We DEMAND 'Oh My God' at the upcoming shows

[wight gunner]

I'd rather hear "Coma" but then I'll be a "Downloading mutherfucker" tuning in from here in Blighty....

[Mysteron]

Giev!

Post here if you want it too, yah...

To be fair, the country of Norway demand peculiar choices given their Eurovision points year after year    .

If we are to vote on a new song being played live, I would go for Estranged or Coma. JMO though.

[norway]

To be fair, the country of Norway demand peculiar choices given their Eurovision points year after year    .

I think Norway has been the only country that, pridefully, gotten a clean zero in MGP, that takes skill.

[Loaded NightraiN]

I crossed the border in '10 to Hamilton, cause it was imminent a US tour was not in the plans @ that time...

I would be fucking THRILLED to get that same show again.. I listen to all of those songs on my ipod daily, why would i be disappointed to hear them live? Anything added would be purely a bonus.. I just don't get setlist criers sometimes

[D]

shit while we are demanding.. lets throw in Estranged, new songs and Axl bringing back the catcher's vest.

[Bodhi]

Axl bringing back the catcher's vest.

YES!!!!!!!!!!

[Limulus]

so an official (Proshot) youtube-broadcast with soundboard audio, signed by bands/management, from Rio is a "bootleg"? 

Usually bands allow their shows to be broadcast. If you make a recording of it, you have a bootleg.

the point here was that an "allowed" Proshot tv broadcast is mostly high quality and no bootleg, other as you seemed to believe in your post, other than an audience recording would be. and "bootleg" is a word with a negative touch on it as its often based on $$$ because of sellers. a better description would be an unofficial recording (AUD or PRO/SBD) because there are many tapers taping and releasing it for free.

There's a difference in sharing the experience with people who can't be present in Rio de Janeiro, and performing for he people who aren't present.

the difference aint present on the broadcast/stream, Jarmo, all people can see and hear the same and experience the same thing, just throgh an different medium than being there.

doesnt change anything, people can judge a band from a live broadcast, bootleg, being there. its just different takes, i did that with Rock Am Ring myself for example....turned out i had different thoughts on about what songs worked great live there, f.e. i didnt realize "Nightrain" being that killer when hearing/seeing it live but the tv broadcast proved me wrong; i've thought "SCOM" was sung well by Axl...but that turned out being not true at all.
the excitement part of being @ a live show often can be misleading in this.

No. You judge a live show by being there. That's the whole point. If you enjoyed something, it was your natural reaction. Not based on some TV production. Camera angles etc. Why do you think concert reviews are actually based on the writer being at the show (hopefully) instead of watching clips on Youtube?

so you never "judged" Ritz88, Paris92, Rio2001? 
eh, no secret that people can judge shows from different perspectives (exspecially these days), they'll always do. if people listen to official soundboard FLACs from Metallica of a show they can judge it, even if they didnt attend it. you sound like that they arent allowed to do so, doesnt work.
as said before there are different takes of judging "live shows".

[jarmo]

the point here was that an "allowed" Proshot tv broadcast is mostly high quality and no bootleg, other as you seemed to believe in your post, other than an audience recording would be. and "bootleg" is a word with a negative touch on it as its often based on $$$ because of sellers. a better description would be an unofficial recording (AUD or PRO/SBD) because there are many tapers taping and releasing it for free.

It's still a bootleg unless it's sanctioned by the artist.

A bootleg recording is an audio and/or video recording of a performance that was not officially released by the artist or under other legal authority.

 

the difference aint present on the broadcast/stream, Jarmo, all people can see and hear the same and experience the same thing, just throgh an different medium than being there

If you use that logic, every show will be available to people who weren't there in some form. Audio or video bootleg.

I bet in most cases, artists do not play for those people who will be listening or watching bootleg recordings.

Now, let's say you are recording a TV special, a video (DVD/Bluray), a movie or something similar, with the intent to make it available, then it's different. Then you obviously might wanna pay attention to what the experience will look like to those who were not there when it was recorded.


There's a difference between playing a show that is web cast, and doing a web cast and inviting people to watch it in person.

so you never "judged" Ritz88, Paris92, Rio2001? 

I wouldn't write concert reviews based on watching those....

eh, no secret that people can judge shows from different perspectives (exspecially these days), they'll always do. if people listen to official soundboard FLACs from Metallica of a show they can judge it, even if they didnt attend it. you sound like that they arent allowed to do so, doesnt work.
as said before there are different takes of judging "live shows".

That's like watching the Travel Channel and telling people you went on holidays to all these places.

Would you do that?





/jarmo

[Limulus]

- the old "bootleg" term is more of a pre-internet up-/download times where you mostly only could get shows by paying for it. this is different now, time to "move on" and no need to label it with that old definition. it remains being an unofficial live recording.

- so what? people do get this live show in a form, in this case "officially" with professional cameras and soundboard audio on youtube. and they have the right to talk about it, judge it, whatever. many do that! its a different way with technology giving the possibility to do so. parts of St. Louis91 have been used in courtroom, being watched and judged after. by your logic they wouldnt be allowed to do so...but reality is different! and i bet my ass that the Judge and his hangman werent @ that show. i'm sure you talked about parts from shows like ritz88, paris92, rio01 and/or others in your posts here aswell.....even if you didnt attend them yourself.

- listening to official live audio from Metallicas FLAC releases (which they offer from about every show for years now!) or listening/watching high quality unofficial recordings doesnt give you the right to judge the show or to talk about? come on! your defensive mode doesnt work here, neither does your Travel Channel example. you're twisting it up here, people dont say "hey, i was at this show" when listening to an live recording of a show they didnt attend. but they can get a lot out of it, at points even much more than the casual concert goer, thats a fact to me! i'm not trying to bring down the "real" live experiences when being @ shows (actually i for myself am watching a lot live shows real "live"). the point of being near the bands you like to see is exciting already! but when it comes to do some kind of more objective show analyzing/judging or whatever to call it..... people can and are allowed to so with a good quality live recording. the best probably would be doing all of that: being there live + an official live audio/video recording + (very) good unofficial audio/video recordings.

[jarmo]

No matter what you call it, it's still not sanctioned by the band.

- so what? people do get this live show in a form, in this case "officially" with professional cameras and soundboard audio on youtube. and they have the right to talk about it, judge it, whatever. many do that! its a different way with technology giving the possibility to do so. parts of St. Louis91 have been used in courtroom, being watched and judged after. by your logic they wouldnt be allowed to do so...but reality is different! and i bet my ass that the Judge and his hangman werent @ that show. i'm sure you talked about parts from shows like ritz88, paris92, rio01 and/or others in your posts here aswell.....even if you didnt attend them yourself.

You need to realize the difference. As usual you don't seem to understand the point.

You can talk about it all you want, but it still isn't the same as attending.

It's a recording of something. Just like a photo.

You can look at a picture of something that happened and comment on it. But it's not the same as being there at the time when the picture was taken.


Having something broadcast does not mean the artist is performing for the broadcast audience.

You need to realize that.

- listening to official live audio from Metallicas FLAC releases (which they offer from about every show for years now!) or listening/watching high quality unofficial recordings doesnt give you the right to judge the show or to talk about? come on! your defensive mode doesnt work here, neither does your Travel Channel example. you're twisting it up here, people dont say "hey, i was at this show" when listening to an live recording of a show they didnt attend. but they can get a lot out of it, at points even much more than the casual concert goer, thats a fact to me! i'm not trying to bring down the "real" live experiences when being @ shows (actually i for myself am watching a lot live shows real "live"). the point of being near the bands you like to see is exciting already! but when it comes to do some kind of more objective show analyzing/judging or whatever to call it..... people can and are allowed to so with a good quality live recording. the best probably would be doing all of that: being there live + an official live audio/video recording + (very) good unofficial audio/video recordings.

I'm glad they are giving you things to talk about and judge!

I hope you are happy about it.


"Objective show analyzing?"

So you had the greatest night of your life at a concert that you thought was the best concert you ever saw.

Then you watch the bootleg and realize the artist fucked up some solos and forgot some lyrics. Does it mean you didn't have the greatest time of your life and it wasn't the best concert you ever saw?


How about you listening to some FLACs of a concert. And the artist played all the songs you love, all your favorites. It's your dream setlist. Is it the best concert they ever did? "I wasn't there, but I heard the recording and it was the best ever show".



Feel free to judge live shows based on bootlegs, if that's what you wanna spend your time on.

But make sure you realize that the band isn't playing for you when they are on stage. Unless they say so...

I bet most artists are not concerned about pleasing those who will watch the show as a downloaded DVD a few months later when they are on stage and get instant feedback from the audience...



It's pretty evident in the Youtube clip...

"It's the same setlist...."

That could be you.





/jarmo

[norway]

But...omg is special!

[Limulus]

No matter what you call it, it's still not sanctioned by the band.

thats what it is, an unofficial live recording, thanks for finally not giving it that negative old description.

Then you watch the bootleg [...]

ouch!

You need to realize the difference. As usual you don't seem to understand the point.
You can talk about it all you want, but it still isn't the same as attending.
It's a recording of something. Just like a photo.
You can look at a picture of something that happened and comment on it. But it's not the same as being there at the time when the picture was taken.
Having something broadcast does not mean the artist is performing for the broadcast audience. You need to realize that.

Ha, i never said thats the same, funny twisting again by you making it sound like that! the "point" was not that a live recording is the same than the live experience being @ the show, the point still is that people are able to judge/talk about etc. shows from a proper (un-)official live recording even not being there and that it often can give them a better overview in terms of objective show judgement. it also doesnt give you the good time with the band and other fans there, but it can give you a different good time 

I'm glad they are giving you things to talk about and judge! I hope you are happy about it. "Objective show analyzing?"
So you had the greatest night of your life at a concert that you thought was the best concert you ever saw.
Then you watch the bootleg and realize the artist fucked up some solos and forgot some lyrics. Does it mean you didn't have the greatest time of your life and it wasn't the best concert you ever saw?

assumed i'd have a quality recording, it does mean that my live impressions of the show were no good when it comes to show judging, mostly based by the excitement of being there, jumping, dancing, drinking, whatever. i've had to learn that a couple of times myself, also with other bands, one of them even releasing it as Proshot. that doesnt mean i did not have about one of the greatest times there.

How about you listening to some FLACs of a concert. And the artist played all the songs you love, all your favorites. It's your dream setlist. Is it the best concert they ever did? "I wasn't there, but I heard the recording and it was the best ever show".

that would only work in the case of a "dream setlist", yeah. a dream setlist doesnt gurantuee you that the musisicans did perform it best though.
but yes, in most cases i'd liked to attend that show myself.

Feel free to judge live shows based on [*edit]unofficial live recordings[*/edit], if that's what you wanna spend your time on.

thank you for realizing that people are doing that, thank you for finally realizing "the point", and many more thanks for "allowing" me to do so  !

But make sure you realize that the band isn't playing for you when they are on stage. Unless they say so...
I bet most artists are not concerned about pleasing those who will watch the show as a downloaded DVD a few months later when they are on stage and get instant feedback from the audience...

no need to make sure, thats obvious. and -again- it wont stop people listening/watching/judging them, some bands "realized" that, too.

It's pretty evident in the Youtube clip...
"It's the same setlist...."
That could be you.

the "rant" fits some things properly, some things he seems to be wrong. do we have some exact transription from it? i couldnt understand all the words exactly, based on a "poor" recording.
i hope you did attend the show from your youtube-clip [Puerto Rico 10/29/2006], your argumentation wouldnt make sense otherwise.

[jarmo]

Ha, i never said thats the same, funny twisting again by you making it sound like that! the "point" was not that a live recording is the same than the live experience being @ the show, the point still is that people are able to judge/talk about etc. shows from a proper (un-)official live recording even not being there and that it often can give them a better overview in terms of objective show judgement. it also doesnt give you the good time with the band and other fans there, but it can give you a different good time 

"Objective show judgement". 

It's a live show, enjoy it and stop worrying about "objective show judgement". 

assumed i'd have a quality recording, it does mean that my live impressions of the show were no good when it comes to show judging, mostly based by the excitement of being there, jumping, dancing, drinking, whatever. i've had to learn that a couple of times myself, also with other bands, one of them even releasing it as Proshot. that doesnt mean i did not have about one of the greatest times there.

Actually, I think your impressions were your true feelings. Not "objective show judgement".

That's the problem. Some of you are too concerned about what others think so you act like you're some kind of journalist reviewing the show.

Looking for faults so nobody thinks you're not "objective".

thank you for realizing that people are doing that, thank you for finally realizing "the point", and many more thanks for "allowing" me to do so  !

You're pretty much reviewing bootleg recordings of a concert, not a concert.

To me there's a difference.

Yes, I can look at a video and say "Nice performance!". It's normal.

But I don't use that to make something called "objective show judgement".

How is it objective? You're pretty much looking for faults so you can list them.

I can enjoy a concert DVD, it's nice to watch those.

But I know it's very different to being there. You are your own camera man, director etc. when you are in the audience and decide where to look instead of looking at what the director chose to focus on.

the "rant" fits some things properly, some things he seems to be wrong. do we have some exact transription from it? i couldnt understand all the words exactly, based on a "poor" recording.
i hope you did attend the show from your youtube-clip [Puerto Rico 10/29/2006], your argumentation wouldnt make sense otherwise.

Unlike you, I'm not judging the show based on that clip. 

Just using it as an example, a document of an event, of how the subject of the "rant" reminds me of you and your never ending quest.




/jarmo

[Mr. Redman]

I met Tommy three times this year, and one of the things I had him sign was...

[norway]

Godlike!

[One.In.A.Million]

I met Tommy three times this year, and one of the things I had him sign was...

Man, this is just as Godlike as finding out the true spelling to Chris' last name. 

That is very impressive, and I fully agree with the sentiments of Oh My God being played live this tour. This song is too good to not be mentioned again, Guns should surprise people and just perform it straight off the cuff, would put alot of diehards fainting or passing out when it kicked in.