It´s funny and it´s for every show since IORR is existing:
The people who are physically there love the songs/performance.
The people who are at home and try to follow the show just by watching the videos made with mobile phones think they can judge by that a song not by note.
Wrong. And absurd!
It´s just crappy material gentlemen - stop to put your thumbs up or down just by looking at these nice but poor devices of a show reality which is soo different.

Quote
caschimann
It´s funny and it´s for every show since IORR is existing:
The people who are physically there love the songs/performance.
The people who are at home and try to follow the show just by watching the videos made with mobile phones think they can judge by that a song not by note.
Wrong. And absurd!
It´s just crappy material gentlemen - stop to put your thumbs up or down just by looking at these nice but poor devices of a show reality which is soo different.

Yes couldn't agree more,do these people also watch cookery programmes on TV and decide if something tastes nice or not

Nate

Lets put it this way, a whole lot of people enjoy or do not enjoy the band through many official and bootleg recordings of concerts they never attended.

Are their impressions only valid when they are positive?

It is ok to judge and either like not like a show from a recording. Also, not everyone hears the concert the same in the venue nor does everyone enjoy it.

In some ways a recording is actually a better way to hear the actual music as during a concert ears get bombarded with sound levels which make them behave differently, so much so that your perception of pitch can change. This is sometimes partly why some people in attendance would never notice that Keith flubbed the intro to Brown Sugar when he has done so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-08 13:21 by His Majesty.

Good points, but they don't alter the fact that most of the time a cell phone recording is so poor that it is hard to judge a show by it.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Good points, but they don't alter the fact that most of the time a cell phone recording is so poor that it is hard to judge a show by it.

In a lot of cases it's as good if not better than quality of past audience recorded bootlegs.

Quote
His Majesty
Lets put it this way, a whole lot of people enjoy or do not enjoy the band through many official and bootleg recordings of concerts they never attended.

Are their impressions only valid when they are positive?

It is ok to judge and either like not like a show from a recording. Also, not everyone hears the concert the same in the venue nor does everyone enjoy it.

In some ways a recording is actually a better way to hear the actual music as during a concert ears get bombarded with sound levels which make them behave differently, so much so that your perception of pitch can change. This is sometimes partly why some people in attendance would never notice that Keith flubbed the intro to Brown Sugar when he has done so.

Great points Maj, I went to Cardiff 1990 and actually found the whole thing a bit draining and was glad to get home.....however, when I got a decent boot of the show the first thing I said was "Wow, I hadn't realised they were so good....(also, as you say, hearing things - musicwise - I never heard at the show).

I've never read one post that's slags off the performance or sound quality on the basis of a youtube vid - only setlist choices.
Personally, I've been to enough shows and heard enough boots to know I don't need to go to a show to know I've heard TD, SMU, IORR, Sympathy and Miss you enough to get a very comprehensive picture.
Hey Negrita, 100 years ago, Let it loose, Child of the moon, TWFNO, Pretty beat up and Feel on, (for example) - can't say the same about those. (although I did hear/see Hey Negrita live twice in '76. (forgot Knebworth)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-08 13:47 by EddieByword.

And the audience recordings were never as good as being at the show...

Quote
His Majesty
Lets put it this way, a whole lot of people enjoy or do not enjoy the band through many official and bootleg recordings of concerts they never attended.

Are their impressions only valid when they are positive?

It is ok to judge and either like not like a show from a recording. Also, not everyone hears the concert the same in the venue nor does everyone enjoy it.

In some ways a recording is actually a better way to hear the actual music as during a concert ears get bombarded with sound levels which make them behave differently, so much so that your perception of pitch can change. This is sometimes partly why some people in attendance would never notice that Keith flubbed the intro to Brown Sugar when he has done so.

Right.
A good bootleg - nothing wrong with it.
And yes: not all of the 60. or something thousand will like a show all in the same way.
Of course there are different feelings/opinions about a gig.
All I talked about were verdicts by mobile-recordings.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And the audience recordings were never as good as being at the show...

Ok, this line of thinking means we are in no place to judge anything we did not attend ourselves. I mean even if you had the shittest view and placement to hear in a venue that trumps hearing the concert via a good recording.

All the years spent here judging Taylor in live 1969 - 1973 or any concerrts you did not attend has been a meaningless waste of time.

...

Actually, in many cases these "inferior device" recordings are better than official concert films. ><





I don't need to have been there to hear that this was a pretty great rendition of the song. It's ok to say it's good via a video, no one will call you out for saying a positive from it.

Now, I could have been there and missed this due to being right at the back and having some drunk bastard beside me singing along completely out of time and tune.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-08 14:17 by His Majesty.

Quote
caschimann

All I talked about were verdicts by mobile-recordings.

They are the new form of bootleg recording and a lot of the time are pretty good quality.

Quite a lot of the musical side of things can be captured and presented through mobile-recordings. Quite a lot of the musical side of things can be missed when attending an actual concert.

Th ideal perhaps would be to experience the concert and also have the recordings afterwards. Unless someone just wishes to keep hold of their actual memories of their concert experience without having it affected by good quality recordings showing Keith messing up an intro that you hadn't noticed at the time.

try it yourself – just listen to a recording of a show you've been to some years ago. Quite often you'll find striking differences between your memories and what actually happened!

Quote
slewan
try it yourself – just listen to a recording of a show you've been to some years ago. Quite often you'll find striking differences between your memories and what actually happened!

I downloaded years ago the first Stones show I ever attended to, but to reserve the memory of that transcendental experience, I never have dared to listen it... probably rather ordinary show...

- Doxa

Quote
caschimann
It´s funny and it´s for every show since IORR is existing:
The people who are physically there love the songs/performance.
The people who are at home and try to follow the show just by watching the videos made with mobile phones think they can judge by that a song not by note.
Wrong. And absurd!
It´s just crappy material gentlemen - stop to put your thumbs up or down just by looking at these nice but poor devices of a show reality which is soo different.

The wonders of the modern-modern media (internet, google translate, wikipedia, cellphone cameras) caused several things to happen - of which we hardly stop and think: MAINLY:

NO MORE "Election threshold" for data - in the past while anyone could have spoken to his immediate companions, only the most charismatic, demagogues, well provided, well connected (some of these - or all together) were able to have their point of view to be heard. There was a minimum level of the above qualities required for your opinions to break through.

Nowdays all barriers are removed. After a Stones gig I would run to IORR to read reviews - not to some local news portal. There are many good aspect here - many talented people - huge specialists in their narrow field of interest (The RS in our case) can be heard. We would have never heard about 4 out of 5 of them 30 years ago, even if we both lived in the same 60K residents city. The past iconic music writer is rapidly loosing its status - and more and more concert news reports try and find their competitive advantage by being cynical, sarcastic of pompous. Which is why we do not read them.

Disadvantage of the above? many people can participate in the debate as equals. Quite often when I read reports I get to the middle and then jump to the talkback chart... Many of the people whom are now part of the debate (No Election threshold imposed) would mark their presence by making dismissive comments, or even mocking those who did attend the gig. Many dismissive comments would be irritating, on the border of trolling (I lately read in a discussion board someone asking "What's the point going to see the Stones if they do not play anything from Exile?"). Some irritating comments are more genuine -either just expressing their owner real feeling (that in the past wouldn't have been heard) or his frustration (which we find more acceptable when made about concerts that happened in the past).

That's the era we are living in - like it, or not. Ask any lecturer and teacher (in Humanities especially) about the havoc Wikipedia and dissertation exchange websites caused to the academic world. It seems that people no longer make an effort. At least with actually going to a gig you can be left with the feeling that you were there and enjoyed it in real time. And when you read the talkbacks - just use a sifting net with bigger holes.

They are two different experiences. If you go to the show, you don't usually go to listen carefully to every note, and if you do think 'what the **** was that?' you haven't got time to analyse it and you can't play it over again. Unless you are unlucky with the sound or the weather or the antics of that prat behind you, you are too busy enjoying yourself to notice anything but the most glaring scarf-me-ups.

A recording will give you the sound as heard by the microphone of the person doing the recording, which may be better or worse than what people at the show heard. Most people listening to a recording will not be in a happy party atmosphere with lots of distractions, and they will be listening more carefully. Basically, they are judging a live performance in a context it wasn't meant for. A live performance is a subjective experience and listening to a recording is an objective one.

None of the above means that mistakes don't matter or that they shouldn't be avoided if possible - just that different things are also important live.

Quote
His Majesty
Lets put it this way, a whole lot of people enjoy or do not enjoy the band through many official and bootleg recordings of concerts they never attended.

Are their impressions only valid when they are positive?

It is ok to judge and either like not like a show from a recording. Also, not everyone hears the concert the same in the venue nor does everyone enjoy it.

In some ways a recording is actually a better way to hear the actual music as during a concert ears get bombarded with sound levels which make them behave differently, so much so that your perception of pitch can change. This is sometimes partly why some people in attendance would never notice that Keith flubbed the intro to Brown Sugar when he has done so.

I was at pinkpop. Had a really great concert. I don't mind that people have opinions based on youtube. Although the live experience has a different perspective. But that's okay. I have opinions based on you tube too.

I didn't enjoy my one and only Stones concert, have yet to listen to a recording of it.

Wembley 1995. Black Crowes in support, they had to stop as a down pour kicked off shortly after they came onstage.

One band played music, the other put on a show.

Some people just like to moan and complain.

I'm willing to bet if they were even at any shows, it would sound great to them.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And the audience recordings were never as good as being at the show...

Ok, this line of thinking means we are in no place to judge anything we did not attend ourselves. I mean even if you had the shittest view and placement to hear in a venue that trumps hearing the concert via a good recording.

All the years spent here judging Taylor in live 1969 - 1973 or any concerrts you did not attend has been a meaningless waste of time.

...

Actually, in many cases these "inferior device" recordings are better than official concert films. ><





I don't need to have been there to hear that this was a pretty great rendition of the song. It's ok to say it's good via a video, no one will call you out for saying a positive from it.

Now, I could have been there and missed this due to being right at the back and having some drunk bastard beside me singing along completely out of time and tune.

Just saying that it isn't the same...

Quote
slewan
try it yourself – just listen to a recording of a show you've been to some years ago. Quite often you'll find striking differences between your memories and what actually happened!

Thats because there's more to the show that the notes they play.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And the audience recordings were never as good as being at the show...

Ok, this line of thinking means we are in no place to judge anything we did not attend ourselves. I mean even if you had the shittest view and placement to hear in a venue that trumps hearing the concert via a good recording.

All the years spent here judging Taylor in live 1969 - 1973 or any concerrts you did not attend has been a meaningless waste of time.

...

Actually, in many cases these "inferior device" recordings are better than official concert films. ><





I don't need to have been there to hear that this was a pretty great rendition of the song. It's ok to say it's good via a video, no one will call you out for saying a positive from it.

Now, I could have been there and missed this due to being right at the back and having some drunk bastard beside me singing along completely out of time and tune.

Yes you're right; you don't have to be there to hear this one is really very good. And that the SFTD from Zurich showed a terrible KR 'solo'.
But the cheerleaders probably won't agree because every show was the best show ever. Even if they only saw it on a video from a cellphone...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-08 16:39 by Dreamer.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And the audience recordings were never as good as being at the show...

Ok, this line of thinking means we are in no place to judge anything we did not attend ourselves. I mean even if you had the shittest view and placement to hear in a venue that trumps hearing the concert via a good recording.

All the years spent here judging Taylor in live 1969 - 1973 or any concerrts you did not attend has been a meaningless waste of time.

...

Actually, in many cases these "inferior device" recordings are better than official concert films. ><





I don't need to have been there to hear that this was a pretty great rendition of the song. It's ok to say it's good via a video, no one will call you out for saying a positive from it.

Now, I could have been there and missed this due to being right at the back and having some drunk bastard beside me singing along completely out of time and tune.

Just saying that it isn't the same...

So is EddieByword:

"Great points Maj, I went to Cardiff 1990 and actually found the whole thing a bit draining and was glad to get home.....however, when I got a decent boot of the show the first thing I said was "Wow, I hadn't realised they were so good....(also, as you say, hearing things - musicwise - I never heard at the show)."

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And the audience recordings were never as good as being at the show...

Ok, this line of thinking means we are in no place to judge anything we did not attend ourselves. I mean even if you had the shittest view and placement to hear in a venue that trumps hearing the concert via a good recording.

All the years spent here judging Taylor in live 1969 - 1973 or any concerrts you did not attend has been a meaningless waste of time.

...

Actually, in many cases these "inferior device" recordings are better than official concert films. ><





I don't need to have been there to hear that this was a pretty great rendition of the song. It's ok to say it's good via a video, no one will call you out for saying a positive from it.

Now, I could have been there and missed this due to being right at the back and having some drunk bastard beside me singing along completely out of time and tune.

Just saying that it isn't the same...

So is EddieByword:

"Great points Maj, I went to Cardiff 1990 and actually found the whole thing a bit draining and was glad to get home.....however, when I got a decent boot of the show the first thing I said was "Wow, I hadn't realised they were so good....(also, as you say, hearing things - musicwise - I never heard at the show)."

So is EddieByword what?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-08 17:32 by EddieByword.

I tend to film a few songs whenever I see a band perform live. Small local bands as well as major acts.
Sometimes I'm disappointed looking back at the footage when a moment that was perfect in my memory turns out not to have been so perfect looking back at the footage.
Sometimes the footage is better than my memory. THis is tipically true when I got distracted by my surroundings at the event.

I guess for me, being present and part of the event, there are a million factors that influence my experience. I'm sure that if you know a little bit about music that you will easliy spot a missed chord or a missed note on youtube.
I can never really capture the experience in a foto or clip.

I'm interested in your opinions on the vids, positive or negative. A friend of mine tought me: "Feedback is a gift. You accept it thankfully, whether you like it or not"

It's clear the problem is not that judgments are being made via what are actually sometimes pretty damn good recordings, it's that they are sometimes negative.

It goes the other way around as well

Maybe there are some psychological factors involved here as well? To go to a Rolling Stones show these days is a kind of investment. And you don't want a personal investment to go bad, do you?
So, maybe, there is a chance you will enhance your experience because you have invested so much in it? Just speculating....

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It goes the other way around as well

You're being a hypocrite with regards to this so I cannae take you seriously.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It goes the other way around as well

This is it, the two extremes with me are Cardiff, as I said earlier - wasn't well, shit position but pretty decent boot, on the other hand, Earl's court - first night, great position, 1/3 of the way back, in the middle, dancing in the aisle - fantastic night (except I had to leave during Sympathy to get the last tube to Victoria)........pretty shoddy boot........so......

I don't think you need to be there to have reservations about the setlist, everyone who's ever been to a show already knows they do a splendid/stupendous job bashing out the warhorses, no one disputes that (well, Keith solos on Sympathy have drawn a bit now and again...)........
Just like to hear them doing the same with some of those other gems they rehearsed last month



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-08 18:42 by EddieByword.

Quote
Stoneage
Maybe there are some psychological factors involved here as well? To go to a Rolling Stones show these days is a kind of investment. And you don't want a personal investment to go bad, do you?
So, maybe, there is a chance you will enhance your experience because you have invested so much in it? Just speculating....

Sounds funny but is probably true for some at least.........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-06-08 18:44 by EddieByword.

Quote
EddieByword

Quote
Dreamer

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
DandelionPowderman
And the audience recordings were never as good as being at the show...

Ok, this line of thinking means we are in no place to judge anything we did not attend ourselves. I mean even if you had the shittest view and placement to hear in a venue that trumps hearing the concert via a good recording.

All the years spent here judging Taylor in live 1969 - 1973 or any concerrts you did not attend has been a meaningless waste of time.

...

Actually, in many cases these "inferior device" recordings are better than official concert films. ><





I don't need to have been there to hear that this was a pretty great rendition of the song. It's ok to say it's good via a video, no one will call you out for saying a positive from it.

Now, I could have been there and missed this due to being right at the back and having some drunk bastard beside me singing along completely out of time and tune.

Just saying that it isn't the same...

So is EddieByword:

"Great points Maj, I went to Cardiff 1990 and actually found the whole thing a bit draining and was glad to get home.....however, when I got a decent boot of the show the first thing I said was "Wow, I hadn't realised they were so good....(also, as you say, hearing things - musicwise - I never heard at the show)."

So is EddieByword what?

"Just saying that it isn't the same..."
Forgot to bold DP's quote..