So I last left 1993 with 8/24 Vancouver
Replaying it today for the heck of it to kick this run back off and running 
Here were my highlight notes from a year or so ago:
8/24
Chalkdust Torture
It's Ice (cool latin jam!)
SOAM
Maze
Mike's (Type II metal jam!)>
Ginseng>
Weekapaug
Rift
Suzy Greenberg (MIND BLOWING SUZY!)
Antelope
Going through my 1993 notes and listening to 8/24 and 8/25 got me
thinking about what makes a classic/frickin awesome show then versus,
say, a 2011 gig.
Major difference is that 1993 is much more inconsistent - wait, hear me out - they are still growing and there are more amazing moments perhaps from gig to gig, but when you have as much setlist repetition, things can get much staler much quicker than in later shows where setlists are more "colorful" because of the larger number of songs.
Does that make sense?
On the whole you pretty much won't find a poor show in 1993, BUT, because the bar is kinda set so high, the tendency for the shows to completely blow you away from start to finish isn't as prevalent.
The heights reached are as high as ever, but the filler is more filler-ey sometimes.
Gosh, I don't know how to explain what I mean.
But - just using 2011 as an example because I just did it - the occasional "wackiness" of some of these sets doesn't necessarily equal greatness. And on the whole the playing level is so high that a lot of times things don't stand out as much, perhaps.
In a 2011 gig it's probably more...notable?....when a GREAT version appears because it's not totally as 100 percent guaranteed as in 1993.
Does anyone get what I'm trying to say?
Very, VERY different listening to one year versus the other - same band, same players but it's just DIFFERENT in a good way
Major difference is that 1993 is much more inconsistent - wait, hear me out - they are still growing and there are more amazing moments perhaps from gig to gig, but when you have as much setlist repetition, things can get much staler much quicker than in later shows where setlists are more "colorful" because of the larger number of songs.
Does that make sense?
On the whole you pretty much won't find a poor show in 1993, BUT, because the bar is kinda set so high, the tendency for the shows to completely blow you away from start to finish isn't as prevalent.
The heights reached are as high as ever, but the filler is more filler-ey sometimes.
Gosh, I don't know how to explain what I mean.
But - just using 2011 as an example because I just did it - the occasional "wackiness" of some of these sets doesn't necessarily equal greatness. And on the whole the playing level is so high that a lot of times things don't stand out as much, perhaps.
In a 2011 gig it's probably more...notable?....when a GREAT version appears because it's not totally as 100 percent guaranteed as in 1993.
Does anyone get what I'm trying to say?
Very, VERY different listening to one year versus the other - same band, same players but it's just DIFFERENT in a good way
8/24/93 was a pretty good show with highlights here and there, but to me the guys seemed kinda lethargic. The energy level felt down to me. Not one I'll likely be returning to. Hey, for every up show you gotta have a "meh" show to balance it out
No comments:
Post a Comment