hall are good at developing taxonomies:
1. There are the acts where the audience is there to see the spectacle of dancers, lights, costume changes (and the music seems to take a back seat). Cases in point: Madonna, Michael Jackson. I can testify that Abba put on a great show in 1978 but I remember the costume changes more than anything else.
2. There are the “good shows” that amount to supper club music on a grander scale: Neil Diamond. Some former co-workers loved Barry Manilow and when he came to town, tried to woo me to see him with the pretense that he put on a great show. No thank you.
3. There are the good shows that move the audience with the band’s emotional appeals: I saw U2 on the Joshua Tree tour and was blown away by the entire Oakland Coliseum crowd singing “40.” I’m guessing Bruce is in this category.
4. There are the good shows that blow us away by the musicianship and quality of the live sound. I’d put my experience seeing Yo La Tengo live in this category (I had thought their recorded music was enjoyable but not amazing, so was very surprised how great they sounded live). These are the shows that also make us converts to bands we didn’t think we would like. We went to see Tortoise on the premise that “they were good live” – again, I wasn’t much into their recorded music but was converted seeing them play.
Am I missing any categories?
Maybe this is covered under YLT, but there’s the Dead category where the music is supposed to be much different live than recorded because of the room for improvisation. This is very true in most jazz, and hopefully often true of blues. Even if an act is trying to do it the same way every time, something a little different should happen though.
This phrase exists for one purpose: to justify the careers of and high prices charged by all of those Las Vegas performers. Clint Holmes puts on a great show. Really!!
A coworker recently went to see her and said that the show was amazing. Her one complaint? The music was too loud and you couldn’t hear it very well. It seemed from her description that it was almost a distraction from the real event.
Ah, there have always been a few groups you see for the show. How about the Rev Horton Heat? Or those surf music guys in the Mexican wrestling masks, Los Straitjackets?
I’m not owning any of their records but I’ve seen both a few times and always had a good night out.
I saw The Mummies at CBGBs in about 89 or so and THEY put on a good show (who doesn’t like guys playing garage rock while dressed in strips of white cloth?)
I heard Crystal Shit put on a good Doors show.
I really don’t get this type of criticism. You go to a Broadway show which is scripted, totally rehearsed, and has been performed a 1,000 times. If it’s well done, you’re happy. Why can’t a rock show be the same? Does that in and of itself make it less real, man????
What non-entertaining performers do you like?
Broadway shows? I wouldn’t be caught dead at one. If I was to be forced to attend one…I’d be extremely UNHAPPY! Barf!
In the case of this Mumford & Sons performance the choreographed moves don’t fit the music. Would you want to see Dylan moshing? Would you want to see West Side Story with people doing Irish step dancing or the Hustle?
Sorry, wrong thread…
Guided By Voices’ lo-fi recordings are obviously much different live. As to whether they “put on a great show”, that would depend on the bands alcohol intake but I would say almost always.
I’m with MrClean about Bruce. I like a decent amount of his stuff but greatly prefer the first two albums because they were much looser. At a certain point, he decided that in order to get to Superstar level, he needed to tighten everything up. So he lost the warm, loose grooves of Vinny Lopez and David Sancious for the cold, antiseptic precision of Roy Bittan and Max Weinberg.
The same thing happened with the live shows. Perhaps Bruce made sure things were choreographed back in the old days too but if so, he did it in a way that was not nearly as stiff and obvious as it is these days. It seemed more organic and genuine. From the Darkness tour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qFdcHo7Z7w
The River tour was probably the tipping point and by the time Born In the USA came around, it was like a Broadway production (and I don’t mean that as a compliment).
Still, it amazing for him to have sustained it for all these years, and because: 1) he seems like a genuinely nice guy; 2) made the Wild, Innocent and the E Street Shuffle; and 3) I grew up in Jersey too, I will never be able to write him off completely.