Red Mosquito

This Wishlist guy is OK by me.

Honestly, I get it.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Yeah, but I've been to a million shows times infinity.

And chud's bought a gazillion records.

I've seen a million faces, and I've rocked em all.

Wishlist wrote:

harmless wrote:The fact that there was no TV or Internet doesn't negate the probability that performances on average were sometimes great, sometimes awful, just as they are now.

Of course. But back then to make it you had to have live chops. Nothing else was going to get any record company's attention. One's live performances created massive buzz for both The Stones and The Beatles. Did they have awful live nights back then? No doubt. But the majority of their live performances killed otherwise we would never have heard of these bands. No youtube, no 'American Idol', no Ellen Degeneres promoting you... You had to kill live back then to become something someday. Why is that concept foreign to you?

Because they weren't thinking 'We'd better be *really* fucking good tonight because one day Internet and Televisual technology will give other bands an excuse to phone it in. They were just playing live, like bands today just play live. Similarly, why would fans have had more of a critical eye than now? They were seeing their favourite band live, that's all they had and that's all that mattered. I very much doubt it made the musicianship any better or any worse across the board, except that it was (mostly) the better musicians that got remembered. It doesn't mean that there weren't a bunch of shit ones, including some of those that got famous.

cutuphalfdead wrote:Yeah, but I've been to a million shows times infinity.

Nuh uh, a million times infinity plus one.

I saw Chuck Berry air guitar in 1946. Everything done since then is bullshit and you guys are all fake.

Birds in Hell wrote:This Wishlist guy is OK by me.

Honestly, I get it.

So how can you justify seeing PJ in 2 weeks?

This is getting silly.

I saw Jesus play the kazoo shortly before being crucified. Nothing compares to that.

cutuphalfdead wrote:This is getting silly.

Probably.

cutuphalfdead wrote:This is getting silly.

It's gone from 'fantastic' to 'silly' in a single page?

LetMeSleep wrote:But never seen a band twice huh?

Huh? Of course I have.

I suppose The Clash were the band I saw most live. The "London Calling" shows to the "Cut The Crap" shows. Believe me early Clash was better than "Cut The Crap" Clash.

And by the way, early does not always mean better. You can not use a calendar to gauge live performances. The "Sandinista" tour which came after "London Calling" was far better than the "London Calling" tour. The band was at the peak of their powers then. Best shows I ever saw.

Then the laziness and weak songs in the set list took over. Boy, were the "Combat Rock" shows sad. And the "Cut The Crap" tour was even worse.

Sgt. Crackpot wrote:I saw Jesus play the kazoo shortly before being crucified. Nothing compares to that.

I saw Ramses tap on the arm of a chair in a rhythmic manner.

Wishlist wrote:"London Calling"

I think it's spelled "Londan Calling."

LetMeSleep wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:This Wishlist guy is OK by me.

Honestly, I get it.

So how can you justify seeing PJ in 2 weeks?

He acknowledged himself that these matters are subjective; while it's true for him that he's seen the band in what he'd consider the most optimal circumstances, someone else's experience will be entirely different. If he likes the early material more than the later material, likes the way they played back then and so on, I can easily understand why seeing the band in 2014 wouldn't be that appealing.

Seeing the band now for me is still worth it. There might be a time when it won't be. We'll all draw that line where we see fit.

harmless wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:This is getting silly.

It's gone from 'fantastic' to 'silly' in a single page?

yes

cutuphalfdead wrote:

harmless wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:This is getting silly.

It's gone from 'fantastic' to 'silly' in a single page?

yes

I often feel like you think that it's my posts that do this, Pete. You can be honest. Is it my posts that turn threads from fantastic to silly? Just gimme some truth.

harmless wrote:why would fans have had more of a critical eye than now?

Wow.

I'll say it again: Wow.

You think fans today have just as critical an eye as they did back in the '60s? You really think the fans who rave about a Katy Perry show have the same critical eye as those who raved about an early Stones show?

Haven't you looked at a Billboard chart in the past decade? There is absolutley nothing critical about the eyes and ears of today's music fans. They friggin' put "Gangum Style" at number one for a friggin' month!