Cynicism with age....

[SteveStrummerUK]

A very interesting topic, and I definitely understand the OP's (and others') cynicism to some extent.

Over the past 20 years or so, I've attended many gigs where the headline act (and often the support) started out in the 60's or 70's, and thoroughly enjoyed them all. I agree, one has to make the occasional concession to age, but for me nothing really beats the live experience - especially when you know the band onstage is firing on all cylinders and giving it everything.

Those of you who've known me for a while will already know the bands I see regularly (Judas Priest, Saxon, The Stranglers) and I'm sure those who have seen any of them recently will know they always deliver a great performance. For sure, Halford cannot consistently hit the highs he did when I first saw 'Priest(1982) but he adjusts his pitch accordingly without losing the impact of the songs. Meanwhile, Biff seems to get better with age!

Another compelling reason to see all three of these bands is that they are all still writing, releasing albums and playing their new stuff on tour. Although they do all play a good selection of their 'greatest hits' so to speak, the setlists generally stay quite fresh and interesting.

In that time period, the only band I saw where all I did want was for them to play the old stuff was on one of the 2014 Status Quo 'Frantic Four' reunion dates. To see the original line up crank out the songs they'd recorded 40-ish years previously was pure nostalgia and the overwhelming reaction from us old buggers in the crowd genuinely surprised them I think.

Having said all that, I live just 20-odd miles from Villa Park football ground where the much-anticipated Black Sabbath reunion gig takes place next month and despite the nostalgia bait on offer, I've not been able to convince myself to (even try and) buy a ticket. I guess there is a cut-off point for all of us.

 

 

[Terry Kelley]

Too be fair there were/are singers that can't sing live what they sang in the studio originally. Ignore the "night after night" aspect.  Night after night does take a toll even with training and care. 

The vocal gymnastics in the studio are great but when live deviates too much, well, no ... I would rather they thought about if they could sing it live regardless of singing it night after night. 

I love Led Zepplin but I never saw them live where Robert Plant was even remotely close to the record even in his twenties (or remember the correct lyrics.)

[hockeyjx]

2 hours ago, Terry Kelley said:

The vocal gymnastics in the studio are great but when live deviates too much, well, no ... I would rather they thought about if they could sing it live regardless of singing it night after night. 

I look at that as "if I could paint the Mona Lisa once, I would". There is a difference between creation and touring; and I certainly don't envy artists(especially in the modern day) needing to make a living touring. I've always had a grandiose idea of music, and never cared if I could reproduce it live. But there are those that only want to do it  if they can do it live (as it appears that Terry is in that camp). No wrong or right ...except to what we would PAY for.

[Notes_Norton]

I toured in the 60s and 70s, and I'm doing one-nighters now.

I'm singing better than I ever did. Why? I keep at it, and know how to do it to protect my voice. Most pop singers just sing improperly. Why? You don't need lessons to sing. It's easy to sing wrong and still sound good.

My high range is better, my low range is fuller, and with the experience I've gained, I'm more expressive.

I'm playing sax, wind synth and guitar better than ever, too. Though I haven't improved much on drums, flute, bass, or keyboards.

But at today's ticket prices, for a concert, it had better be one of my favorite symphonies. I'll go to a nightclub to hear jazz. And I don't think I'd ever pay to hear a tribute band.

 

[craigb]

(Bob's a show off! 😜)