Famous rock bands that don't have the ability to play their music live

I disagree with Metallica - sure it's a bit different live but they certainly pull it off (nb my knowledge of Metallica ends around year 2000, perhaps they've lost their mojo nowadays).

How about the RHCP though? Sure, the band can play, but damn - Kiedis is a terrible signer live.

Grateful Dead

I've seen both bands 2-3 times, but Smashing Pumpkins and RHCP aren't the best live shows. i am particularly a big Pumpkins fan too.

An Econ Major wrote:

Grateful Dead

That makes sense considering that they were created by the CIA

Milly Vanilli

Bee gees

compressed wrote:

I disagree with Metallica - sure it's a bit different live but they certainly pull it off (nb my knowledge of Metallica ends around year 2000, perhaps they've lost their mojo nowadays).

How about the RHCP though? Sure, the band can play, but damn - Kiedis is a terrible signer live.

I disagree about Metallica too. I've seen them live several times, and they don't lose anything compared to the record. Tempos are no different (if anything, they're even faster live), and they can still play the hell out of their entire catalog. Robert Trujillo and Kirk Hammett in particular are incredible musicians. James and Lars are less musically talented, but they're great at what they do, and they've not lost a step at all. Now that they're sober, they may be even better than they were in their 80s young-and-hungry phase.

Semaphore Slim wrote:

What are some famous rock bands that could never play their songs the same way as on the record?

The following are some that I'm aware of because I listen to their music:

* Metallica: Even when they were in their prime, they would simplify or slow down some of their songs

* Most metal bands today

* Steely Dan: The whole Aja album was stitched together and they couldn't play

* The Beatles: Never did the Sgt. Peppers concept album live. Too much studio magic involved.

Who else?

I'm a big Def Leppard fan, and they're great live, but I'll admit they sound pretty different than their records.

Milli Vanilli. They were like completely different musicians in the studio vs. on stage.

I didn't go to the concert so I don't know how it sounded but about 10 years ago Steely Dan went on tour and played two concerts at every stop. One concert, every song on the Aja album was played and the 2nd concert, every song on The Royal Scam album was played. I didn't go because Steely Dan wanted to much cash for a ticket to get into the concert hall.

I'm not sure who started the fad of playing the whole album in order. It might have been Bruce Springsteen.

different musicians wrote:

Milli Vanilli. They were like completely different musicians in the studio vs. on stage.

Especially the dead guy.

The Royal Scam wrote:

I didn't go to the concert so I don't know how it sounded but about 10 years ago Steely Dan went on tour and played two concerts at every stop. One concert, every song on the Aja album was played and the 2nd concert, every song on The Royal Scam album was played. I didn't go because Steely Dan wanted to much cash for a ticket to get into the concert hall.

I'm not sure who started the fad of playing the whole album in order. It might have been Bruce Springsteen.

It's much easier to play live if you're just lip synching while someone spins the disc for you backstage. Were the songs in order with pauses while the singer set up each one?

U2 can't play their stuff live since Edge can't play five guitars at once.

Semaphore Slim wrote:

What are some famous rock bands that could never play their songs the same way as on the record?

The following are some that I'm aware of because I listen to their music:

* Metallica: Even when they were in their prime, they would simplify or slow down some of their songs

* Most metal bands today

* Steely Dan: The whole Aja album was stitched together and they couldn't play

* The Beatles: Never did the Sgt. Peppers concept album live. Too much studio magic involved.

Who else?

You clearly know nothing about the Beatles.

Semaphore Slim wrote:

* The Beatles: Never did the Sgt. Peppers concept album live. Too much studio magic involved.

The Beatles stopped performing live in 1966, before Sgt. Pepper was released.

You clearly have never been to a U2 concert. The Edge can do anything with effects...

D. Schoo wrote:

You clearly have never been to a U2 concert. The Edge can do anything with effects...

The Beach Boys were a rag tag bunch, Brian didn't travel well, Dennis sucked on drums, and Bruce Johnson and Glenn Campbell filled in on guitars and singing.

I think that Flea is one of the best live performers ever. And a strong contender for the best bassist of his generation. Frusciante was amazing live too and could do some magic with a stratocaster. Chad is great as well and Anthony has a great presence (voice-wise I could see the argument). So I don't really agree with you.

Sometimes it really isn't about being able to play live, it's more like the recording capabilities weren't that great to begin with so it looks/sounds s***ty

A few great ones live:

1) Pretenders, tight and strong still to this day

2) The Police, years back, incredible and only the three of them, playing about 4 instruments/pedals each

3) Bruce Hornsby, great set a few years back

4) Toto, still good, some of the best professional musicians of their generation

5) Tom Petty, wish I would have seen him last year

Terrible live:

1) The Cars; ugh, Ocasek sucked ballls live, wished for my money back when I saw them

2) Eddy Money; hoarse and likely drunk on stage, just a real arsehole that night

3) Drive By Truckers; supposed to be good, but pitchy and weak when I saw them

4) Simple Minds, sloppy live

5) Journey, with that little weird dude trying to sound like Perry; just weird

6) Yes, several years ago; Howe looked 100 years old, the whole band sounded rubbery and tired; disappointing as hell