Halen said:

Top 10 live performer.

.

.

behind.. Mercury, Jagger, Dave Matthews, Elvis, Jackson, Springsteen

.
dear oh dear.
Poor child.

NorthC said:

RJOrion said:

the demand, longevity and insane popularity of The Beatles concerts and even mccartneys bands afterwards qualifies them

The reputation of the Fab Four is based on their hit singles and their albums rather than their concerts. Most of the time, girls were streaming so loud that you could hardly hear them anyway. And by the time classic albums like Sgt. Pepper came out, they had stopped touring altogether. And yes, Macca still tours, but that doesn't say an awful lot about the band that he left almost 50 years ago.

I think you mean the girls were screaming. (I sure hope they weren't streaming - yuck.) But what does the noise the audience makes have to do with the musicianship of the people onstage?

By your argument, if a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.

Halen said:

Top 10 live performer.

.

.

behind.. Mercury, Jagger, Dave Matthews, Elvis, Jackson, Springsteen

I saw Elvis several times (my dad was a fan), I put Prince ahead of Elvis.

Genesia said:

homesquid said:

Genesia said:

NorthC said:

Genesia said:

I think you mean the girls were screaming. (I sure hope they weren't streaming - yuck.) But what does the noise the audience makes have to do with the musicianship of the people onstage?

By your argument, if a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, it doesn't make a sound.

Oops, typo! And if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, how do you know it fell? That's a joke from Cheers, but as for the screaming girls, The Rolling Stones had the same problem and that's how Keith got a connection with Charlie: Keef played along Charlie's drums because that was the only thing he could hear among all the screams. When The Stones resumed touring in the early 70s, they had to totally reinvent themselves as a live band. So yes, it does have something to do with the musicianship on stage.

What does what the Stones did have to do with the Beatles?

You don't think people who frequent the woods walk the same route time after time - and would notice if one of the trees they're used to seeing had fallen?

[Snip - luv4u] The criteria for different musics are different, just the way it is. Jazz music is highly technical and improvisational at it's best but it is also what many people would call "boring". You put a young sammy davis in the middle of the sixties with the music from the forties he'd have flopped like grandmas titties even though he was great. As I've said about Elvis, his genius was the connection to the audience, "the show is out there" in his mind, it was totally "out there" in the hearts and minds of the audience. You can see it in any of his performances when he was a young prodigy just making his way on the early days of tv, he looked at the audience, pointed at the audience, snarled and shook at the audience, it wasn't about what went on on stage for him. Many performers then, before then and now peformed as if they were in their own little world. The point of the show being "out there" was what made groups like the beatles great entertainers, whether you like it or not, they tapped into what was needed in that moment. to speak of mere technical ability, hell, you could have pro dancers and old classical men who would end up playing to halls full of silent kids and you would see for yourself how meaningless even the limits of human perfection can be. As far as jazz, you bring up calloway, good example, calloway is rarely mentioned along with anyone else in the history of jazz, he's seen as kind of a joke and a mere song and dance man with no real artistic contribution. I think it's a shame, he was a precursor to james, mj and the rest and he was never regarded like duke ellington who by the way, did not sing and dance if you noticed, he lead his band and he played and he composed.

as far as different musics, they are different, if they weren't you'd have the young kids today listening to great music instead of the shit out there now. Times chance, technology changes, musics have different characteristics, classical has little of the dense chordal structures of jazz and at least in modern times, little improvisation, it's all about robotic, perfectionistic, emotionless repetition of music of the past. Jazz music is improvisational, highly complex (pushing music to it's limits as one of my friends says) but it is far from perfect. In fact, I told my jazz teacher how I could hear a million mistakes of the greatest jazz pianist ever, Oscar Peterson, he didn't argue, he just said "a ton of "em" as if it didn't matter. Then we have Prince, poor Prince, who responsed to Quincy Jones' assertion that he wasn't a great piano player, Prince actually created a song to rebut that, but how are you going to impress a man who's seen Herbie Hancock, Oscar Peterson, not gonna happen. Prince was great for what he was and that was a complete package. Greatest entertainer? It's subjective anyway, as elvis said it's "out there" that's why I won't argue with the folks saying that springsteen performed like a drunk mechanic, he had millions of people who took to him like a new religion. I won't argue with those who say the beatles were, or the stones or JB or MJ. It's all "out there" as our great american genius, elvis said many years ago. Who can touch people, move people, that's what counts not how perfect you can get that hunk of metal and wood to play.

Kares said:

PeteSilas said:

.

the beatles were great and they had that thing that the greats have, the zeitgeist, in rock we don't just consider how technically great musicians are, we count the energy they can bring too. Madonna sucked, i saw her live, don't ask me why. Little richard had the purest and greatest rock voice and sounded every bit as good as ever when i saw him in 89, not a dancer but definitely an inspiration for just about every major rock act since, that counts as far as the jazz acts, criteria would change a bit, jazz artists like ellington weren't entertainers so much as artists, of course satchmo was a great entertainer and sammy davis was one of the greatest talents to ever come along, someone whom michael stole at least as much from as he did James Brown..

.

Last time I checked the title of this thread was "THE greatest live performer of all time", not "the most popular", not "the most influential" or "the most crowd-pleasing rock act of all time" – but thanks for your attempt at lecturing me about how "in rock we don't just consider how technically great musicians are", little did I know. (And I must add how ridiculous I find every sentence that ends with "of all time" or with "ever", but that's another story.)

.
Still, the subject is "the greatest live performers", and I don't see any reason to restrict that to pop-rock (neither to restrict it to the last 50 years or so.)
.
I love the Beatles but as live performers, that band was a joke. Try watching any of their performances by ignoring the crowd noise and then tell me they were great live performers. Try to imagine listening to one of their concerts on a soundboard recording that totally eliminates the atmosphere and the audience, hearing nothing but their instruments and singing. It would be a really painful and embarassing experience...
.
And as for "jazz artists weren't entertainers"? LOL. Of course they were. They were amazing entertainers too, especially people like Sir Duke. Or Louis Jordan. Or Cab Calloway. (But again, the title of this thread has the word 'performer' in it, not 'entertainer'.) But more importantly: it always hurts me whenever people try to quarantine different genres of music. It's all MUSIC. There are no walls between genres, there never have been and never will be, despite all attempts by the press and the music industry. I absolutely HATE talking about jazz (and especially: about 'jazz artists') in a way as if it would be something of an entirely different nature. Or about the so-called 'classical' music. It's all MUSIC.
.

[Edited 4/5/19 3:02am]

alandail said:

Halen said:

Top 10 live performer.

.

.

behind.. Mercury, Jagger, Dave Matthews, Elvis, Jackson, Springsteen

I saw Elvis several times (my dad was a fan), I put Prince ahead of Elvis.

I always love hearing the stories from the folks who thought Elvis wasn't shit, many of his musicians before they worked with him and guys like John Carpenter, who didn't really fully get it until they saw the man live. In my opinion, only MJ could match his charisma. Everything about elvis had the stuff of myth, see him on tv and he looks like a giant, hear him in non-engineered, amateurely recorded live shows and his voice sounds even more potent when it shouldn't, no one like him.

Genesia said:

PeteSilas said:

[Snip - luv4u] The criteria for different musics are different, just the way it is. Jazz music is highly technical and improvisational at it's best but it is also what many people would call "boring". You put a young sammy davis in the middle of the sixties with the music from the forties he'd have flopped like grandmas titties even though he was great. As I've said about Elvis, his genius was the connection to the audience, "the show is out there" in his mind, it was totally "out there" in the hearts and minds of the audience. You can see it in any of his performances when he was a young prodigy just making his way on the early days of tv, he looked at the audience, pointed at the audience, snarled and shook at the audience, it wasn't about what went on on stage for him. Many performers then, before then and now peformed as if they were in their own little world. The point of the show being "out there" was what made groups like the beatles great entertainers, whether you like it or not, they tapped into what was needed in that moment. to speak of mere technical ability, hell, you could have pro dancers and old classical men who would end up playing to halls full of silent kids and you would see for yourself how meaningless even the limits of human perfection can be. As far as jazz, you bring up calloway, good example, calloway is rarely mentioned along with anyone else in the history of jazz, he's seen as kind of a joke and a mere song and dance man with no real artistic contribution. I think it's a shame, he was a precursor to james, mj and the rest and he was never regarded like duke ellington who by the way, did not sing and dance if you noticed, he lead his band and he played and he composed.

as far as different musics, they are different, if they weren't you'd have the young kids today listening to great music instead of the shit out there now. Times chance, technology changes, musics have different characteristics, classical has little of the dense chordal structures of jazz and at least in modern times, little improvisation, it's all about robotic, perfectionistic, emotionless repetition of music of the past. Jazz music is improvisational, highly complex (pushing music to it's limits as one of my friends says) but it is far from perfect. In fact, I told my jazz teacher how I could hear a million mistakes of the greatest jazz pianist ever, Oscar Peterson, he didn't argue, he just said "a ton of "em" as if it didn't matter. Then we have Prince, poor Prince, who responsed to Quincy Jones' assertion that he wasn't a great piano player, Prince actually created a song to rebut that, but how are you going to impress a man who's seen Herbie Hancock, Oscar Peterson, not gonna happen. Prince was great for what he was and that was a complete package. Greatest entertainer? It's subjective anyway, as elvis said it's "out there" that's why I won't argue with the folks saying that springsteen performed like a drunk mechanic, he had millions of people who took to him like a new religion. I won't argue with those who say the beatles were, or the stones or JB or MJ. It's all "out there" as our great american genius, elvis said many years ago. Who can touch people, move people, that's what counts not how perfect you can get that hunk of metal and wood to play.

Kares said:

.

Last time I checked the title of this thread was "THE greatest live performer of all time", not "the most popular", not "the most influential" or "the most crowd-pleasing rock act of all time" – but thanks for your attempt at lecturing me about how "in rock we don't just consider how technically great musicians are", little did I know. (And I must add how ridiculous I find every sentence that ends with "of all time" or with "ever", but that's another story.)

.
Still, the subject is "the greatest live performers", and I don't see any reason to restrict that to pop-rock (neither to restrict it to the last 50 years or so.)
.
I love the Beatles but as live performers, that band was a joke. Try watching any of their performances by ignoring the crowd noise and then tell me they were great live performers. Try to imagine listening to one of their concerts on a soundboard recording that totally eliminates the atmosphere and the audience, hearing nothing but their instruments and singing. It would be a really painful and embarassing experience...
.
And as for "jazz artists weren't entertainers"? LOL. Of course they were. They were amazing entertainers too, especially people like Sir Duke. Or Louis Jordan. Or Cab Calloway. (But again, the title of this thread has the word 'performer' in it, not 'entertainer'.) But more importantly: it always hurts me whenever people try to quarantine different genres of music. It's all MUSIC. There are no walls between genres, there never have been and never will be, despite all attempts by the press and the music industry. I absolutely HATE talking about jazz (and especially: about 'jazz artists') in a way as if it would be something of an entirely different nature. Or about the so-called 'classical' music. It's all MUSIC.
.

[Edited 4/5/19 3:02am]

[Snip - luv4u]

[Edited 4/5/19 12:29pm]

hi gene

Genesia said:

PeteSilas said:

[Snip - luv4u] The criteria for different musics are different, just the way it is. Jazz music is highly technical and improvisational at it's best but it is also what many people would call "boring". You put a young sammy davis in the middle of the sixties with the music from the forties he'd have flopped like grandmas titties even though he was great. As I've said about Elvis, his genius was the connection to the audience, "the show is out there" in his mind, it was totally "out there" in the hearts and minds of the audience. You can see it in any of his performances when he was a young prodigy just making his way on the early days of tv, he looked at the audience, pointed at the audience, snarled and shook at the audience, it wasn't about what went on on stage for him. Many performers then, before then and now peformed as if they were in their own little world. The point of the show being "out there" was what made groups like the beatles great entertainers, whether you like it or not, they tapped into what was needed in that moment. to speak of mere technical ability, hell, you could have pro dancers and old classical men who would end up playing to halls full of silent kids and you would see for yourself how meaningless even the limits of human perfection can be. As far as jazz, you bring up calloway, good example, calloway is rarely mentioned along with anyone else in the history of jazz, he's seen as kind of a joke and a mere song and dance man with no real artistic contribution. I think it's a shame, he was a precursor to james, mj and the rest and he was never regarded like duke ellington who by the way, did not sing and dance if you noticed, he lead his band and he played and he composed.

as far as different musics, they are different, if they weren't you'd have the young kids today listening to great music instead of the shit out there now. Times chance, technology changes, musics have different characteristics, classical has little of the dense chordal structures of jazz and at least in modern times, little improvisation, it's all about robotic, perfectionistic, emotionless repetition of music of the past. Jazz music is improvisational, highly complex (pushing music to it's limits as one of my friends says) but it is far from perfect. In fact, I told my jazz teacher how I could hear a million mistakes of the greatest jazz pianist ever, Oscar Peterson, he didn't argue, he just said "a ton of "em" as if it didn't matter. Then we have Prince, poor Prince, who responsed to Quincy Jones' assertion that he wasn't a great piano player, Prince actually created a song to rebut that, but how are you going to impress a man who's seen Herbie Hancock, Oscar Peterson, not gonna happen. Prince was great for what he was and that was a complete package. Greatest entertainer? It's subjective anyway, as elvis said it's "out there" that's why I won't argue with the folks saying that springsteen performed like a drunk mechanic, he had millions of people who took to him like a new religion. I won't argue with those who say the beatles were, or the stones or JB or MJ. It's all "out there" as our great american genius, elvis said many years ago. Who can touch people, move people, that's what counts not how perfect you can get that hunk of metal and wood to play.

[Snip - luv4u]

[Edited 4/5/19 12:29pm]

and, flattery will get you nowhere.

[Snip - luv4u]

NorthC said:

Duh.

It's subjective and dependent upon what one's criteria is, which varies from person to person.

.

For me, Prince was the best live performer I've had the pleasure of seeing in concert, in-person.

.

That said, I've seen some other incredible live performers - some legendary, some not as well known - and while they perhaps aren't as VERSATILE as Prince, I think there's definitely room at the top for those artists who were truly great onstage but didn't play as many instruments (if any) or who could play phenomenally but weren't dancers.

.

For me, all-around taking into consideration every aspect of what live music an entail, my favorite is Prince.

.

But - and I know this wouldn't be a popular opinion on this or, in fact, MOST forums - I was lucky enough to see a few Lou Reed shows where the man was simply breathing rarified air. But Reed isn't for all tastes. And neither is Prince for that matter.

.

Prince was one in a billion, no doubt. Not a day has gone by since he passed that I haven't wished I could see just one more concert. Or relive the ones I was fortunate enough to see.

Prince was the best to me and that's all that counts.

masaba said:

Not enough respect for James Brown in here.

james might have been number one, how's that?

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

As many of us are old school hardcore & I suspect like me have seen him countless time live [40+ for me!] do you agree that there is not 1 artist / band that comes close....literally in a class of his own. Of course there is an endless list starting with Elvis, MJ, Bowie, Hendrix, James Brown & many many others BUT P did it ALL...& then some. Hands down, no debate, THE BEST!

Yes.

I have to say that I can't think of a better pop singer than Elvis...I loved his voice.

Prince was the whole package, though.

[Edited 4/11/19 20:45pm]

PURPLEIZED3121 said:

As many of us are old school hardcore & I suspect like me have seen him countless time live [40+ for me!] do you agree that there is not 1 artist / band that comes close....literally in a class of his own. Of course there is an endless list starting with Elvis, MJ, Bowie, Hendrix, James Brown & many many others BUT P did it ALL...& then some. Hands down, no debate, THE BEST!

Who in your mind comes closest?

For my money, he's the best. And I never saw him live except in videos. Still in awe how much he fit into his life. Some of the later albums were not my bag overall, but as far as an exciting performer onstage: the best. Let alone songwriter.

And if I'm not mistaken, he didn't advertise a drink that caused (or accelerated) obesity / diabetes in millions of people either, which always wins points with me. I don't know if he shilled for any other corporation.

homesquid said:

Absolutely not.

Better than Prince:

1. Freddie Mercury

2. Michael Jackson

3. Bruce Springsteen

hard list to compile. its so subjective and depends on what you like. for me it is Prince because of the ALL the elements. you can't tell me Freddie and Bruce can dance. They "shole" ain't funky! So yeah. MJ is the closest for me

tump said:

datdude said: