I prefer to hear the music live the way I first encountered it on the radio or first heard it on the album / CD. Doesnt have to be an exact reproduction, but a reasonable facsimile would be nice. Some bands will change the entire fucking song into something totally different, add or eliminate music, the singer wont sing it the way it is on the original cut. Which bands are the worst offenders of this and does it bother you when they do?

no it doesn't bother me at all. if I wanted to hear exact duplication of the album version, I'd listen to the album. granted if you go see the Police and all you want to hear is Don't Stand So Close to Me and they play a raggae version of it, you'd probably be pissed. but i really like improvisation, it's part of the live experience.

no it doesn't bother me at all. if I wanted to hear exact duplication of the album version, I'd listen to the album. granted if you go see the Police and all you want to hear is Don't Stand So Close to Me and they play a raggae version of it, you'd probably be pissed. but i really like improvisation, it's part of the live experience.

Mettallica does a medley of their early stuff.....hate that..

Tonight Tonight

well to this point- doesn't that song have a lot of strings or non-guitar instruments? for example I saw Blur twice touring for the same album- an album that was heavy on horns and such. The first time they were just a 4 piece band, the next time they had a horn section with them. so yeah, with music that isn't just guitar/bass/drums you tend to get more improvisation just because a band isn't going to lug an entire orchestra around with them on tour

as for the original question though, I find Yo La Tengo are one band that does a great deal of improvisation life and not just guitar solos, the entire structure is different which I think was badrogue's original point

Aye, it just begs the question, would a person even have started liking a particular band if the way they play a song in concert is so far removed from the way they originally recorded it . Im sure that doing this livens up the song for the band who are tired of playing the same song a zillion times if they've been around awhile, but in doing so , makes the song a shadow of what it used to be. Some people would not buy the ticket to see the band if they knew songs they came to hear were going to be changed so much.

bands don't fiddle with their songs to make their songs worse...they are trying to make them more interesting for themselves and the audience.

if there is a 5 minute jam in the middle of big hit song X by super band J, does that make the song a shadow of what it used to be?

i think that stuff is cool and lends to the experience of the live show.

Have you had some sort of bad experience that is bringing up all this anger?

What about when some third-rate act does a shitty cover of a classic in concert? Like this one time a friend dragged (drug?) me to a Joni Mitchell/Bob Dylan show. And Dylan did a cover of one my favorite Jimi Hendrix tunes. But it was all wrong--nasally vocals and slowed down, chuggy/bouncy sound instead of the driving sound of Hendrix' original. I was like "learn to write your own songs, old man!"

What about when some third-rate act does a shitty cover of a classic in concert? Like this one time a friend dragged (drug?) me to a Joni Mitchell/Bob Dylan show. And Dylan did a cover of one of my favorite Jimi Hendrix tunes. But it was all wrong--nasally vocals and slowed down, chuggy/bouncy sound instead of the driving sound of Hendrix' original. I was like "learn to write your own songs, old man!"

well...the recorded version of Tonight Tonight is pretty gay.

But some of these assholes seem to get off on changing the tone

A lot of times when these bands change "tone" (tune down), they are doing so to accomodate their singer. As a U2 fan, you should be very familiar with this.

Im talking about Adam Duritz taking 11 minutes to sing the 4 minute long Round Here so he can put 20 second pauses between words.