Live music is an odd event. The band is, after all, playing something you've (probably) heard before; you have the CD/album/stolen MP3 - so you've likely played the songs before. The live concert, ideally, is supposed to do something the recorded versions don't. Whatever that is, some of it is emotional - seeing people perform music you've heard, if done well, lets you connect with the songs in a way that sitting in your living room (or listening to your Ipod) won't. Not all bands can do this. Smart performers recognize their limitations in this direction (when they have them), and this has led to concerts being more like pageants (costumes, costume changes, pyro, lasers, choreography, etc.), and less about music. These, at least, are entertaining. The bad and dumb performers don't recognize that their music can't carry the concert alone (and should, therefore, hide in pageantry, but don't), and just go out and suck. I'm always confounded/surprised by the ability of some bands to expand studio material into an "event" at a live show, versus those bands that merely hope to re-create their studio performance (and, mostly, fail). It takes a very special talent to just play music live and carry it off; most bands have to retreat to some form of pageantry and make some sort of show out of it.
A year or so ago I got to see Muse live. I liked their album (it was the "Absolution" tour). It sounded like Queen, modernized, and on steroids. It was catchy, and seemed fun. They were coming to Pittsburgh, and I went (got the last unreserved ticket, too). Their live show revealed much about the band, none of it good. It was quickly clear they were a "studio" band (their live show, at best, aspired to re-create the studio sound, and generally failed), and also a one-trick pony: it was obvious that one member of the band had written everything, and the others were just hanging out. It was a good example of "bad" live music: the sounds were close to what the CD was like, and there was little spontaniety or flexibility in the live show. Moreover, there was nothing particularly exciting (or emotional) in the show - it was flat.
I'm also against the stadium concert (I'm picky; sue me). Seeing a band with 20,000 to 50,000 of your closest friends, isn't a musical event as much as it is a social event with live music. Standing back a quarter mile from the band (and only able to see what they are doing via the jumbotron screens) isn't a concert as much as an uncomfortable MTV concert experience. I remember seeing Iron Maiden and Judas Priest in the late 80s at largish concert halls in upstate New York, and coming away fairly unimpressed. The bands were far away, I couldn't see what they were doing, and both spent a decent amount of time/effort on theatrics as opposed to just, you know, playing some good music (in their defense, both bands were going through some ugly musical periods).
I'm also not a big fan of the pageantry (costumes, stories, movies, drum kits rotating above my head, fireworks, etc.) of concerts. I don't hate it (as I do stadiums), but pageantry usually detracts from the music (you are too busy watching the spectacle to really listen). Which is fine, but really isn't about the music anymore. So, at least for me, I put those shows closer to seeing live theater than music.
Live music should be an event. I don't need to spend my money, time, and effort to see a band aspiring to produce the music they created on the CD. I can do that at home (at whatever volume and pace I choose). I think this is why I'm so nervous and reluctant to go see live music (I've likely averaged only a single live show a year over 25 years); if I like the studio version, I don't want to spend the time/effort to see the live show just to have it be a version of the studio take. That's a disappointment that will, likely, translate into (perhaps unreasonably) my disliking the studio product, and souring me on the band (for the record, I don't think I've listened to Muse since the concert much; part of that may be related to the fact that their follow-up album, "Black Holes and Revelations," basically sucks.) If I'm happy with the CD, I'm reluctant to see the live act, for fear of losing something I like; if the live show sucks, that can't help but translate into how I feel about the band in general. Thus, seeing a live concert is an exercise in trust for me.
Which means most of my concert-going experience has been in medium-to-small places (which limits my possibilities; neither the Rolling Stones nor Metallica are likely to play local venues, not that I want to see either). While this means I've missed some important bands (Radiohead comes to mind immediately), I'd like to think I've made up for that by actually seeing those bands that I have been to see.
I've reported on the Drive By Truckers before (which was likely a pithier review than this). Seeing them for two consecutive nights gave me a renewed appreciation for their talents (the fact that I was in Atlanta solely for these shows, and thus was a concert-dork and showed up early enough to be at the stage for both shows didn't hurt either). The Variety in Atlanta holds something like 1,000 people (at most), but since I was pressed against the stage both nights, the number of people behind me was irrelevant (I didn't notice them once the concert started). However, small venues allow the bands to actually have interaction with the crowds, which improves the experience.
Moreover, the Truckers had (previously) announced that this pair of shows were their last for some time; they were going on vacation for part of 2007 (solo projects and hopefully a new album), and there were no scheduled concerts after this two-night stand. This had the unexpected (to me) consequence of having a horde of DBT fans arrive from all corners (I happened to be there because the shows were on my way back from family at Christmas; I quickly determined that many of the front-row people had come from NYC, Chapel Hill, LA, and other corners of the country), which had a clear effect on the shows: a largish percent of the crowd knew the words to every song they sang, which (I think) surprised the band on the first night. In any event, the energy of the crowd significantly added to the ambiance of the show.
Not that the band needed any help. Drive By Truckers are clearly a "live" band; their studio work is good (don't get me wrong), but they are a touring/live act (most albums, before the most recent "A Blessing and a Curse" were recorded in a "live" setting in the studio). They clearly surpass my previous standard for superior live performances (Blues Traveller, before the bassist OD'd and they had some sort of hit single). Unique among bands (that I know of, today), they have three lead guitars. What makes them interesting and unique (Molly Hatchet had three lead guitars, so that isn't unique) is that they share songwriting among the three; each has a different voice, which is clearly distinguishable. Moreover, as best I can tell, there seems to be an unwritten rule that whoever writes the song can't take the guitar solo in the song, which makes for some very interesting styles within a single composition. In other words, seeing a DBT show is more like seeing an extended, mashed-together triple bill between Patterson Hood, Mike "Stroker Ace" Cooley, and Jason Isbell where they all play on each-other's songs. Except it's more integrated than I'm making it seem.
And live, its that much better. It's fairly obvious that there is no set list: the band just knows (as best I can tell) every single DBT song, and they play whatever strikes their fancy at any given time. They seem to trade back and forth (Patterson Hood is clearly the leader, and he plays master-of-ceremonies and points to Jason and Cooley when they should launch into whatever they want), but no album or song seems to be off limits. They like to play live - what else could explain the long shows (the Pittsburgh show was 2.5 hours; both Atlanta shows were 3+ hours)? Jason Isbell played a complete show with Centromatic (the opening act in Atlanta - well worth your time to visit their MySpace page and take a listen) both nights (75 minutes) before playing the set with DBT; he certainly wasn't tired.
I'm not any good at describing the concerts themselves: if you know the music, it sounded more alive, raw, and visceral than the studio versions. This, by the way, is a good thing. If you don't know the music, I can't really convey the experience (how do you describe in words how something other people haven't heard sounds live?). I will only note that I've seen DBT three times since October, and will plan to travel to wherever they play when they get back on the road sometime in 2007.
As for the shows themselves, the 30th (Saturday) was a odd show. One of the guitarists (Cooley) was absolutely drunk off his ass (he forgot the lyrics to one of his most popular songs, which just happened to be the show opener; I knew we were in for a ride at that point). If I didn't have tickets for the following night, I think I would have been pissed about this. As it was, the band drinks a great deal (they polished off two 750mls of Jack Daniels, along with beer, during the show; and the drunk guy wasn't drinking), so this is just one of those occupational hazards. As if to compensate for Cooley's drunkenness, the rest of the band played their asses off. In particular, "Sinkhole" (a lament about bankers, and where you can bury their bodies) was rocking, along with "Outfit" (an anthemic Jason song about what being Southern means), "Marry Me" (Cooley, drunk off his ass, still did this well), and the cover of the Stone's "Moonlight Mile" was stunning. On the other hand, having Patterson Hood (soaked through with sweat, after playing for 3 hours) lean into the audience right where I was standing to howl the chorus of "People Who Died" (their traditional show-closer) along with a dozen of us was fairly compelling.
The next night (Sunday, December 31st) was new years eve, the final night of the "Blessing and a Curse" tour, and the last DBT show for several months. They were fired up right from the beginning (Polishing off a 1.75 liter of Jack Daniels likely didn't hurt either; I stole the empty bottle at the end of the show, and it sits proudly in my dining room. I'm such a geek.). "Lookout Mountain" is one of those moderately forgettable studio tracks that is turning into a real regular anthem at concerts (they've played it at all three shows I've seen). "Women Without Whiskey" is a Cooley standard, and it really stood out (perhaps he was trying to make up for the previous night), I heard "Life in the Factory" (an homage to Lynyrd Skynyrd) for the first time (one of my favorites), they started 2007 with "Where the Devil Don't Stay" (and Cooley got the words right), they did a stunning version of "Bulldozers and Dirt" with four-part harmony, a smoking version of "Never Gonna Change", a rocking cover of "Ain't Talkin 'Bout Love" (yes, the Van Halen song, and yes, it really worked for them), and finished (again) with "People Who Died", and Patterson Hood again dipped into the audience for a verse (this time I was in the front row, and he was 18-inches to my left). Everyone (audience and band) looked a little drained by the end (somewhere around 1:30 AM).
I'm always loath to wax philosophical about rock music. I realize there are many, many people who are paid to write about this stuff (everything from Pitchfork to the NYT, and everything in between), and I've never been particularly impressed by any of them (Chuck Klosterman was highly entertaining in describing what heavy metal did for him in North Dakota, but that's an aberration'; the rest suck, and Klosterman has sucked ever since that one book). I'm certainly not going to try to make any grand points about DBT being the "soul of rock" or any such thing (assuming such a thing exists). I'll only note that the trends in rock are away from bands like DBT, and towards more manufactured "rock" (pageants and/or shitty live acts: White Stripes, Red Hot Chili Peppers, hipster-metal (Wolfmother), and (of course) anything within spitting distance of the "Top 40" charts). DBT are an antidote to that (though not, of course, the only antidote; if you want other suggestions, let me know, or see my "top 10 of 2006" post). In other words, seeing DBT seems more "real" than seeing other bands, where "real" is reaching towards the sort of spontaneous, anarchic fun that rock seems to represent (to me, at least; YMMV). A DBT show is, if nothing else, characterized by a sort of friendly anarchy; you really don't know what they are going to do next (they don't, either - no set lists), but they're having a hell of a time getting there, and seem genuinely glad to have you along for the ride. I've made it a point not to argue in any of this that DBT are better than other bands out there (its all opinion, anyway), but I will declare that of all the bands I've seen in 20+ years, no other group seems as happy to have you there with them.
One of my signs of "Great Rock" (note the capitals; this is pontificating) is the absence of the aforementioned pageantry in concerts. When a band is confident of their songs, and confident of their ability to play the songs live, they need less costuming, explosions, dancers, and drummers hanging from the ceiling. DBT has as simple a stage as I've seen: there isn't anything up there but amps, drums and musicians. The songwriting is strong, and each singer speaks of their own (mostly Southern) experiences. In the end, the concert is about the music and the storytelling, rather than pageantry, and DBT has whatever it is that bands need to do that well. Really well. There is lots of good music out there, these days, but little live music at the level that DBT carries it off. These pair of shows were clear evidence of that.
Posted by baltar at January 21, 2007 11:07 PM | TrackBack | Posted to MusicMan, I tried to like Wolfmother, but they just don't have it. They are trying to imitate a very particular sort of music, and they have neither the chops or the creativity to pull it off. And worse, it's like they don't even understand how Zeppelin or Sabbath or Purple worked -- how they built their songs, how the sound came about, the required components -- in the first place. I don't really know anything about Wolfmother aside from their music, but I bet that's another band where one guy has the vision and does all the songwriting. And he doesn't get it.
I bet Jet does a decent live show. They have the vibe.
I'll note that Wolfmother is supposed to a hell of a live show.
I think we're talking about two different things here: whether the music is any good at all, and then whether the group/artist can carry it off live. Wolfmother are supposed to be good live band, of music I don't really care for.
Posted by: baltar at January 22, 2007 11:34 AM | PERMALINK