Australian Pink Floyd Live

Steve,

The fact that Bjorn again didn't impress does not automatically mean that every other cover band is equally disappointing.

I have no problem with cover bands who cover artists who no longer tour and who do a good job reproducing the material. Far better for the people I went with to have heard Floyd's music played well live than to have never done so. My partner has now stated that she can understand what all the fuss about Floyd is having been at the gig last night.

You miss a lot in life if you narrow your horizons.

Jonathan

Steve, does the BPO's lack of ability to write their own material (they will keep doing that Beethoven stuff, time after time...) mean that their concerts aren't worthwhile?

Does something like Keith Jarrett's Standards Trio generally sticking to, errr, standards rather than the flights of improvisational originality displayed by the likes of the Koln Concert render them pointless timewasters?

If not, why apply the same standards to rock bands? The point of a tribute band is that music is generally given an extra something by being performed live, and they give you an opportunity for a live rendition of something you wouldn't otherwise get to hear in that format.

One of the greatest concerts I've attended was Mass in B Minor with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra supporting Dundee Choral Union and 4 good, though hardly superstar, soloists. So we had a range from amateurs through to a well regarded at national level chamber orchestra. For technical performance I could do better listening to my CD at home, but there is no way I'd swap the energy and joie de vivre of the live event with a mere recording.

Of course, you can get good tribute bands and bad tribute bands, but the existence of the latter is no more a reason to not see any than having Michael Bolton slaughtering "When a Man Loves a Woman" put you off soul music for life.

Pete.

"Aren't orchestras (string quartets, etc) created to perform music specifically written for that purpose?"

The purpose of any music is generally to be performed. Just because someone writes their own music and performs it doesn't necessarily invalidate someone else performing it. I don't ever recall any of the Beatles saying nobody else should perform their music.

"Jarrett - Also writes his own stuff as well as interpreting other peoples does he not?"

He does. And your point is...? Why does composing your own material suddenly make it alright to cover other people, while not composing doesn't? Many of the greatest performers across all idioms of music never composed much, if anything. Many/Most classical superstars, instrumental and vocal, Sinatra, Aretha Franklin and so on. So is the Queen of Soul a talent free nonentity?

"However, some bunch of non-entities doing note for note covers, to my mind, doesn't add anything to the original material. A Gilmour solo is the real thing, a copy isn't."

Whether a note for note cover adds anything is irrelevant: that the audience themselves have a chance to add something is the point of live atmosphere. If someone, anyone, turns in a great performance of a piece I like and it lifts all the audience with it, so what if it wasn't the person that originally played it? And define "non-entity"... Think of Jimmy Page butchering Stairway to Heaven at Live Aid having recently consumed the entire Colombian drug export output for 6 months, and think if any number of anonymous session men wouldn't have done a better job in keeping the crowd along with a favourite classic. I prefer butter to substitutes, but not when the butter's rancid.

"It's like comparing G D Rosetti's 'Beata Beatrix'
with some copy; it can never have the power of the original."

So what? If it has positive power, that still puts you ahead, even if you're not as far ahead. You're effectively saying second best absolutely won't do. In which case why bother with your pathetic little stereo when it can never have the power of 3 500s, dbls, 52 and a cds2. Waste of time Steve, just pass it on to me...

Pete.