Poll: Do you enjoy going to rock concerts with special effects and pyrotechnics?

[MikeA]

Seriously, the people who don't like that must not like classic rock or hard rock as they go together like a ball and a glove.

Careful there...getting close to a generalization! <LOL>

But I do sort of agree with you as far as attending the live concerts goes. I love their recordings for the most part, but have never gone out of my way to see them live.

And, I will admit freely that those to whose concerts I attend do tend to be the ones that entertain me by their musical performances and not their special effects. They are also the ones I've spent the lions' share of my hard earned bucks on recordings.

Now I don't know where the big stage production bands with all the special effects fit in here....maybe they don't fit in at all. And maybe some of them fit and others don't:

But I do know that the Eagles work to the nth degree on perfection of rendering a performance live on stage that is exactly what fans have bought with they purchase their recordings. No surprises. They carry this to an extreme that some find distasteful because there ARE NO SURPRISES.

Some bands aren't like that. The Grateful Dead were almost the mirror image. They sucked on recordings but there was never a band who performed better live than they did. And other than being doped to the gills, they didn't use special effects...the audience did however and maybe that is why they were such a fantastic Live Band.

I emphasize here that I do NOT know these other bands like the AC/DC reference that keeps coming up. I don't know if they were or are as good on stage "technically" as they are on the recordings that come out of the studio.

I have a close friend who toured with Ray Price playing Violin in his backing band. He could make that fiddle talk. He could play a guitar with accomplishment also but wouldn't play anything other than acoustic....except for bass...he played electric bass. He was at my house one summer afternoon and there was a garage band with the knobs all on 11 making noise that would cause the dead to twitch. The distortion was so over the top that you could hardly fathom what they were attempting to play. But everyone at that party was pretty well primed on booze and whatever else was available and probably didn't care. But Rob looks over at me and says, "Mike, there is a time for distortion and a time NOT for distortion. When you hear that much distortion on everything, it is a mask to cover up all the mistakes." In that case, I'm quite sure he was right because you couldn't recognize the their songs from the instruments....sometimes you could recognize what they were trying to do by the lyrics...NOT the Vocals <LOL>

At Crossroads Guitar Festival, I attended a guitar clinic. The artists' name will come to me before long, but suffice to say he is well known. He made a statement that stuck with me. He said that the test of a great guitarist is how well they play acoustic with no more assistance than enough electronics to amplify the natural sound of the acoustic guitar they are playing. In this guys words, "With an Acoustic Guitar, there is no place to hide. It's just you and the guitar and every mistake you make is obvious to everybody." He went on to praise the guy who was to be the winner of the Amateur Guitarist Contest. This guy played nothing but acoustic and he was going up against schreaders who were playing 128 notes a measure!

I wonder if at times some of the "big guys" may be using the props to make a performance more acceptable? Not because they are not capable of superb performances but because maybe they can't equal their studio work in a live performance.

I think most bands have to make concessions in live performances in reproducing on stage what they did in the studio. With all the overdubs it might take 5 or 6 guitarists to replicate what was released as a recording of a Power Trio. Maybe they can't reproduce that recorded sound so they give the audience something at the concert that they couldn't experience on
CD.

In that case, I'd about as soon just listen to the CD.

Give me someone like the Eagles or Three Dog Night or the Band of Heathens for a live concert. They all give you their best and their best is as good in most cases as their recordings and they don't throw all the glitz and glam and sensational at you.

[WalshFan88]

I don't think I was generalizing at all Mike. I fully believe that. Most classic rock/classic hard rock shows have at the very least lighting effects or smoke or unique guitars or something. It's just a part of the rock show experience. I love the whole show. The music, the energy, the lights, everything. I go for FUN.

The AC/DC reference is just talking about their use of cannons, bells, etc in their LIVE SHOW. I was using them as an example. This could apply to any GREAT band that uses effects but is a great musical band that plays amazing music. There is a lot of people that go to their shows, so they either don't care either way, or they like the effects. Because they had the 2nd biggest grossing tour last year (Bon Jovi in 1st place). But I was using that band as an example. That could go for Cheap Trick, Aerosmith, Stones, etc.

As far as distortion. I mainly play with overdrive. I don't use extreme distortion, but I always use crunch. I like the fat guitar sound it makes and the chunk of those power chords - again, its the classic rock coming out in me. But I'm definitely not METAL or PUNK and I don't use insane amount of gain, but I always usually have crunch on or a bluesy overdrive. My philosophy on playing electric guitars clean is that if I'm playing an electric guitar completely clean, I might as well be playing an acoustic. I don't agree with heavy distortion because it covers everything up, but I dislike playing completely clean on electric. I run through a blues overdrive. You have heard my clips - I like a mild-to-medium amount of overdrive. Clean is good when comparing guitars dry but playing live or even by myself jamming even with friends, I prefer overdrive on my guitar. I want crunch, but I want to hear my notes too. But I dislike playing completely clean. I want a LITTLE bit of dirt on my sound. But I'm coming from a rock 70s background where most of it has overdrive. Just like "Life's Been Good', it has the same amount of overdrive I use. I can't imagine playing that song without it. It would be too bland. Hence why it's driven.

[WalshFan88]

Mike - here is a picture of one of my favorite guitarists - Angus Young of AC/DC. This is the stage lift that at the VERY END of the show he gets on and it hoists him up in the air so that EVERYONE in the audience regardless of seats can see him clearly and he plays a 10 MINUTE LONG blues rock guitar solo. A solo I'd dare any other guitarist in the world to attempt. It is amazing solo he does. The crowd goes WILD!!!!!! Then confetti falls down and the show ends. Talk about a great ending to an already great show.

I saw this first hand in Chicago. It was amazing. It's my 2nd favorite concert I have ever been to and probably one of the best if not the best experience.

What do you think about that?!?! I know I can guess your response but I think this in particular is cool. It gives everyone in the audience a chance to see him play his guitar up close. The lights shine down on him. So if you are in the nosebleed section you still see Angus rock that SG. He is the reason I own Gibson SGs. They have that bright gritty AC/DC tone.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I voted for Option 2. I don't mind some special effects because, as Austin said, I like to be entertained when I go to a concert. When done effectively, they can actually enhance a song. A case in point would be the way the Eagles use video to enhance The Long Road Out of Eden in their shows. It helps hold the audience's attention during a very long song that many may not be familiar with. However, I also agree that usually if it is a great song, I don't need many special effects. Where I object to them is where there is more emphasis on the special effects than is on the music. If the special effects detract from the song, then it is too over the top for my taste.

As far as Lady Gaga, I haven't ever seen her live so it's hard for me to judge this. Even though she isn't really my cup of tea, I think she is a talented singer and songwriter and don't think the gimmickry overpowers her videos that I've seen.

[Koala]

I need no special effects and pyrotechnics at a concert, I go to concerts because of the music! But if somewhat is present of both or only one, I always hope it's not too much and it not too much from the music deflected!

[MikeA]

Angus Young of AC/DC. This is the stage lift

I recon that's okay but not all that practical. He just higher, not closer to the people in the nose-bleeds and what of the ones down front....they would be looking at the underside of the lift. But maybe the thought is that they've seen enough of Angus on stage.

Lifts are used a lot in concerts. But usually they are used to bring the artist onto the stage from somewhere underneath. Gotta make an entrance. Even the Eagles "make an entrance" though it is usually totally dark and you can't see them before they start playing....like with "Hotel California".

But with AC/DC and their lift....that's marginal in my opinion. It is really not the kind of effects that I have been thinking of though I'd be rather pissed if I were front and center and had paid out the nose for that seat and for the fannalie the star was taken out of my view! That lift looked as though it might be sort of translucent so maybe you could see somewhat between the lift's braces and get a glimpse of Angus. It would be a lot better for the guys underneath the lift if it was Stevie they were lifting. I'd pay extra for that. And I wouldn't give a Royal Hoot what she sang!

I'm really more talking about not liking the exploding drums, fireworks and stuff like that. The Dry Ice Smoke, that can impart an ethereal backdrop when not overdone. It is not "noisy" so is just "visual". I can see Stevie Nicks using that effect with her "Good Witch Look" or even Eagles in Witchy Woman using it. But I would enjoy the song just as much without it.

[WalshFan88]

I recon that's okay but not all that practical. He just higher, not closer to the people in the nose-bleeds and what of the ones down front....they would be looking at the underside of the lift. But maybe the thought is that they've seen enough of Angus on stage.

But with AC/DC and their lift....that's marginal in my opinion. It is really not the kind of effects that I have been thinking of though I'd be rather pissed if I were front and center and had paid out the nose for that seat and for the fannalie the star was taken out of my view!

Well, I WAS in the nosebleeds in Chicago Mike and it sure made a big difference on being able to see Angus. As far as people in front, he only did it after the last song was over. He just went up there to give a blistering 10 minute long guitar solo, then he came back and they left.

As far as the finale - What the people did in front row in Chicago was just turn completely around and then looked at him on the lift. At the very end he comes back to the stage. The lift is actually further away from the front row stage than you think. There is a little path he walks on in the middle of the main floor seating and then in the middle of the floor he gets on.

But hearing people talk after the concert the lift was one of the highlights of the show for them. But it was probably because Angus played a 10 minute long rock guitar solo that melted everyone's faces. It was the best "long" guitar solo I've seen live.

[TimothyBFan]

Great topic! I seldom look in on Gearhead (sorry guys!) but will have to check that out now.

The extreme there would be Ted Nugent jumping off a Marshal Stack or swinging across the stage on a Tarzan vine!

Saw that at the age of 17 and didn't sleep for 3 nights because every time I closed my eyes, I saw Ted in that loin cloth, swinging across the stage.

If people want laid back concerts with not much movement or passion or energy, they go see Barry Manilow or somebody like that who is IMO boring to watch.

Just lucky you didn't say Wayne Newton!!!!

Here's my opinion.... I swing both ways! Kinda like Austin's been saying...there are certain groups that just HAVE to do it! Rick Nielsen's with his strangely different guitars (do they actually make different sounds or are they just for show?), Angus with his lighted, rising stage or Tommy Lee in a pair of Speedo's with his spinning drum kit overhead. But in my opinion--these bands and performers have talent to go along with all the special effects.

But as Soda mentioned, performers (I use the term loosely) like Lady Gaga, I feel are doing it more because there isn't much talent to fall back on if you don't have the special effects to go along with it.

Then their are groups like the Eagles, that I'd rather just hear the music and sure don't need or want anything to distract me from that.

So that all being said, maybe we should add another poll choice of "I swing both ways" or such.

[WalshFan88]

Here's my opinion.... I swing both ways! Kinda like Austin's been saying...there are certain groups that just HAVE to do it!

But as Soda mentioned, performers (I use the term loosely) like Lady Gaga, I feel are doing it more because there isn't much talent to fall back on if you don't have the special effects to go along with it.

Then their are groups like the Eagles, that I'd rather just hear the music and sure don't need or want anything to distract me from that.

So that all being said, maybe we should add another poll choice of "I swing both ways" or such.

Amen! Totally agree with all of it!!!!

[EagleLady]

I happen to think Lady Gaga has talent.