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

[TimothyBFan]

And you know what's really funny EL? While I was typing that, I just KNEW you'd come on and tell us that!

[WalshFan88]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOzjYkI_VVE[/ame]

[cynd1231]

Give me the MUSIC! It is, after all, what makes me a fan in the first place!

[MikeA]

That Neilson video was interesting to me. Not because of the gimmic double neck or the 36-string 5-neck jobs, but because of his references to Les Paul guitars. He stated that he has more than one '60 LP and then he sort of glossed over the value and desirability of that '59. I wonder if he really prefers the early '60 LP? Both are very collectable but most people are in love with the '59s.

I certanily don't falt him for his obsession of collecting those historic instruments. But he takes them on the road and plays them in concerts! That implies a LOT of confidence in his road crew!

Joe Walsh will not even use the SLIDE that he got from Dwayne Allman! I know Joe has a very large personal collection but you rarely see him playing one on stage. I'm betting he's using them in the studio though.

Jimmy Page is another one I've heard of who has a huge collection of vintage guitars.

[WalshFan88]

That Neilson video was interesting to me. Not because of the gimmic double neck or the 36-string 5-neck jobs, but because of his references to Les Paul guitars. He stated that he has more than one '60 LP and then he sort of glossed over the value and desirability of that '59. I wonder if he really prefers the early '60 LP? Both are very collectable but most people are in love with the '59s.

Mike - '60 Les Pauls have MUCH thinner necks on them. '58s have a baseball bat cut in half neck (BIG), '59s are really in the middle/rounded, and '60s are VERY slim and tapered off. Maybe he just likes slim necks. I personally prefer the rounded, not too big or small.

[Brooke]

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.

This is the way I feel too. I think it depends on the band and that option should be in the poll.

I really love Steven Tyler's and Joe Perry's antics on stage with Aerosmith, and Mick Jagger's like with the Stones, but I just can't see the Eagles doing anything like that. It just doesn't fit!

As far as the videos the Eagles use, I find them a bit distracting and I'm torn on whether to watch the screens or the guys. I choose watching the guys cause I just have to watch them sing and play. I don't wanna miss a thing! I might glance up once in a while, but my attention is focused on them.

I don't think I've been to a concert with any pyrotechnics! If there were any, they didn't impress me cause I was watching the band.

[WalshFan88]

Exactly Brooke. It doesn't seem humanly possible that those bands perform a show without doing that. I certainly wouldn't enjoy it as much. But it depends on the band. I can't stress that enough. For instance as you said, the Eagles wouldn't look so good doing that but I cannot imagine myself going to a show if AC/DC didn't have their bell or their cannons or the blow up doll or the stage lift or the Stones without Jagger's moves. For THOSE types of bands, it's a part of the whole experience. I go to a show for entertainment and to have fun. I don't go just for the music, I go for the whole experience.

If there is going to be no passion or energy involved in the show or in the bands that do it, effects, it would not be very entertaining to me to watch them. It would be boring. I might as well just stay home and listen to a CD. In order to get it all from a concert, you go for EVERYTHING and not just the music. The whole experience is fun and is why I go to concerts.

[MikeA]

But Austin, you do enjoy going to see the Eagles perform. Would you enjoy it more if they set off bombs? If you go to an Eagles concert, you'd better be going with the expectation of enjoying their music because you really aren't going to get anything else. Certainly not the extravaganza of special effects that we've been talking about.

Myself....I'm not disappointed in AC/DC's stage performances...oh wait...I've never been to one and the reason is exactly the thing we've been talking about...yet I DO LIKE THEIR music. I'd just much prefer listing to them on my CDs.

But with me, it is NOT JUST the fact that they have a lot of distractions when they perform (not just AC/DC). I have other criteria that determines whether or not I'll go to a concert.

First, do I really like their recorded music? If not, then I darn sure WILL NOT be going. I don't "collect concerts".

Second, how inconvenient is it for me? Is the inconvenience worth it?

By that I mean how far am I going to travel and how much expense is involved in getting my wife and I there? I'll travel a long ways to attend a James Gang or Joe Walsh solo show. Same thing with the Eagles. Not many restrictions on either of them.

Thirdly, one thing that has kept me away from a lot of concerts that I otherwise might have considered is the weight of how much I like the band versus how much annoyance am I going to have to endure outside the arena and inside from the crowds of often very inconsiderate people?

REO Speed Wagon came to Wichita a while back. I really enjoy some of their music, but not enough to fight for tickets and battle the crowds once I got there! I have no idea what kind of show they put on.

I did attend a Heart cert up in Kansas City a few years ago. ZZ-Top too. Both were at Ameristar Hotel/Casino and we were planning on going there anyway. Gordon Lightfoot was at another casino a while back and I sure would have liked to have seen him (never seen him and really like a lot of his folksy music). But I couldn't get off work. In all three cases, since the Venue was NOT a huge arena where parking was a hassle (valet for a $5 toke when they bring your car to you and help you load your luggage!) and the crowds large and unruly, I had no qualms about getting tickets and attending.

Hmmm, Meatloaf is playing a casino in Oklahoma within the next month or so. But I don't care enough about him to even drive the 60 miles <LOL> I did like "Paradise By The Dashboard Lights" though.

Well, you get the idea. I would have gone CRAZY to have been able to see Janis Joplin, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Grateful Dead, Three Dog Night (I did see them a couple of years ago, but would have loved to have attended a live concert of theirs in their hey-day). Others would have included BTO (Bachman Turner Overdrive) the original Jefferson Airplane and here's one that might surprise you coming from me: Sam and Dave! I'd loved to have seen Muddy Waters, Ligntnin Hopkins, Gatemouth Brown and Albert King. I have seen Buddy Guy several times and would go see him again if the stars aligned. BB King, I've seen three or four times but probably wouldn't go see him again other than as an act of appreciation.

Johnny Lang I'd love to see again. Clapton too.

And one I VOW to go see just as soon as I can get off to make a trip to one of their venues: Band Of Heathens. I think we are going to be hearing a lot about them and believe me....both vocally and instrumentally, they are just about the best I've heard...especially of the "new" crop of artists.

In all cases mentioned (except BTO), I've seen DVDs of their concerts and they weren't over the top with extra curricular stuff....just put on the MUSIC.

Back in the late Seventies, I was dragged to a Don Williams concert in Wichita. I went kicking and screaming but all my family here in Wichita is into that Goat Ropeing scene so I had to go. The thing that made it endurable: Don Williams wasn't up to top form. He was having horrible back aches. He walked out on stage, sat down on a stool and his roadie brought his guitar and helped him strap it on. He sat there the entire concert...spoke very little between songs. But he belted out each song with feeling and I ended up surprized at myself for actually enjoying it!

But then, I go for the music. I could give a flip for anything extra. And the better they render that music, the better I like it! It doesn't have to be note for note identical to a recording such as the Eagles strive for. I like the James Gang where Joe would tear off on a solo and play until the song fell apart. Then you could compare notes with prior concerts you'd seen him play talk about how the solo differed each time! I loved that and miss it with the Eagles but appreciate them for their mastery of their craft.

[tequila girl]

I've refrained from commenting on this thread so far...mostly because it's over 30 years since i've been to a concert (apart from Van Morrison in '08
however, I mostly agree that I would go to see/hear my favourite artists play the music
I know we all like different types of music and in the 70's I would have been among the "heavy rock" category....but Mike's quote here

The thing that made it endurable: Don Williams wasn't up to top form. He was having horrible back aches. He walked out on stage, sat down on a stool and his roadie brought his guitar and helped him strap it on. He sat there the entire concert...spoke very little between songs. But he belted out each song with feeling and I ended up surprized at myself for actually enjoying it!

Well, I would have been in heaven, 'cos along with the Rock music I also love/d country - and still do!

I did see Pink Floyd in about 1976 I think, and that was the first real show of lights/pyrotechnics in the UK (I stand corrected if i'm wrong here) and to be honest, even in those "far out" days it didn't do a lot for me!

[WalshFan88]

But Austin, you do enjoy going to see the Eagles perform. Would you enjoy it more if they set off bombs? If you go to an Eagles concert, you'd better be going with the expectation of enjoying their music because you really aren't going to get anything else. Certainly not the extravaganza of special effects that we've been talking about.

Mike did you not read where I said:

I can't imagine AC/DC without cannons and I can't imagine the Eagles with them. It depends on the band.


I enjoy Eagles concerts. I'm not saying effects are a requirement but I enjoy it when it's there. I can't imagine the Eagles with that stuff, and I can't imagine AC/DC or the Stones without the stuff they do. I probably wouldn't like the Eagles WITH smoke bombs. But I also wouldn't like AC/DC WITHOUT them.

But regardless of special effects - ALL of the shows I go to have to have passion, enthusiasm, and energy. I don't want it to be boring. I never said the Eagles fit into that category. I very much enjoyed their concert. But I also enjoyed AC/DC, Aerosmith, and Cheap Trick when I saw them too. It depends on the band. I go both ways really on THAT particular thing.

I'm not saying it's a requirement - but I do enjoy it when it's there. All I'm saying is that it's not bad if a band DOESN'T do them and it's not bad if a band DOES do them. And that people shouldn't judge a band poorly just because they use special effects. That is unfair and being judgmental.

To each his/her own.