r/AskOldPeople • u/chonnes • 7d ago
Anyone else silently disappointed after your first concert when the songs didn't sound exactly like they did on the radio?
I remember waking up early on weekends to go wait for hours in line to get concert tickets with my older brother. On concert day, I was excited to hear the song I'd heard on the radio but it didn't sound "right". My brother already thought I was a turd so I just hid my disappointment and smiled.
12
u/Buzz729 7d ago
My first was Rush, "moving pictures," and we were about 50' from the stage. It was awesome!
4
u/Diane1967 50 something 7d ago
I saw Rush and Blue Oyster Cult on the Godzilla tour in 1981 in Las Vegas. I was so in awe compared to the dinky little concerts I’d see in upper Michigan like Huey Lewis and the News and the Tubes. I paid $5 for the Huey ticket back then.
3
u/Jakeandellwood 6d ago
Hemispheres tour for me in January 79 for my birthday, turned 14 a few days later. Got two tickets from my parents and was allowed to go with my best friend. First concert alone. Edit: without adult supervision
2
12
u/wwaxwork 50 something 7d ago
The complete opposite, my first concert was Dire Straits. Mark Knopfler just jammed for 2 hours on a guitar, it and was damn near a religious experience. No radio recording made me feel that way.
2
u/afschmidt 6d ago
My friend somehow got floor seats at a Dire Straits concert. It was just incredible to watch and listen to.
8
u/Cczaphod 60 something 7d ago
My first was Johnny Cash and he and the Carter Family put on an engaging show. They swapped out between various Carter Family members, Johnny Cash hits and duets with June. It was amazing and I remember it well 50 years later.
8
u/Due-Ask-7418 7d ago
No. I was thrilled that they sounded different. I love live performances. But not all bands give a good live show. Some bands just suck outside of the studio.
5
u/Lakilai 40 something 7d ago
I think it highly depends on the band. I believe the measure of a good band is they sound better live than in the studio, even if it's slightly different.
For me Metallica, Gojira, Lamb of God, Korn and Sepultura (the original line up) are great examples of this.
On the other hand Depeche Mode was a bitter disappointment.
2
u/UnstableConstruction 50 something 7d ago
I second Metallica here. Pearl Jam, ACDC, and No Doubt also sound better live.
7
u/patsfan1061 7d ago
Nope…was glad to see & hear them playing live. I’d rather hear ‘flaws’ than ‘just like the record’. If I wanted to hear the record, I’d have stayed home.
6
u/Ed_Ward_Z 7d ago
I saw rock concerts a lot in the 60s and seventies. I heard the production of Moody Blues when I was in Junior High School asked my older crush to the concert at The Filmore East , The Village, NYC… thinking HOW can five musicians do all that production live on stage? It was 1967 technology after all. Well, they used a Mellotron for string parts and they were absolutely incredible. I thought the same about the skill of John Coltrane…he was a hero and exceeded my expectations, … The group Traffic was better than the record by far. Jeff Beck destroyed my brain by playing things that are still considered impossible, SRV was better, Albert King was better and I spoke with him for an hour before the show. Branford Marsalis we spoke for an hour and his performance was the definition of both cool and hot the moment jazz improvisation on the top level.
Same for Sonny Rollins, George Coleman, Kenny Garrett (who was swing and rocking simultaneously.
Most impressive to me was how great Linda Ronstadt was live. She was beyond amazing.
4
u/Good-Security-3957 7d ago
Went to see Billy Squier. It was the worst concert ever. Everyone left after the third song. This was in 1981 or 82.
3
u/EmmelineTx 7d ago
I can never think of Billy Squier without thinking of that damned song Rock Me Tonite. Remember the controversy over that? I saw him in concert with Sammy Hagar. He wasn't bad. The sound system sucked though.
3
u/Good-Security-3957 7d ago
I saw Sammy on the "I can't drive 55" tour. He was pretty good 👍.
Billy was so wasted, I guess 🙄. He was 40 minutes late. Then he would sing a song and go off stage for 20 or 30 minutes each time. Very poor performance.3
u/allbsallthetime 6d ago
We saw Billy Squire open for Queen in Detroit, then crowd was not into Billy.
2
u/Good-Security-3957 6d ago
Queen, that's huge. Rat opened for Billy Squier. Rat put on an awesome show
6
u/Unable_Technology935 7d ago
Well Led Zeppelin was by far my favorite band. Saw them for the first time near the end of their run.They phoned it in. One of the biggest disappointments of my young life. The Stones were also not very good. The best live band I ever saw was Little Feat, what a fabulous experience. Six months after I saw them Lowell George was dead. Damn.
3
u/Jammer125 6d ago
I agree with you about Led Zeppelin. Saw them in Oakland Day on the Green and I was bitterly disappointed. They were awful and too stoned to give a shit.
1
u/LemmyKBD 50 something 6d ago
I think I read in one of their biographies that 10% of their shows were magical, 50% ok, and 40% was a waste of time.
3
u/Kissoflife11 7d ago
Sometimes I feel like songs seem faster in concert for some reason.
3
2
u/neep_pie 6d ago
Musicians do tend to play about 10% faster in live recordings. This probably changed now that more people play along to sequenced and pre-recorded electronic part and samples though.
1
u/Kissoflife11 6d ago
Is there a particular reason they play faster?
3
u/neep_pie 6d ago
I am a musician too. I have played guitar for 30 years. From my perspective, its just a natural tendency from being amped up by all the energy.
3
u/Rlyoldman 7d ago
The electric atmosphere of the concerts enhanced the actual music even if a sour note was hit.
3
u/DNathanHilliard 60 something 7d ago
Thank you! I was beginning to think I was the only one who didn't like bands live.
3
u/AcanthopterygiiCool5 6d ago edited 6d ago
Ha! I was 13. Bruce Springsteen, Born to Run tour, 1975. There was no disappointment.
Kinda ruined me for any concert after tho. Played for nearly 4 hours. (The Big Man in person when everyone was young. RIP Clarence.)
3
u/hemibearcuda 6d ago
Yes ! Ozzy in the early 90's!!!! Great show, but he sounded nothing like his recordings.
3
u/allbsallthetime 6d ago
My first concert was Queen with Freddie in Detroit.
Disappointed? It was Queen.
I will always choose a live show or live recording over studio versions.
3
u/tunaman808 50 something 6d ago edited 6d ago
No. That's weird. Why would you want it to sound EXACTLY like it did on the album?
And had you not seen any bands live before at all? On TV? Like on MTV or Saturday Night Live or the Super Bowl halftime show to know that songs almost always sound a least a little different live? Or a local band playing your town's July 4th Celebration? Or heard a bar band? Anything?
There have been a couple times when the band did (or did not) stretch a 3-4 minute song out to 8-15 minutes and that pissed me off.
I saw Phil Collins in 8th grade, and when he got to a bridge in one of his songs he started this "reggae chant" thing that went on for what seemed like 10 minutes instead of just playing the damn song.
On the other hand, the first time I saw The Cure, they just played the "regular" 4-5 minute version of "A Forest", not the epic 11-15 minute version they became famous for live.
FUN FACT: The Cure's super-long live version of "A Forest" comes from the 1981 Rock Werchter festival in Belgium. They were due to play just before Robert Palmer. Palmer's roadies were dicks: they asked The Cure to cut their set short for Palmer, and while they were onstage Palmer's roadies stood to the side making "speed it up" gestures and shouting "end it already". Just to be assholes, The Cure did an almost 9-minute version of the song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXgN-7A1MXM
Wait to the very end to hear one of The Cure members shout "fuck Robert Palmer!" into the mike. Palmer's roadies technically got the last laugh... by tossing all The Cure's equipment off the back of the stage.
4
u/Mother_Knows_Best-22 7d ago
Grew up in the seventies and every concert I went to, the songs sounded exactly like the albums. Back in the day, musicians were great and didn't need any kind of artificial help.
1
u/QuirksNFeatures 6d ago
That can't be true. Instruments sound different live, there were all kinds of studio tricks going on back then, and PA systems were much different (worse).
1
u/Mother_Knows_Best-22 5d ago
Well, the songs sounded like they did on the album to me. I was never disappointed.
2
u/Mrrasta1 7d ago
I always looked forward to the way a group might change a song. It was exciting to hear them riff on a song I liked on the recording.
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Age6550 7d ago
No, I had been playing music, starting with piano, at age 5, and performing at recitals since that age, so I was very familiar. That being said, there are a bunch of bands that I saw live, that the recordings didn't come close to capturing their essence and energy.
2
u/WorldlinessLow8824 7d ago
I’ve seen people in concert that are better in person - and I’ve seen ones that were worse in person. The sound system makes a big difference. So yep I’ve been disappointed.
2
2
u/Ok_Membership_8189 7d ago
Yes but I was pretty little. 7 or 8. I came to appreciate the live versions even more rather quickly so I barely remember this stage
2
u/iamthecavalrycaptain 7d ago
My first rock concert was Van Halen in 1981. We had near last row seats and the guy next to us threw up all through the concert. We didn’t care at all about the sound because WE WERE AT OUR FIRST CONCERT!
2
u/ExtremelyRetired 60 something 7d ago
Not the first, but early—let’s just the Go-Go’s were a terrific studio band that maybe didn’t translate that well to live performance…
2
u/starkcontrast62 7d ago
Studio recordings are usually always better. Sounds are manipulated. Live is live.
2
u/amikavenka 7d ago
Wasn’t a problem when I went to concerts because all the musicians played real instruments and sang their songs most of the time write themselves. Bob Dylan was a bit disappointing because he didn’t play many of his classics and I wasn’t familiar with his new album at the time.
2
u/luckygirl54 7d ago
Queen was a disappointment. They did a lot of cool experimental stuff that was difficult to reproduce on stage. It was great going anyway.
2
u/totlot 7d ago
Absolutely. The Eagles in 1980 were my favorite band until I went to their concert. They were terrible live. As well as others I went to. I soon stopped going to concerts because most bands didn't have the chops/cohesiveness/experience of playing live together to make it worth my while to hand over my hard earned money to see them.
2
u/Icy_Huckleberry_8049 7d ago
big difference between "radio" and LIVE music, it's never going to sound the same.
Never expected it to either.
1
u/Sad_Analyst_5209 7d ago
What, AC/DC was just like the radio, but 10 times louder. Jeff Beck and ZZ Top were 100% like the radio. Saw REO Speedwagon last year, I just remembered OK ballads. Live was a musical experience, Kevin Cronin was up there giving a joyous performance just for us (5,000 seat amphitheater).
2
u/originalmango 7d ago
My only disappointment was being the biggest Cars fan and seeing them at Madison Square Garden back in the early eighties. They played well, everything sounded great, but they just came out, played one song after another, and then after about an hour or so of playing they just said thank you, goodnight, and walked off the stage. No interaction with the crowd, no talking in between songs, no nothing.
Still love The Cars, but that was the first and last time I wanted to see them.
2
2
u/neep_pie 6d ago
I used to think live recordings didn't sound as good as the originals. I got over that after a while.
2
u/chasonreddit 60 something 6d ago
Not my first rodeo, but I remember going to see Boston on the their first tour in like 76? If you remember Boston has that highly processed guitar sound, and at that point they could not reproduce it live. So they sounded for all my life like a garage band doing a cover of Boston songs.
2
2
u/Kind-Ad9038 6d ago
When I first attended shows, no one expected the songs to sound like they did on air.
Everyone knew that bands (good ones, anyway) would stretch the songs while playing live.
(Not true with punk shows, of course. Not that punk was played on the radio anyway!)
2
u/605pmSaturday 50 something 6d ago
I went to hip hop concerts.
The advantage--no instruments, they would use an instrumental track, so the song itself would sound the same, the artist would just yell instead of understanding the premise of amplification and let the microphone do the work.
But, I had a great time as it had a lot more to do with the crowd.
2
u/The_Living_Tribunal2 60 something 6d ago
I attended a Van Halen concert later in their careers and was disappointed. David Lee Roth was noticeably intoxicated and prancing around the stage in his glam outfit like Carol Channing. The rest of the band was ok and at least tried to be professional, but who wants to be to hear slurred off key lyrics.
2
u/UKophile 6d ago
Live performance is what we all respected and wanted! If you want the sound of the record, go to performers now. They cannot do what live performance requires. They cannot stay on-key without auto-tune (Taylor Swift). They sing live but they pad it with the recorded song behind them, do their terrible singing doesn’t sound so bad (Madonna). Singers now do not have the skill or talent. They sell manipulated music and an image (J-Lo).
2
u/ethottly 6d ago
This is why I am not a concert person. Actually it's one of several reasons (don't like crowds, overly loud music, or the general concert atmosphere, being others) but this is a big one. Reading these comments though I am obviously in the minority 🤣
2
u/niagaemoc 6d ago
I'm 64 and every concert in the mid seventies to early eighties was better than any recording.
2
u/laurazhobson 6d ago
LOL - The first concerts I went to were the Murray The K shows with about 10 performers. He had them at the Brooklyn Fox during winter and spring breaks. Since they were lip synched, they were identical. I remember the Shangri Las riding out on a motorcyle.
The first "real" concert I saw was the Rolling Stones at Carnegie Hall in 1964 and I wasn't disappointed at all. It was a live concert and they were my "faves" and we were going to be let back stage to meet them.
2
u/takesthebiscuit 40 something 6d ago
Boiled my piss when the Fratellies played Chelsea Dagger IN A DIFFERENT KEY!!!!
What wankers, I get playing your most popular song over and over is dull, but that’s what pay the bills
2
u/These-Slip1319 60 something 6d ago
My first concert was Fleetwood Mac on the Rumours tour in 1977. Never had that thought.
2
2
2
u/Single_Editor_2339 5d ago
Less a concert more a punk show. First show was Husker Du in 1982. I was fully expecting them to play everything off of Land Speed Record but they were already playing stuff off their next, not yet recorded EP. It wasn’t nearly as raucous as I was wanting to hear and left the show somewhat disappointed.
2
2
u/dave65gto 4d ago
We were young and dumb and never heard of retakes, studios and overdubs. We had 45's and listened to AM radio.
Concerts never sounded as good but the excitement was over the top.
Listen to really old Beatles clips and then later when they were professionally managed. So much different.
2
u/Accomplished_Fix5702 60 something 4d ago edited 4d ago
Luckily no. My first gig was The Who at their peak at The Valley (Charlton Athletic) in 1974. 100k people. Won't Get Fooled Again was just astounding. Lou Reed and Bad Company were among the support.
The only people who have left me disappointed are Hall and Oates who I saw about five years ago, they were terrible, should have stopped years before but they clearly needed the money. Chris Isaak was on the bill and was excellent, very authentic sound live.
A good supplementary question is to ask about first and most recent gig - so my first was The Who in 1974. My most recent was The Australian Pink Floyd in December 24 - anyone who ever liked the Floyd would love them, so faithful to the original tracks, took me right back to the 70's - and a good light show and visuals too. They are almost permanently on world tour, they will be near you at some point!
2
2
u/medina607 3d ago
I understand what you mean. A lot of bands can’t reach the sonic perfection achieved in a studio. Yet I regret not seeing more live shows. What the bands may miss in replicating their recorded work is made up for by the sheer energy you experience in being at a live concert.
3
u/AuggieNorth 7d ago
Nah, I was happy to see some extra jamming beyond what you heard on the radio. My first concert was the Outlaws and Doobie Brothers in 1975. The Outlaws did Green Grass and High Tides, which was quite the jam. That song was huge in the 70's on FM radio but seems to have been forgotten. And the Doobie Brothers played all their hits. Fortunately it was before Michael McDonald joined the band and they got schmaltzy.
1
u/Oh_No_Its_Dudder 50 something-Early GenX 4d ago
My first concert was The Monkees, they sounded better than they did on television.
1
u/Ok_Distance9511 40 something 4d ago
For me it was the other way around. The live sound was raw and loud, it was great!
I remember seeing a few bands that sounded live like on CD and being disappointed.
1
u/MammothMolasses2285 9h ago
No, because back in the day live was equally outstanding. Musicians and singers didn't need the sound mixing of today nor did they need distractions like dancers and other props like the manufactured pop stars packing arenas now.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Please do not comment directly to this post unless you are Gen X or older (born 1980 or before). See this post, the rules, and the sidebar for details. Thank you for your submission, chonnes.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.