Adolescent dreams and the ghost of Tupac

[venta]

Brief comments, since it's bedtime:

Last time I went to see NMA, I commented that they'd seemed a little subdued. This time, I found myself trying to see the gig as it would appear to someone who'd never seen them before, who maybe didn't know the music that well.

What did I see ? A bunch of aging blokes, fronted by an almost cartoon aging rocker with wild, staring eyes and wild, staring teeth. The Zodiac's poor sound (and habit of turning it way up) rendered a lot of the guitars down to a muddy mess which hurt the ears and numbed the brain.

If I'd just blundered in, first time, to the gig myself would I have come home and raved about it ? Probably not, to be honest.

Leaving afterwards, I found myself reluctant to ask onebyone or wimble what they'd thought of the gig. As (I believe) people in the situation I'd been accidentally emulating, I didn't really want to have them confirm my doubts.

Because it's not the first time I've seen them, and even though they'd compiled the first two-thirds of their setlist out of songs I'm less bothered about, they're still the band I've been trotting round the country to see for more than ten years. Sure, seeing them is partly force of habit but to me the magic's still there.

New Beardy Guitar Guy (who probably has a name) seems to be making his impression, shoving extra bits of guitar-wank in all over the place. I'm not quite sure yet whether I approve. Nelson also seems to be beefing up his basslines, too, which can only be a good thing.

Surreal moment of the evening goes to Justin Sullivan managing to shove a vague rant about the state of the floor in the Zodiac into the middle of Poison Street.

Comments

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

Ooh, new game. I think there's more than one.

I'm not so much bothered by the production/recording on live albums, though, as the fact that most pop and rock singers' voices are completely fecked after half an hour. As such they generally sound like total incompetents in the cold light of day. Still:

Rattle and Hum by U2. I might not actually choose it as an introduction, but it would certainly do. It's not entirely live, though.

In the unlikely event that anyone needed an introduction to Nirvana, I would be tempted out of sheer perversity to givet hem Unplugged. And then casually mention, after they've listened to it, that half the tracks are covers and the real albums are much louder. But I think it's a good indicator of Nirvana's general level of quality, just not what they sound like.

I seem to remember that Portishead have a very good live album, but I don't own a copy so I can't be sure.

Also, Alchemy by Dire Straits, in the unlikely even that I knew anyone likely to give a stuff about Dire Straits. And A Little South of Sanity by Aerosmith is at least as good as any of their umpteen Greatest Hitses, but similarly, who'd want to admit to listening to Aerosmith other than under the excuse that they started doing so before about 1980?

[venta.livejournal.com]

the fact that most pop and rock singers' voices are completely fecked after half an hour

Actually, yes, that may be more of an issue thant the production, really. I do tend just to think of live albums sounding "a bit crap" compared to studio albums.

I'm not familiar with any of the ones you cite... in fact, I'm having immense trouble thinking of any live albums I own. I tend to avoid them like measles.

Hmm. I wonder about one of the Pixies live albums I have. I should give it another listen.