Concerts of the past vs. concerts of the present.

[arz]

Technology has made live shows sound like the CD the artist is promoting. I like music to sound live, not like a rehash of the studio. Too much sampling, sequencing and (especially) digital correction kills the live buzz for me.

I tend to see acts in smaller venues (1500 people or less) or I go to "old favorites" when I can justify the cost. My favorite guy is probably Neil Finn, formerly of Split Enz and Crowded House. There's nothing sampled or sequenced about him; what yo hear is what is being played. I just a month or so ago saw Peter Gabriel for the first time in 20 years. His winter tour was too expensive for me to justify it ($130 a seat) but this stripped down summer tour is more up my alley musically and stage-presentation-wise and the $60 price tag was doable.

My big beef are live DVDs/CDs that aren't live at all. Pretty much any major music act re-records a "live" concert for release as a CD. McCartney's recent "Back in the US" DVD has at least a bass overdub on "Band on the Run" (a song Macca plays bass on, the bastard) and if they did THAT they probably did a bunch of other stuff, too.

U2 is one of the worst offenders in this regard. "Rattle and Hum" was completely re-recorded except for the drums apparently. Lord knows what they did for the "Boston Elevation Tour 2001" DVD.