I remember that before YouTube, my brother would download
concerts and me being small and stupid would go ‘this does not sound like the
taped version, they are obviously terrible'. I was a fool and I apologise, for
now I know, live is the epitomy of music! There are some issues arising, as
always. Some artists, for example, have a heavily produced sound that cannot
translate well to live shows and while backing tracks are available they can
range from complimentary to shameful, SHAMEFUL! So, how can they be dismissed
if their product is beautiful and original? Is an artist’s worth dependent on
live adaptation?
Yes. Not an artist’s worth per se, a performer’s worth. The artistic
element includes the performing element because it is all part of the final
product. It also includes the formation element, sure; writing the music,
combining various instruments, lyrics, vocals all of it. I have a very strict
appreciation policy; both these aspects need to be present. I am in need of an
artist to do more than recite lyrics that they haven’t written onto music that
they haven’t composed. Having a pleasant voice is not that uncommon and especially
with today’s technology, not that honest. So my definition of a good artist
resides a lot in the making of the song.
However, having seen a few bands live and many concerts on YouTube
I must say I lose a great deal of respect if the live version is not good. Not identical,
because identical is boring anyways just good, energetic, emotional or
something. I remember being into the Dandy Warhols because they had cool, fun
songs and they didn’t take themselves too seriously. I also remember a live
show of theirs that was abysmal and then furiously searching the web for a good
one to erase this disappointment with not much success. Traumatising! I now
have a ‘good songs, bad band’ label on them.
It is not so much about proof of worth though. Live shows
are where you love a band, where the raw talent and clear message are conveyed.
Not to mention that the band’s energy is reflected onto the audience, which absorbs
that energy and gives it back for the band to feed on! It is way too magical to
be unnecessary. And pragmatically, how many bands have reached the top without
being good live? A good live show is what gets them going and what keeps them
going. (Just realised I have written ‘band’ instead of ‘artist’ everywhere, but
for some reason I cannot get myself to change it)
I understand that a good performer is not necessarily a good
artist but I think the other way round is true. The extents vary and some songs
are more successful live than others but all in all it is the ability to adapt a
song to its setting that gives music its vividness compared to other arts!
I am that person that has live versions of songs on her
phone and everyone complains when they come on shuffle, so I am a bit overly
passionate about the subject. Nonetheless, I have numeric support; as buying a
record is not the primary source of income for artists anymore, and concerts
are given more and more refined attention. I guess this is what happens when
you get bored of autotune, you look elsewhere J
