Having been to see many different artists in concert, I was trying to figure out what criteria could be used to determine if an artist was exciting to see on stage.

For example.....alot of folk would say that the Rolling Stones put on a great show and continue to draw huge crowd to their shows...despite being decades away from their Legendary hits. However...many would probably not say the same thing about other artists of that era or later who may still be out there performing.


I dont think it is necessarily the music because many Legacy artists are still out there....so is it:

The stage performance, the theatrics, lasers etc....that make it a spectacle?
The type of music itself?
The fact that the artist/group has a particular forte on an instrument that stands them out from the crowd? (Prince/Santana/EWF etc...)

Or is it that some artists just have that something that is intangible, that you cannot explain other than they are mesmerizing? (I saw Sade in concert years ago, and you know how laid back she normally is...but the minute she started to dance just a little bit, the crowd went crazy..and she was not doing any overly difficult dance steps).

Would Tina be as exciting to see if she lost a step or two onstage? Or is it the fact that we "give it up" for legends even tho they may be past their prime in terms of physicality?
[Edited 4/28/08 10:45am]
[Edited 4/28/08 11:07am]

for me, it's stage presence.

that doesn't mean they have to be a great showman, or that they need crazy costumes and a laser light show, or any of that stuff.

it just means that they have to act like they're excited to be there, and that they're turned on by making music in front of an audience. if you are really enjoying what you're doing, it radiates to the audience, and they have fun right along with you.

otherwise, it's just kind of a music recital. which is fine, if you like to geek out on the musicians' technique or whatever, but it's hardly exciting. some bands do perform as if they're doing a recital, and if i know that going in, then i appreciate it as such. but if i'm going to see some hard rocking band and they just stand there and rattle off all their songs without a bit of energy or connection with the audience, then heck - i can just stay home and listen to the CD without having to deal with rude audience members.

I agree with what Anxiety said above about having a stage presence and a real passion for what they are doing, HOWEVER, I want an artist to sing live and play live. No lip-syncing bullshit for me. I want real music and none of this dance, workout type of crap. I like an artist to interact with their audience a little and to know where they are to feel the crowd. If they want to tell a story or do something fun, I'm all for that too as long as they are singing and playing live! That's the bottom line for me. Real music!!

Empress said:

i guess it kinda depends on what i'm going out to see. if i'm going to see a band, then i want to HEAR a band. i'm more of the opinion that if a song is difficult to perform live without pre-recorded tracks, then they should either arrange a stripped-down version to play live, or else they should just leave that song off the set list.

for example, i'm a HUGE fan of the most recent blonde redhead album, and i was beyond geeked to see them play at lollapalooza last year. i was pretty disappointed in the show, however, when i discovered how much they were relying on backing tracks to capture the "fullness" of their album. one the one hand, i could understand: there are only three people in the band, and instead of bringing on extra musicians it was probably more cost-effective and truer to the core members to just use backing tracks for the parts they couldn't play. i get that. but it was still disappointing, and took away from what SHOULD have been the lushness of their show. to their credit, however, the band didn't mime THEIR instruments. still, i was underwhelmed.

MEANWHILE, if someone's angle is their performance style, i'm not as strict about backing tracks. seeing Leslie & the Lys a couple of months ago was one of the best shows i've seen in a long time, and they barely played anything resembling a musical instrument. but it didn't matter. her schtick is funny dance music and her performance style. we weren't there for great musicianship, we were there for a great performance, and we got it. in those cases, i don't really care. and to HER credit, even if the music was 100% backing tracks, she didn't lip synch one little bit.

Anxiety said:

Precisely, an artist can have all the toots and whistle out the ass. However, if they aren't able to perform well live and keep the audience engaged then, they need to go back to being American Idol/X-Factor rejects or contestants/ winners.
[Edited 4/28/08 11:50am]

like the philosophy that trad.vietnamese chefs have with their, i guess it applies to me as well, of minus taste and smell, vietnamese chefs tend to make food that pleases all senses: sight, visually the show has to be creative, while i love visual aspects of certain genres, i love visual music, but there is a fine line between creative and bombastic. the sound is another important thing as well, lack of good sound is based on two things, lack of interest and not having talent. to concur, with anxiety, energy is the most important aspects of a good gig.

Anxiety said:

Exactly. As long she didn't pull the full blown Ashely Simpson then, she's in the clear.

How would you receive a show from a legend who is (a) much older than their heyday...and (b) who is (for financial reasons, and not being backed by those corporate sponsors) unable to put on that kinda spectacle show....with all those bells and whistles....and (c) not able to move about the stage as easily as in their day, but who is still able to sing well or play their instrument.....

Even as we, the fans, age and eventually slow down, how do we receive those same artists who cannot do those things they used to when they were large and in charge? Without the massive stage set...can we still cut them some slack?

Great topic/Question.

For me it must be live. Live sound and interaction. It also must have a backing band playing live.

In addition setlists should change on multiple nights in a city or metro area.

I don't value dancing or choreography so that means nothing to me, but if you can sit at the piano with no lighting and sing and make me get chills then that is all I ever could ask for.

Here's a list of performers that I would see no matter what:

Tom Waits
Springsteen
Prince
Zappa plays Zappa
Elvis Costello

All of the above play live, vary setlists, and feel authentic in the sense that you really feel that you are a part of history at each show rather than listening to a live recording.

Allnall said:

depends on how they approach it. if they act like we're not supposed to notice that their talent is more limited than in their heyday, that could spell a disaster of a show. if they take a more graceful approach and create a simpler, more intimate show that focuses on interpreting the music, then i think it could be quite nice.

Anxiety said:

Approach is everything. Live or die by it on stage.

MsLegs said:

I like that analysis....Never quite thought of it that way, but yes, you are correct....Approach IS everything.....

.....
[Edited 4/28/08 14:11pm]

Prince is one of the Greatest of all time..The reason is because you can watch him and see that he's "IN THE MOMENT" just as much as the audience is...
When he's smiling..Its because of what he was feeling THAT MOMENT !
and provided the music is good...Any artist should be able to find a large percentage of people in the audience that are "WITH THEM" for the ride...
that may sound a bit abstract...But thats what turns me on in performers..the Unpredictable...the thing that only that moment..that day...and that feeling could produce ! Performers that can rise to the occassion and "GO THERE" are people I dig watching..there are very few..
Hendrix
Prince
Michael *before all the lip sync Bullshit and fake I LOVE UUUUUs
The Jacksons
Marc Bolan
Sly
Stevie
James Brown
Otis redding
The Staple Singers
Thats about it for me....

Asskickery.

[To be fleshed in out in a coming thread...]

Mara said:

Real music by real musicianz.

Pyrotechnics. And explosions.

And the inflatable overhead devil.

I have heard that somewhere B 4..
Its the damn Truth !

sexxydancer said:

prettymansson said:

If U.....the paying customer, enjoy the show.

It has to be real music and it has to be a genre like funk that is something you can shake your ass to. Rock concerts are fine but I like to drink, shake my ass, and have fun when I'm at a concert so it would definately have to be a genre like funk.

Also, none of this choreographed dancers on the stage shit they are doing these days. I came to shake my ass, not to watch a damn broadway show. I don't like for the artist or musicians to be doing choreographed dances either. That shit looks too damn "Fame" or "Solid Gold" looking. I like the entertainers to dance but just dance spontaneous how they feel to the music at the time. If it looks like something rehearsed, hell naw. In other words, I like artists that dance like they used to do on "Soul Train" in the 1970s and early 1980s. None of this sissy ballet broadway looking shit.

I also like attitude and I do mean, bad ass bitchy attitude. And wild things like snakes, fire, explosions, and smoke on the stage. Anything that looks bad as hell. No sweet little puppies and butterflies and shit.

Oh, and I almost forgot, no damn, stripped down, sitting on a stool, accoustical set. I came to party not to feel like I'm watching a damn episode of "Hee Haw" with Buck Owens a'pickin' and a'grinnin'.
.
.
.
[Edited 4/30/08 14:47pm]

YOU are Out Rag eous VAIN !!!!!

vainandy said:

Artist must be able to sing LIVE and sound decent while walking/running/dancing...if I wanted to listen to the backing track, I could save my money and just watch the music video on YouTube for free. Everything else takes a backseat to the music for me. It's about the music first and foremost...everything else is just added toppings.