Glide Magazine

[jff]

it's a major hassle. especially when you get a bit older and it becomes a bit harder to ignore the ridiculousness of it all. bar shows starting at midnight, parking fees, opening bands, drunk dudes, etc.

 

I went to Chicago a few moths ago to see a show at the Subterranean. On the front door of the venue was a schedule with the set times for each band. The times were adhered to by all the bands, give or take a few minutes. I was amazed to see that kind of efficiency and thoughtfulness towards the audience after going to hundreds of shows in Atlanta where everyone stands around scratching their ass waiting for the first band to get started. And of course, the first band starts late becase the audience has been trained not to show up until 11:30 or midnight.

 

If you pushed the starting time for every show an hour or two earlier, it'd probably take about a week to train an entire city of concert goers to show up earlier, but as a result you'd probably wind up with a way better music scene. I know plenty of people who would go to a lot more shows and a lot of amazing musicians who would still be playing in bands if the shows didn't start so late and there weren't so many unnecessary hassles.

[quarter23cd]

I don't have time to explain what all is possibly wrong with me, but I've noticed in the last 5 years that I don't get that awesome anticipatory/intensely crazy feeling when i'm at a show (maybe because i no longer rush up to the front). Also I also think live albums are kind of like (it sounds better on the studio album) why do i want a weaker version with poor sound quality. Anyway. I'm a studio album comfort dude. I use to have my mind blown by Wilco live, now I just think this is me an my wife's big night out.

 

This is not as depressing as it sounds!

Despite the whole getting older thing and not getting to very many shows, I am somehow actually more into live music right now...in the form of live recordings (cod bless you, Internet!). I actually prefer (always have, to some degree) the energy and feel of a good live recording to the relative sterility of studio recordings. All depends on the recording, though. A bad live recording, whether a bad official release or a bad AUD recording, is pretty frustrating. But a really good one? Bliss. Again, it all depends on the band and the recording, of course.

 

As for going to shows? Yeah, I don't get to many anymore. I'm not as grumpy as some people about the general idiocy that accompanies the live show experience. Its part of the experience. The cell-phone talkers are about the only thing that really drive me over the edge, but whatever. I long ago gave up the rush-to-the-front thing and am pretty content to roam the back end of the room, looking for a decent sound and sight-lines. Overly-crowded shows are no fun for me, though, when the claustrophobia and anxiety start kicking in, like someone else mentioned. Not to mention that it sucks in those situations to not be very tall. Oh well...

[LouieB]

"Jazz came into its own during the Great Depression." DeRidiculous.....jazz was already a well established musical form prior to the Depression, but it certainly was a major musical force during the Depression if that is what this means. This is one of the reasons I can't stand listening to this guy on Sound Opinions....and don't take his musical criticism very seriously.

 

How did this turn into a live music rant. Not going to join the fray on this, except to say as the old guy here there are plenty of good opportunities (at least in Chicago) to see live music at reasonable hours and with reasonable crowds, although you do have to pick and choose, cause the fucked up issues can still apply. (I am personally sitting out Letters for Santa, even though it has been fun in the past....)

 

(who is John Smith and what part of Central IL are we talking about?)

 

LouieB

[tangara]

(Sidebar: When I poked fun earlier about who doesn't like live music, I didn't mean to suggest that dealing with talkers, hipsters, meatheads, smokers, snorters, stoners, pukers, drunks, baseball hats, crappy opening bands, etc. was enjoyable. Going to see live music sucks ass. Except for the live music part. That's all I meant.)

 

You made me chortle.

[jff]

How did this turn into a live music rant. Not going to join the fray on this, except to say as the old guy here there are plenty of good opportunities (at least in Chicago) to see live music at reasonable hours and with reasonable crowds, although you do have to pick and choose, cause the fucked up issues can still apply.

 

Everyone loves a good rant, no?

 

For the record, my comments were refering to the live music scene in Atlanta. I've been very fortunate to attend (and play) shows in lots of places. I would like for shows in Atlanta to be run on a more predictable time table, similar to my experience in Chicago and other places. In Atlanta, it seems to be a free-for-all. The clubs rarely enforce any type of schedule (except the one that says you have to load in at 7 p.m. even though you don't get to play until 12:30 a.m. or later. ) I think live music would be accessible to a wider demographic than just young people with few responsibilities if everyone knew what time shows would actually start. I also think making live music accessible to as many people as possible would have wide ranging benefits for our society and culture.

[PigSooie]

There is a lot of bullshit on this page about "The Greatest Man That Ever Lived." bobbob is the only one with a clue. Tsk tsk.

[LouieB]

Everyone loves a good rant, no?

 

For the record, my comments were refering to the live music scene in Atlanta. I've been very fortunate to attend (and play) shows in lots of places. I would like for shows in Atlanta to be run on a more predictable time table, similar to my experience in Chicago and other places. In Atlanta, it seems to be a free-for-all. The clubs rarely enforce any type of schedule (except the one that says you have to load in at 7 p.m. even though you don't get to play until 12:30 a.m. or later. ) I think live music would be accessible to a wider demographic than just young people with few responsibilities if everyone knew what time shows would actually start. I also think making live music accessible to as many people as possible would have wide ranging benefits for our society and culture.

Oh yea..one of my favorite rants actually.

 

Chicago clubs have actually started to adhere to time schedules in recent years. They are also playing more early shows and more all ages shows (which sometimes start earlier...), but all venues have a long way to go to making music more friendly for an older demographic. I stilll think that they figure that they sell more drinks to the 20 somethings than they will ever sell to the 40 somethings and up so why not sell all the alcholol you can while you can.

 

LouieB

[quarter23cd]

Heh. The stage-times thing seems like it is more of an issue in the larger cities. I underwent a bit of culture shock a couple years ago when I moved back from attending shows in the NYC-area back to the semi-"big"-town midwest here in Columbus, OH, where every place seems to operate on a curfew and everything is always neatly wrapped up by 11:30. I guess the consistency of start times is nice. I've never really thought about it that way--I usually bitch about it because when there is a show that is really smokin' and you want them to play all night, you know they're only going to make it to about 11:15 or so.

[remphish1]

Seeing shows in NYC is awesome except for 3 things. Ticket prices are the highest in the country, drinks are expensive and the shows get on REAL LATE! I have seen many headlines that take the stage at 11pm (Even on a Monday!) It usually means I get home at 1-2am! Not fun. Other than that NYC gets every show you could think of so it is hard to find much else to complain about.

[mfwahl]

These days, if a show isn't on a Friday or Saturday, I usually take the next day off. That way I can be excited when the band comes out for their 2nd encore instead of looking at my watch.

[jff]

I guess the consistency of start times is nice. I've never really thought about it that way--I usually bitch about it because when there is a show that is really smokin' and you want them to play all night, you know they're only going to make it to about 11:15 or so.

Wow, that's really early. I'd probably go to shows all the time if that's when they ended, but I agree that it's a bummer when strict curfews cut off a great performance.

[jff]

I have seen many headlines that take the stage at 11pm (Even on a Monday!)

 

In Atlanta you're lucky if the first band out of three (or sometimes even four) takes the stage by 10:30 on a weeknight. The headliner winds up playing at 1 am a lot of the time.

 

A couple years ago the city changed last call from 4am to 2:30am, which helped a little, but bands still start unnecessarily late. Or, I should say, the concert goers dick around at home (or don't get off their dishwashing shift) until 11:30-ish before going to hear a band, which encourages bands to get started as late as possible rather than playing to empty rooms.