How do you like your live music served?

Bob Dylan is in town next weekend for a show at Starlight, the same night as Bettye Lavette performs at the Folly Theatre. LaVette is touring off "Interpretations: The British Rock Songbook." Dylan is touring off his whole career. 

Anyone who has seen Dylan live over the past 10 years or so knows what he can do to his own songs: turn them into something strange and completely different, if not even unrecognizable at times. Which prompts a question we've considered here at least once but which came up recently regarding Rush and it's propensity to deliver its songs close to the way they were recorded.

The question: How do you like your live music served. Should your bands stick closely to the album versions? Or do they have license to reconstruct them or change them profoundly? Or is there a middle ground, like what McCartney did with "I've Just Seen A Face" or part of "Something?"

The flip side: When an artist re-interprets famous songs, like LaVette is doing, should they bother re-recording them the way they were originally recorded or should they alter them dramatically?

Let us know. You might get your name in the paper.

Comments

[JJ]

I prefer the middle ground where most of the songs match their original arrangements and a few are reinterpreted. Springsteen usually has new arrangements of a few old songs on every tour. They often become hilights of the shows like the rockin blues version of Reason to Believe on the Magic tour.

[mankvill]

Extended versions of songs are awesome!

[Green]

Thats a tough call, I saw Deer Tick recently and they changed a song, it was longer but it didnt sound as good as the album version, other times I have seen bands take a song and jam with it and really get the crowd into the song, Widespread Panic is great example as in Phish and Moe. I think I am in the middle, keep it close to the studio version but some play on the song can be fun. As long as every song isn't changed into a science experiment I am good.

[Patricia Gray]

The question of an artist reinterpreting their own songs is partly a question of artistry. Sometimes, as a listener, I can't help but wonder how a singer would want to perform the same song over and over without changing it. And if not, does some degree of boredom settle in? It can be very refreshing to hear a song played in new ways. A great example is Eric Clapton's Layla. Both versions hold me, and in very different ways.

On the other side of this question, if the song is so loved, and so well remembered, it's a celebration to share it in its original state. It's not incumbent that the performer do this for crowd pleasing, but when they offer their tune from a space of joy, the live performance becomes a community. Mutual experience, comfy shoes and warm fuzzies don't get old.

The final answer is, both possibilities can work. If you adore the performer, then there is trust, that what they choose has merit. Then, I think it's incumbent on the listener to give it a chance when it's new.

[Josh]

It's okay for a songwriter to change their songs. Songs often times evolve with time due changing bandmembers, voices changing, or just because the songwriter is tired of playing it the same way for X number of years.

[jennifer]

I LOVE to be invited into the evolution of the song from the perspective of the individual who wrote it, or the performer who has given it to an audience. Prefer to see the artist work with and play in his craft, as opposed to painting the same picture over and over again. The voice and instrument are not intended to ever duplicate...and to try to do so, to mimic oneself...well. that is to stymie a new moment of music! That's why we have music to BUY, and why we have radio, and voice recorders....live music is meant to be LIVE. Viva la MOMENT baby!

[pellboy]

Dylan can be the extreme at times but in regards to other artists, I guess it just depends on who I'm seeing and even perhaps how many times I have previously seen them.

I generally like to see a reinterpretation or perhaps an extended jam or two from an act that I've seen multiple times but if seeing an act for the first time, I'm okay with them staying fairly close to the recorded work I'm familiar with.

As for something like the Bettye LaVette cover show/album, I'm all about reimagining those standards in her own image. If I wanted the originals, I would throw on the records or catch some generic cover band run thru them for $5 at the door.

[MetalHEAD]

They can play whatever they want however they want; it's their music.

Personally, I just there for the party anyway...See ya'll at Dylan.

[ReverbTank]

Great vid- that Dylan Unplugged is an underrated album that got swept up in the wake of that watered-down movement. Excellent version of Shooting Star on there too. Off to Old 97’s / Lucero tonight!

[KevRocket]

My favorite rock and roll concert moments are those which truly express a live performance. Be it a change (subtle or dramatic) within the song or what appears to be spontaneous portion within a particular tune. Any other way and live music seems too antiseptic. Yes it’s amazing to hear someone play a note for note solo. However to my ears where’s the fun, personality or expression in that? It’s rock and roll, not a math problem.

Paul McCartney's keyboardist typically plays an accordion on Michelle. The original recording does not have an accordion part however this instrumentation compliments this particular tune perfectly. Quite subtle yet cool.

When I saw Dylan at the Missouri State Fair a few years ago it sounded like he changed the lyrics in Highway 61 Revisited to Highway 65. Said Highway 65 runs right behind the fairgrounds. Then again he may have been ordering a funnel cake, but it sure sounded like he said Highway 65.

[Natacha VonBraun]

"Knockin' on Heaven's Door" was the perfect example for an argument for artists changing the way the perform their songs. Dylan of the early '70s was a different person, as well as artist, from who he is now. For a singer to continue playing songs as they originally released would be to remain some sort of nostalgia act. To find new ways of interpreting words first sung 30 years ago is a way of remaining fresh.

[jjskck]

I'm all for changing a song's cadence, instrumentation, mood, what have you. It serves to keep a song fresh, both for the fans who have heard it dozens of times and for the band that has played it thousands of times.

But there's a fine line. I think when the original artist strays TOO far from the original song--for example, changing the melody or chords so that it's unrecognizable--it's as if he or she is disowning it in a way. To me, that's a disservice to the fans who paid to see THAT artist perform THAT song.

When it comes to artists covering others' songs, they can do whatever they want. If they make bad choices, they'll be savaged. If they make good choices, they'll be respected.

[Graham Reaper]

Extende versions of songs kick ass. Ween does this well.

[ABC]

I think Bert Parks (yes the Miss America guy) did the best Maggies farm in the movie The Freshman.

[Ronnie]

I'm for artists switching it up live. If I wanted to listen to an exact version I would stay home, listen to the cd, and drink cheaper beer.

[A.O.]

As long as they don't play medleys, we're ok. Medleys suck.

[kmoon]

A songwriter usually knows how much they can embellish their own song. You just have to know which songs can be changed & what can't. Jams are great sometimes. But, never, ever, change the chords... that is messed up!

[wadkc]

Sing along bands i.e. pop/rock bands = album versions. Jazz and Jam = have at it.

[ron]

I prefer it when there is some resemblance to the original song. Those are the songs that made us love the artist in the first place. My wife and I went to see Paul Simon many years ago, and it was very disappointing. So many of his great songs were reinterpreted into something unrecognizable. If we wanted to hear world music or jazz, we would go to a world music or jazz concert. We went to see Paul Simon because we love Paul Simon songs.

I can understand that the artist can get sick of playing the same thing over and over. So I'm okay with variations, extended versions, etc. as long as the original is still there and we are able to sing along with it.

[Darrell]

I think the audience's expectations play a crucial role in how much an artist can choose to reinterpret their own material. It seems that a lot of people go to shows these days to hear a recital of comfortably familiar hits, and their attention can wander if they are presented with too much new or unfamiliar material.

Artists like Bob Dylan and Neil Young have worked many years to cultivate audiences that will follow them through their changes. An artist like Bettye Lavette appeals to a more sophisticated listener who might be disappointed if too much of the show was familiar.

It seems to me that more people come to shows in 2010 to be entertained rather than to listen. This may not bode well for the future of live popular music, but could be great news for mass marketeers and salesmen.

[wadkc]

Darrell,

Great comment about entertainment vs. listening. I've noticed it in people dancing also. They don't care if it has a great beat or sound to groove to, they would rather sing/yell the chorus or hook and stand around waiting for it to come around in the song again. What happened to just liking to dance?

[Hans]

I have never heard such a crap, so I have to answer to this posting:

//My wife and I went to see Paul Simon many years ago, and it was very disappointing. So many of his great songs were reinterpreted into something unrecognizable.//

b) If you want to hear the songs exactly as on the CD, then please stay at home and listen to the CD. Paul Simon is a genius at re-interpreting songs - but mostly he even does not change them because the audience always wants to hear the same version. So what you write is absolute untrue - name me those songs!? You think an artist who wrote a songs like Bridge for a band namend Simon and Garfunkel, should play this song note for note since 40 years? Every night? For 1000 shows? Come one, he is not an android.
You are an ignorant concert visitor, which should better stay at home, because you understand nothing (NOTHING) about music or musicians. Better someone should steal all your CD's

b) Paul Simon is known as a 'world musician' too since Graceland, so what you write makes even less sense.

[Ellen K.]

I don't think a performer should have to stick to copying the recording. Live music should be something more than that that, more alive.

But, too many songs done too differently I wouldn't like, and I think is unfair to fans.

Songs should certainly stay recognizable, without perhaps some very rare exceptions. But they shouldn't copycat the studio recordings. One can depart a little or a lot from the studio version while keeping it recognizable.

[Ellen K.]

Oops... Make that without a with.