A Note on Live

I’ve been to a few concerts over the years. There’s a particular charm to seeing someone perform live that you don’t quite get just hearing the record/CD/digital copy of their music. And my experience with concerts has been mostly positive. I’d say that the sheer fact that you’re within water-bottle chucking distance of a celebrity that you’ll never be able to share ass space with almost negates all possibilities of throwing a bad concert.

But it’s possible.

I’ve compiled a list of the things I believe are essential to throwing a good concert. Assuming that none of my readers are celebrities looking to throw a benefit or otherwise rocking good time, my viewers can at least keep some things in mind to look out for.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

First thing is to understand that not every fan in the audience will be the same. Some are casual fans that don’t do this kind of thing often. Then there are more hardcore fans that have high expectations. There will also be concert-goers that don’t even know who’s performing and are only going for the thrill of watching a guitarist jump two feet off a drum set. Each of these, as well as any patron in-between should be catered to, though each has differing levels of expectations. To make sure everyone’s happy, a good concert should be unique. They can play a crappy song and look cool doing it, or they can play some sweet tunes that people will enjoy no matter how they’re playing it. But it’s not that simple. The performer(s) should make sure to do something special. This is, after all, a 50+ dollar concert, not a 12 dollar CD, and you deserve to hear and see something special. Something that won’t be on next year’s tour, something that non-concert goers will be jealous of. The premier of a song from the new album, an acoustic version of an originally electric song, or a special guest performer are all examples that fit this category.

An artist shouldn’t rely entirely on their hits. I’d say on average, a mildly successful artist probably gets around three albums of music, so if a concert allows for 15-20 songs, then at least a few from each album should be covered. If you’re seeing someone with a plethora of albums, like U2, Cher, or Goo Goo Dolls, then they should try and cover as many albums as possible. Of course we all want to hear their hits, especially the newer ones. But just because Bad Romance is newer than Pokerface, doesn’t make Just Dance old news. Die-hard fans such as myself will love variety, so a pleasant surprise may be the unpredicted return of a hit that came out 20 years ago. After all, let’s keep history in mind and honor those that made them famous in the first place.

Something that’s very important is that each tour should be different from the last. Now this goes with the first point, but there will always be fans who attend multiple concerts, and they shouldn’t have to pay for the same show twice unless it’s on the same tour. If there are a couple years of separation between tours, the fans who have already come before should be treated to something new. If the performer is just whipping out the same songs from the last tour, and giving the same performances, with maybe only three or four different songs, that’s just a sign of laziness. It’s acceptable if the tour is a revival of the last tour, but if it’s a new name, it should be a new show. Plain and simple. Likewise, the shows on the same tours should have the same performances. Scheduling conflicts with guest performers is one thing, but there’s no reason that the fans in Seattle should receive a lesser or different performance than the fans in Milwaukee. The top five songs will and frankly should be played at each show, but after that, the artist should at least try to mix it up per tour, otherwise what’s the point of having made the lesser-performed songs in
the first place.

My last point is that there is such a thing as too long of a solo. If it’s a rock concert, there will more than likely be one last solo to end the whole show on. Everyone likes a good solo, there’s just an exciting, epic euphoria you get from it, and what better way to end the show than an audio high? However, sometimes the solo just gets carried away. I recently saw Pat Benetar in concert, and Spider was jamming at the end of Heartbreaker. The solo was almost as long as the song itself, and it wasn’t even a good solo. I mean literally, the solo was exciting and getting everyone’s blood pumping at first, but then it died down a bit so I thought it was over. But then he kept playing very softly, very un-Heartbreaker like. Then he got back up into a whole new groove, which was still very out-of-place, then he went all kinds of crazy, and after two or three minutes of thinking they had started up a whole other song, it finally ended. The major problem with this wasn’t even so much the length, the solo just held a major disconnect from the song it had originally attached to. It didn’t belong at the end of Heartbreaker at all, and it went on for almost an entire song length. Leave the garage jams at home, because that’s not a good way to end a concert.

These are the four things that I believe make for a good concert. To sum up, keep it unique, play good songs, appeal to all types of fans, play more than just the same #1 hits everyone’s already heard, and don’t get too crazy with the final solo. This is only my opinion, so if you disagree and like different performances for different reasons, then by all means. I’m not telling you how to like a concert; just pointing out what I believe makes for a good one. This is nothing more than a hypothesis.