Live shows - original or improv?

What sort of a performance do you prefer in a live show?

1. Do you want the band/artist to stick to what they did on their albums without any substantial change cause you shouldn't mess with what is already good/excellent/perfect?

2. Or do you want improvisations, jam sessions and alternative versions of the familiar songs?

Give examples.

sleeper wrote: Id go for the second option, Dream Theater turned Hollow Years from a poor pop-rock attempt to an amazing pice of art by adding a spanish guitar themed intro and the most amazing 3 minute solo towards the end that i have ever heard. All in all it was increased from 4 to 9 minutes and it was one of the highlights of the Live At Budokan CD's

But if they were to alter a great song of theirs you really love, would you appreciate it better than to hear the original version?

Edited by avestin

I like a bit of improv, though nothing too excessive. Sometimes just an adding a word or two to the orginal lyrics can make a song so much better (eg "A mask" before the Rothery solo in Incubus from Live in Loreley), while an extended 5 minute guitar and keyboard solo can detract from the orginal. For that reason I prefer artists to do a couple of songs with a fair amount of improv and the rest with just a slightly altered lick or lyric.

I saw all 3 ELP shows at Royal Albert Hall in '92 and whilst being thrilled to have finally seen them for the first time ever I was really disappointed that each show was exactly the same, even the same corny gags between tunes. I assumed it was because of the complexity of their music but it took the edge of the event....

I was therefore thrilled when I saw Keith Emerson's Nice a few years ago ( again saw them 3 times) at the amount of improv between the band, KE and Dave Kilminster trading licks and trying to outdo each other, Blinky bashing away on the drums, it was fabulous and fun. A good time was had by all. Each show was different and unique. I have much fonder memories of these shows.

.....and then there is VdGG who can head off at times into often dangerous territory at any moment...

 

 

I think it really depends on the band. As examples, Yes tends to learn toward recreating their songs to closely sounding like the original studio tracks with little variation, and I believe their fans appreciate the fact that they can do so. But bands like King Crimson are known for their improvisations and the fans expect to hear some in concert and they usually do. Crimson is smart by separating the written material from the improvs, instead of inserting improvs into the songs themselves. A whole spontanious improv live can be very exciting. I can appreciate both aspects. Sleeper has a good point about bands improving a dull studio track into an improved live song. I've heard many bands do this too, and was usually happy with the new and improved arrangements of those songs. One thing that really annoys me though is when a band member leaves and is replaced with another, and that new band member plays their own bit in a song that was written while the previous member was in the band. An example of this was when Rick Wakeman left Yes and was replaced by Patrick Moraz. Moraz was great when doing the Relayer material that was part of his studio outing with Yes, but he was GOD AWFUL doing the Wakeman bits. This changed the sound of the songs completely, while the other members of Yes played their parts exactly as written. It was like taking certain parts of a Beethoven symphony and changing it. It just didn't work, and didn't sound right. There are certain classic songs they should be presented as close to the original as possible, since the jukebox in our minds have ingrained us to that original piece.        

How about non-improvisational rearranging of material a la GG?

Live shows that just rehash the albums are an insult to live music.

yargh wrote: Live shows that just rehash the albums are an insult to live music.

Now I wouldent go quite that far but I do like live music to at least match the overall feal and quality of studio recorded material, and improve on it were possible.

Sadley Ive never had the chance to see King Crimson perform on stage but i do very like the idea that they jam a lot on stage, its something that could make each show unique. 

I prefer Improv live shows, that way shows will be different one from another and not too repetitive .. but hey, thats my point of view ..

Some of my favourite bands are great at and known for lots of improvisations live - Gong, Guru Guru, Hawkwind, Van der Graaf Generator (also Peter Hammill solo). With VdGG or Hammill it is never clear how long an improvisational passage will last; all musicians look at Hammill all the time while playing, and when he gives a sign they know it is time to return to the normal song structure. I have watched this in Hammill concerts several times (only saw one VdGG gig so far, this year in London); it is really amazing how well it works. And I love these wild improvisational parts.

I would really hate it if an artist or a band played their material the same way they played it on the studio albums; why should I go to such a concert?