Oh, and I really loved Tomutontu the time I saw him even though he only played for 12 minutes.

radiohead sucked when i saw them
i was a bit disappointed in the last sy show i saw in melbourne, every other time i have seen they have been awesome, just a bad show i guess
qotsa sucked live

I've said this many times, but I don't really care what a band is like live.

And actually, I find it strange that someone would reconsider their opinion of a band based on their live performance.

i do care what bands are like live, if a band can't play their own music very well live then that is an issue, live is what it is all about, the cds and records are just to keep you going between live shows. fortunately this isn't a normal occurence i would say 99.8 % of bands play live well but some just shouldn't even bother and make the decision to just be recording projects.

I don't really care what a band is like live if I'm at home listening to a cd. If I just shelled out money to see them live, and they suck, then surprise, surprise, I suddenly care. Somehow, I can't imagine you'd be any different, "Oh, I just wasted my money, and my night, but I don't mind, because they are studio geniuses!"

Mind, I won't stop listening to good recordings just because somebody can't pull it off live. I already said that I still listen to Autechre constantly, despite the fact that their "live" set was terminally boring. However, no matter how good their albums may continue to be, I would only see them live again if I heard things had drastically changed.

I was pissed when i saw Eric Clapton. He wouldnt play any rock all he did was play blues... which i guess is good, but his rock kicks soo much more ass.

absolutley, rock music is not really primarily a studio based music, playing music live is what rock (and i would say all styles of music bar pop and electronic things) is all about

The gig I saw was dreadful; the music was throroughly a bore the listen to, mixed way too quiet and the audience were pricks ("fucking students").

In addition to my previous list: When I saw Dälek, the concert was great, but the volume should've been so much louder.

I have the exact opposite opinion, but, whatever.

i would have loved to have seen them at the volkbuhne.

smashing pumpkins. utterbile muck bollocks!
autechre- great band , terrible gig. eqipment failing and band cracking up
the fall- mark didnt show up the fucker! (only once mind you, 3 other times they were amazing)
high llamas- tediuosly boring and sleepinducingly dull shit sound acoustic bollocks
stereolab- i didnt orgasm at one of their gigs, that was adisappointment. possibly the best live experience ive ever had!

really, even for classical? why do you prefer recorded music?

No, not for classical - for classical, there's the score and live performance. Recordings take a back seat in classical.

Rock music is defined for me by the recording, it's one of the things that makes rock music interesting - that the recording is the central document - the work resides in the recording, not a score or in its realization.

I wasn't trying to knock live performance, I just think it's secondary, and so it couldn't make me change my opinion of a certain group. But then again, maybe it comes down to the individual group. I mean, its hard to say that the Grateful Dead are defined by their recordings. That would be dumb. But they're improvisational. Maybe its sort of a continuum when it comes to popular music or even 20th/21st century music in general. The addition of recording complicates things. I mean, there are 20th century classical works that exist only as recordings. Somebody needs to write a book on this, not me.

But rock in general became a distinct musical practice in the 60s (right?) and was initialllly defined by the recording. I'm thinking of the Beatles, Beach Boys, and so on. This is also why I feel that musicianship isn't all that important in rock music - being good on your instrument can almost get in the way even.

Speaking of books, I read a book called "Rhythm and Noise: an Aesthetics of Rock" by Theodore Gracyk and it reinforced a lot of my faggy ideas. This was discussed here back in the days of noumy version 1.0. Glice and I had some back and forth and so forth.

Prince, hands down. Saw him in SanDiego in 2001 and it was probably the worst concert I've ever been to. He would come on stage and say "Ladies and Gentleman, my genius keyboardist" and then the keyboard guy would play a 20 minute solo and Prince would leave the stage. Then he'd come back and do the same thing for every other member of the band and we'd have to listen to these instrumental funk jams. He did one 10-minute medley of all his hits, about a verse of each song, and then left. I did go see him probably two or three years ago to see if he could redeem himself, and he absolutely did. I guess he makes it known that you're going to get a concert based on what kind of mood he's in, and I've seen both moods.

I hated Air live, but I guess I should have thought about that before I went. They're a great living room/bedroom type band, but live, especially if you don't have seats, they were nothing to write home about.

I went to a couple Phish shows in the early '90s and never discovered what that fuss was all about. Had fun in the parking lots but the show never did it for me.

And Bowie was hugely disappointing. He couldn't hit the notes on Life on Mars, and for a Madison Square Garden show you expect a little bit more of a show and fanfare. It was mainly just him singing, and not doing quite the job he used to.

oh and the stone roses at their prime. fucking awful gig. left half way through!

I'm of a similar mind to Mr Noumenal on this 'un. Generally speaking, seeing a band play something they've rehearsed to death in an imperfect setting doesn't excite me, and hasn't for a few years. I still enjoy shows, but I generally prefer improv and classical things.

With rock music, the possibilities afforded by studios are a way of getting around the fact that 90%+ of rock bands aren't technically that proficient. There are exceptions, of course, and one of the main things I like about Sonic Youth is their use of chordal ideas that are bizzarely antithetical to most rock music. To my mind, the studio-heavy emphasis in rock means that the live show is often given a back seat. But, then again, perhaps the reason that the first two albums of a band are usually their best is because they're not comfortable or au fait with the studio, and are closer to their aesthetic feedback coming from their performance.

The thing I get from most live shows I see is that bands over-rehearse things, robbing songs of their spark. With 'classical', as broad a category as that is, the emphasis is always on the playing, and there is minimal interaction between the players and the writers, or between the personality of the musician and the music. Obviously, composers often write with specific players in mind, but even so, I'm right and am bored of writing this now and am going to go to bed goodnight.

A couple more came to mind:

Jesus and Mary Chain
Cocteau Twins

So brilliant on record, so uninspiring live.

converge a couple of years ago when they were touring you fail me. jus didn't go off. plus the support was from modern life is war who were on some horrific hardcore backstreet boys shit. a majorly dissappointing night.

I know this might sound like heresey, but I was disappointed by the Velvet Underground when they played Glastonbury a few years back.

But I guess my expectations were probably a bit high.

Swans disappointed me as well, the last time I saw them. All dressed up in white suits and cowboy hats, singing gloomy country and western songs.