lunar wrote:Yeah, and I saw a show in Paradiso, Amsterdam where Bob Weston was trying to locate his ugly green coat that someone took as memorabilia...
I bet it was never found...

Actually, it was Jim O'Rourke's girlfriend's coat. She got it back. Admittedly, that was one of our worst shows ever. I broke (in separate incidents) four guitar strings during the set, and there was a lot of down time. That's when Bob started asking about the coat -- to cover the dead air caused by my poor instrument technique and maintenance.
-steve

SchnappM wrote:But if I WERE in a band and I saw someone selling bootlegs of one of my shows for their own personal profit, I'd get pissed, they didn't make the the music they were selling, they're making money off of my sweat.

I absolutely hate show taping, and your complaint above has never entered my mind. I don't give a shit if someone makes money from an activity that tangentially (?) includes me. I don't care.

I hate show taping and the tapers (by extension) because they are not at the show, really. They are working on a private project -- one that is likely to be a distraction to others.

Rather than being a part of the event -- participating in it with everyone else, the taper is making a perverse (bad sounding) audio-only abstraction of an event that (if all is working well) should provide an overwhelming five-sense experience, and an opportunity to share in a transitory moment and a unique occurrance.

Instead, the taper makes his tape. The next day, maybe he listens to it, but more likely puts it in a box with the other shows he was present at but didn't "attend," and gets back to his study of gameboy cheats, devoid of a genuine sense of camraderie and unenlightened about the experience he was ignoring.

But if I were to go into a club and tape a Shellac show, what I'm recording is supposed to be for public consumption anyway.

When you buy a ticket for a show, you are going to get one. You get your money's worth, whether you enjoy the experience or not. The show, not a recording session. Take off your headphones, open your eyes and be part of the show. That's what it's there for.

I'm sure countless brilliant moments from my favorite bands are lost to me because I didn't go to the particular shows where they occurred. Those people who did were there, and I wasn't. That's why I make the effort to go to shows, so I can see things and be part of them. I have heard live recordings of "incredible" shows, and, well, they're pretty credible after all.

The sound is only a small part of the show, and I can't imagine wanting a shitty version of it for anything other than novelty.

If you go to a show, drink it all in. Give it all your attention (and I don't just mean the performance) so you can get the full madness of it.

Even a bad gig can be enlightening. There's a pool players' expression for the experience of sitting in the chair while your opponent takes his time in running out the game -- you're "getting the full suffer."

Some of my most vivid memories of gigs are of really bad ones -- ones where I got the full suffer -- and hearing a recording of them wouldn't even get close.

In closing, the show is more than the sound. The sound as poorly transcribed is nothing but sound, and without the experience of the show is meaningless.
best,

steve wrote:In closing, the show is more than the sound. The sound as poorly transcribed is nothing but sound, and without the experience of the show is meaningless.
best,

Purely for the sake of curiousity and enlightenment (here goes my curiosity again), how would you describe Alan Lomax's work, in light of this discussion?

Chris

I'd say Lomax's work had some loftier aims than a Shellac completist, but that's just me.

Lomax sought to show how the human race used the dichotomy of divergence and similarity in musics to create a history of themselves.

Also, the fuckin' guy risked his life to record some of the most powerful music I've ever heard. Racist Southern Cops don't usually have a cover charge.

Seriously...the breadth and scope of Alan Lomax is incredible. Not only his work, but his goals and interpretation of his catalog are something you could spend a good chunk of yr life sorting through.

But I see yr point, there is an aspect of field recording to recording shows, but it's a stretch, in my opinion. Shows are presentations of music, not the music itself. That's on the LP.

cgarges wrote:

steve wrote:In closing, the show is more than the sound. The sound as poorly transcribed is nothing but sound, and without the experience of the show is meaningless.
best,

Purely for the sake of curiousity and enlightenment (here goes my curiosity again), how would you describe Alan Lomax's work, in light of this discussion?

Chris

Lomax didn't parasitically record shows -- he set-up specific recording sessions with the musicians. He would occasionally (church meetings and Sacred Harp sings) record events that were going on anyway, but they weren't concert events like we've been discussing.

best

excuse me chris,but,if i'm correct alan lomax used to document private performances,not shows.
he wasn't a show-taper.he was more of an "archivist"...
ciao!

I can see where you're coming from, Steve, but I still think show taping can be useful. I understand that it's not as great as being there, and if given a choice between a bootleg or the live show, anybody would pick the live show. However, there are some bootlegs that I'd rather listen to than some bands' properly recorded material. And although I recognize that most bands wouldn't want people's opinions of them to rest on a poorly recorded live show, sometimes that's all some bands have. I'm not really talking about Shellac here, because their (your) records are pretty much comprehensive, but bands like Neutral Milk Hotel have left some of their best songs unrecorded, and there are bands (Lightning Bolt) that didn't record anything until like halfway through the band's life (as of right now, at least, I hope those guys go on a lot longer) and as a result there is a wealth of material that will never again be heard unless they get their lead singer back, or unless a bootleg exists of it. And then there are bands like Jackie-O Motherfucker that are just kinda weird and just release a lot of stuff in very low quantities, but I'm fairly certain that most of it is recorded live.

And your logic that the person who pays for the ticket and doesn't get the show is missing out is kind of out there. I mean, you can get kicked out of a venue for taping; can you get kicked out of a venue for being one of those haters who just talks to someone else the whole show? Or even worse, one of those pussies who wears earplugs and doesn't really get the full effect of the show?

Rather than being a part of the event -- participating in it with everyone else, the taper is making a perverse (bad sounding) audio-only abstraction of an event that (if all is working well) should provide an overwhelming five-sense experience

So should he/she try to record it in 5.1 Surroundtm To get one step closer?

SchnappM wrote: Or even worse, one of those pussies who wears earplugs and doesn't really get the full effect of the show?

How does protecting your hearing make you a pussy?

I guess you probably don't wear a seatbelt cause you think your friends will make fun of you.

The one part of the live show phenomenon that I could do without is blaring tinitus and the fear of losing the ability to make good sounding records.

meow,
mike

Yeah, but you can't hear shit if you wear earplugs. You'd be better off just going to fewer shows if you really want to keep your hearing.