Concerning this whole thread-
If watching one or two guys stare at their screens makes for such a bad
show, then why is Underworld considered one of the best live acts around?
Answer: really good songs. It sure doesn't hurt that they always have a
couple thousand (probably closer to ten at the bigger festivals) sweaty kids
on the floor dancing through their entire set.
But would they be any less exciting playing in a club to 100 people?
The only bit of scheduling that should've been done differently at Coachella
last year was putting the Chemical Brothers on the main stage at the same
time Underworld was on the second stage. There were over fifteen thousand
people (standing, sitting, bobbing their heads) watching the Chemical
Brothers and only about five at the Underworld stage, yet their performance
was a hundred times more entertaining/energetic/enjoyable because the kids
were loving it, Karl was doing his "funky white boy" dance that only Beck
can do better, and they have more engaging songs. Oh, and their final encore
of "Moaner" that night was so noisy and so brutally heavy (really!), I
thought I'd died and gone to heaven. Nothing the Chemicals could've done
could've made me feel like that. It's too bad the new live Underworld album
is mixed with so much midrange and so little low end that I find it barely
tolerable.
My point being- the music takes priority over all else. The first time I saw
Lexaunculpt or Electric Company or Phoenecia, I was totally enthralled not
for any stage antics or visuals or fuzzy dancing bears, but for the music.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org