When bands play their songs faster in concert

[soundsweird]

I was just listening to Gentle Giant's "GG at the GG" CD in the car, and I noticed that many of the songs are played much faster than the studio versions. I have to say that I prefer hearing them at the original tempo. I'm sure some bands do this to keep the energy level up in a concert setting, or maybe get an extra song in if there's limited amount of time. However, I don't want a 5-minute song I love to be squeezed into four minutes, and I don't want it to come across as rushed and sloppy (this performance is certainly not as good as those on my other live GG albums). I guess it wouldn't be a problem if we're talking about a band that plays simple 4/4 rock songs, but Gentle Giant? Anyway, who else does this, and how do you feel about it?

[NogbadTheBad]

Motorhead. Fucking brilliant live, much faster, No Sleep Til Hammersmith, definitive.

[3LockBox]

YES. Their tempos have been slower for decades. Slower tempos smack of being tired. Faster tempos evoke energy.

[Dave (in MA)]

It's not all that fast, but after you hear Man on the Silver Mountain from the live album, the studio version sounds like it's at the wrong speed.

[viukkis]

Zappa's Roxy & Elsewhere and You Can't Do That on Stage Anymore Vol. 2 were recorded nine months apart, but the difference in tempos is staggering. If I remember correctly, Zappa mentions this in the liner notes of the latter and comments that these things tend to happen when you play the same material night after night for long enough.

[No Pride]

I was just listening to Gentle Giant's "GG at the GG" CD in the car, and I noticed that many of the songs are played much faster than the studio versions. I have to say that I prefer hearing them at the original tempo. I'm sure some bands do this to keep the energy level up in a concert setting, or maybe get an extra song in if there's limited amount of time. However, I don't want a 5-minute song I love to be squeezed into four minutes, and I don't want it to come across as rushed and sloppy (this performance is certainly not as good as those on my other live GG albums). I guess it wouldn't be a problem if we're talking about a band that plays simple 4/4 rock songs, but Gentle Giant? Anyway, who else does this, and how do you feel about it?

Lots of bands do this and maybe sometimes it's not intentional, but more often, it is. It's the myth that faster tempo = more energy. I don't buy into it in most cases, although I suppose if a tune is largely fast for the sake of being fast (like The Mahavishnu Orchestra, for instance), it doesn't hurt to play it even faster live... if you can still pull it off cleanly. But I'd like to think that the original tempo of a tune is initially chosen because that's where it feels best; that's where it grooves and a lot of the time, if you play it faster, it doesn't groove in the way it was intended to. As a professional musician, I've learned to keep my mouth shut if it isn't MY band, but while in a situation where we're playing a tune too fast (which happens a lot), I'm often thinking, "man, it sounds stupid at this tempo."

In picking the lesser of two evils, I guess "too fast" is better than "too slow." But the closer to the original tempo, the better, at least imo.

[Yves]

I have to assume that as musicians age, they may not have the chops required to play at the original recorded tempo, and you get a lot of bands playing slower. I think of the anecdote Geddy Lee relates in the Rush movie when he and Alex played YYZ with Dave Grohl during a Foo Fighters show in Toronto. Dave was playing it at album speed but they were used to playing it slower now and were having a tough time keeping up.

[markwoll]

It seems like a lot of shows These Days are timed pretty closely with background videos, set changes, and other programming.
Adjusting the tempo, etc may make a show 'fit' better to the program structure.

[No Pride]

I have to assume that as musicians age, they may not have the chops required to play at the original recorded tempo, and you get a lot of bands playing slower.

Age is no excuse unless you have tendonitis, arthritis, or some debilitating affliction that prevents you from being able to do what you once could. I suppose it's a matter of how important it is to you to keep your chops up. I hate to generalize, but it seems like it's often more important to jazz musicians. Look at someone like Chick Corea; he's 72 now and still has ridiculously heavy chops. If you don't use it, you'll lose it.

[pb2015]

The Miles Davis 60's "second quintet" was a famous example of a band playing songs much faster than the original versions. I like it.

[No Pride]

The Miles Davis 60's "second quintet" was a famous example of a band playing songs much faster than the original versions. I like it.

I do too, but they were a strange anomaly; they made these awesome studio recordings and hardly played any of that material live. Instead, they were playing older Miles material from albums they weren't even on. And conceptually, they were in a whole different (and more modern) ballpark than the players on the original albums where the repertoire was culled from. Anyway, I think it's a little different for jazz, where the tunes play second fiddle to the improvisation, which is the main attraction.

[Ten Thumbs]

It was reported often enough in interviews that Gentle Giant considered recording and live performance as separate entities, different environments. I'll say headphone listening vs arena and multi-use function halls listening. GG rearranged songs or portions of songs live (Knots, On Reflection for example), as well as the Octopus medley and acoustic guitar duet medley. I liked that live, that the music was similar yet different, and that during a set they gave short pieces of some songs in medleys when there wasn't the time to add another full four or five songs into a set. They crafted songs in the studio and they rocked on the road. Recording was creating in a secluded environ, and on stage was loudness, lights, sweat, some showmanship, crowd reaction, so I'm not surprised that some songs were at faster tempo. Live albums and dvds can only convey some elements of a performance, they're just different than being in the room during the show. How many albums have I bought from hearing a band live for the first time, and then feeling the album doesn't live up to live impression I got of them. That happened with both my son and I on the recent Steven Wilson tour, we liked the concert way more than the album.

[Reid]

Look at someone like Chick Corea; he's 72 now and still has ridiculously heavy chops. If you don't use it, you'll lose it.

He's actually 74. Speaking of older cats with great chops, I just found out Larry Coryell is playing at a club about a quarter mile from my house on Sunday night. I'll be there!

[happytheman]

Take a Pebble was played way too fast (IMHO) on Welcome Back.. Keith plays it beautifully on their first album..

[rapidfirerob]

I also feel songs should be played at the original tempo in concert. I'd actually rather do it a hair slower than too fast. When
the vocalist has trouble fitting in all the words, it's time to slow down. As a bassist, I'm constantly working to keep the tempo
in the pocket. Ah, it feels good now!

[trurl]

Sometimes a faster tempo live works- BOC comes to mind; a lot of their songs were a little slow in the studio- but a lot of times playing too fast live takes away a groove the original had. Yes and ELP were both guilty of that, among others but the worst was Focus. Hocus Pocus turned into a comedy polka live.

[arabicadabra]

Speaking of that live album, anybody have any thoughts about the intro to Tarkus? :)


Take a Pebble was played way too fast (IMHO) on Welcome Back.. Keith plays it beautifully on their first album..

[Halmyre]

I saw a televised Roxy Music concert some time ago, dating from late 80s/early 90s, which rampaged through the songs as if Ferry had a hot date lined up for later.

[llanwydd]

The only example that comes to mind is "Hoedown" (ELP). I much prefer the uptempo live version. I doubt they would have opened a concert with their original version.

[rcarlberg]

Zappa mentions this in the liner notes of the latter and comments that these things tend to happen when you play the same material night after night for long enough.That would be the drummer's fault. It's up to him -- usually -- to set the tempo live. Sometimes a drummer likes to push the band just to bust their balls. Sometimes he does it because he's higher than a kite.

Sometimes it's because he just watched "That Thing You Do." :)

[NogbadTheBad]

Sometimes it's because he just watched "That Thing You Do." :)

Or Whiplash?

That Thing You Do is a pretty good movie.

[trurl]

The only example that comes to mind is "Hoedown" (ELP). I much prefer the uptempo live version. I doubt they would have opened a concert with their original version.
There are songs that exist to be playe as fast as humanly possible; Hoedown is one. :D

That would be the drummer's fault. It's up to him -- usually -- to set the tempo live. Sometimes a drummer likes to push the band just to bust their balls. Sometimes he does it because he's higher than a kite. Sometimes it's because he just watched "That Thing You Do." :)

Well Frank is right though; playing a song constantly over and over has the same numbing effect that drugs and sex can have. You need to push the speed envelope to get the same thrill out of it. And the whole band can be susceptible. Of course, that's a rationalization, not an excuse for it. That's what I think happened to Focus and Hocus Pocus; it ceased to be a piece of music to them and became a contest.

[rcarlberg]

There are songs that exist to be played as fast as humanly possible; Hoedown is one."Flight of the Bumblebee" is another. :D

[trurl]

"Flight of the Bumblebee" is another. :D

Yeah, I almost sad that :D And Dueling Banjos.

[klothos]

In picking the lesser of two evils, I guess "too fast" is better than "too slow." But the closer to the original tempo, the better, at least imo.

Depends if the band is locking-in and feeling it all at a certain tempo as a collective.....Sometimes, its the musicians themselves doing it - some nights 105 BPM for a song seems slower than the previous night at the same tempo (the variance comes from the preceding songs of the set so its just human error perception). Many times, its the drummer: I find that if a drummer can play on-the-beat with a fatbacked snare in tandem with a push bass player, this usually creates great energy and keeps tempos where they are supposed to be. On the other hand, a "push" drummer usually causes the whole band to go off-to-the-races and I have to work with double-effort to anchor the SOB (I'll wind up keeping time at that point). Then I'll get done with the show, Im way more tired than I should be (its even more of a slap in the face when the drummer gets all the praises from the band for being awesome and Im a sweaty mess thinking "WTF?").....Youre not a bass player (well, you know what I mean) so you dont have to deal with the actual implementation of the timing as much as I do......

[trurl]

One thing I've really learned over the years is that it's hard- not impossible, but hard- to have a good band where one guy is the guy trying to keep the train on the tracks tempo-wise, be it the drummer, bass player or even the rare case where it's the guitar-player. When everyone, or at least the majority of the rhythm section, can lock in, you have a good thing. That's part of why Zep was so great back in the day, imho. You didn't have Jonesy and Bonham looking at each other going, dammit! Slow the f**k down! They just locked and Jimmy was generally not working aginst them either.

[GuitarGeek]

Iron Maiden is another band that had a habit of playing the songs faster onstage. Compare the Live After Death version of Hallowed By Thy Name to the studio version. I never actually noticed it until I saw the Classic Albums show on Number Of The Beast, and Bruce talks about the tempos creeping up once they got onstage. And if you're trying to sing stuff like Hallowed..., and the rest of the band was moving at freight train pace, it's gonna be hard to get those words out, do it on key, in time with the rest of the band, and without passing out from oxygen deprivation.

[PeterG]

Motorhead. Fucking brilliant live, much faster, No Sleep Til Hammersmith, definitive.

Not only one of the best live metal albums of all time but one of the best live albums, all genres, of all time. And, as you may know, despite the title The Hammersmith Odeon was not played on their 1981 tour (Norfolk, Leeds, Newcastle, Belfast).

[WytchCrypt]

The 1st band that came to mind was Hawkwind. I love how they played super fast versions of Assault & Battery/Magnu/Master of the Universe/etc beginning in the late 80's with Friday Rock Show through the early 90's live albums like California Brainstorm ;)

[PeterG]

Iron Maiden is another band that had a habit of playing the songs faster onstage. Compare the Live After Death version of Hallowed By Thy Name to the studio version. I never actually noticed it until I saw the Classic Albums show on Number Of The Beast, and Bruce talks about the tempos creeping up once they got onstage. And if you're trying to sing stuff like Hallowed..., and the rest of the band was moving at freight train pace, it's gonna be hard to get those words out, do it on key, in time with the rest of the band, and without passing out from oxygen deprivation.

I saw Maiden with Blaze once, and the songs felt the same as on album.

[JJ88]

My favourite live recording by any rock act is The Rolling Stones' 'Brussels Affair', and my favourite live track by anyone is also from that, 'Midnight Rambler'. The tempo is hyper-speed in parts, but totally thrilling.

[GuitarGeek]

The 1st band that came to mind was Hawkwind. I love how they played super fast versions of Assault & Battery/Magnu/Master of the Universe/etc beginning in the late 80's with Friday Rock Show through the early 90's live albums like California Brainstorm ;)

They were already speeding tempos up on Space Ritual. Compare Master Of The Universe on that album to it's studio incarnation.

[GuitarGeek]

I saw Maiden with Blaze once, and the songs felt the same as on album.

The Blaze era was loooong after Live After Death.

[No Pride]

Depends if the band is locking-in and feeling it all at a certain tempo as a collective.....Sometimes, its the musicians themselves doing it - some nights 105 BPM for a song seems slower than the previous night at the same tempo (the variance comes from the preceding songs of the set so its just human error perception). Many times, its the drummer: I find that if a drummer can play on-the-beat with a fatbacked snare in tandem with a push bass player, this usually creates great energy and keeps tempos where they are supposed to be. On the other hand, a "push" drummer usually causes the whole band to go off-to-the-races and I have to work with double-effort to anchor the SOB (I'll wind up keeping time at that point). Then I'll get done with the show, Im way more tired than I should be (its even more of a slap in the face when the drummer gets all the praises from the band for being awesome and Im a sweaty mess thinking "WTF?").....Youre not a bass player (well, you know what I mean) so you dont have to deal with the actual implementation of the timing as much as I do......

I used to do gigs with a drummer who did a lot of studio work in the '70s (when there was a lot of studio work to be had). His specialty was playing just in back of the beat and in that situation where there was always a click track, he sounded really good. However, when playing live with no click, he'd always want to play in back of everybody else and when the rest of the rhythm section (particularly the bass player) would try to lock in to where he was at, he'd pull back further, causing the whole band to drag the tempo. It was maddening and it took a lot of people criticizing him before he realized that what he was doing wasn't working.

A long time ago, I tried my hand at playing bass. I was in a band where the bass player played guitar and the band leader would let us switch for the last set. We had a dragging drummer and I discovered just how hard it was trying to be the anchor. It's a lot more work and a lot less fun than it should be.

These days, the band I work with the most has a drummer who has a natural tendency to rush. He's a great player in all other respects, but he has that one fatal flaw. He CAN keep a steady tempo if he concentrates enough, but he's an emotional player and often forgets to keep himself in check. And when he takes off, we have no choice but to ride on the speeding train. Interestingly, the other band I work with consistently has a drummer that doesn't have half of that other guy's flair, chops or creativity, but his tempos are very consistent and I've come to greatly appreciate that. If I could put both of their DNA in a blender, I'd have one perfect drummer. :)

[WytchCrypt]

They were already speeding tempos up on Space Ritual. Compare Master Of The Universe on that album to it's studio incarnation.

Cool. Never heard Space Ritual...the earliest Hawkwind live album I have is Hawklords Live and I don't recall that one being drastically sped up ;)

[NogbadTheBad]

Cool. Never heard Space Ritual...the earliest Hawkwind live album I have is Hawklords Live and I don't recall that one being drastically sped up ;)

Space Ritual is their definitive album to my mind.

[NogbadTheBad]

Not only one of the best live metal albums of all time but one of the best live albums, all genres, of all time. And, as you may know, despite the title The Hammersmith Odeon was not played on their 1981 tour (Norfolk, Leeds, Newcastle, Belfast).

I love playing the original Hawkwind version of the track Motorhead back to back with the live version Motorhead play on No Sleep. It's like 3X the speed but both version work really well.

[GuitarGeek]

Cool. Never heard Space Ritual...the earliest Hawkwind live album I have is Hawklords Live and I don't recall that one being drastically sped up ;)


Dude, you've seriously never heard Space Ritual?! That's like one of the greatest records ever!

[GuitarGeek]

I love playing the original Hawkwind version of the track Motorhead back to back with the live version Motorhead play on No Sleep. It's like 3X the speed but both version work really well.

Which Hawkwind version? There's two. One was the B-side of the Kings Of Speed single (with Lemmy on vocals), then they redid it a number of years later, way after Lemmy left the band.

That drum fill that kicks off the Kings Of Speed B-side I always thought was really cool, it almost sounds like Simon King shouldn't have been able to land on the one coming out of that fill, but somehow he does.

[NogbadTheBad]

The Lemmy version

[WytchCrypt]

Dude, you've seriously never heard Space Ritual?! That's like one of the greatest records ever!

Nope...started with Warrior on the Edge of Time and worked my way forward...have to put this one on my list ;)

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

Replying to the original topic....

"Any band with a drummer!"

Ba-dump-kssh!

I'll be here all week....tip your waitress!

[Jay G]

Not sure they still play this fast but saw ACDC on a couple of tours in the mid 80s and they played the songs so fast coupled with not saying a word to the audience between songs they finished 20 songs in about a hour 20 minutes.

[bigjohnwayne]

I've always been a proponent of playing songs faster live.

Yes, yes if you have a delicate song you need to make it breathe, but let's not pretend that any of these songs are Stravinsky's Firebird.

But dammit, every time I hear the Firebird I want it played faster too.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MdJcjl42D0


I read something somewhere (it may have been in Legs McNeil's Please Kill Me, that definitive oral history of first generation punk, or somewhere else) that one of the English punk bands, The Clash I think, went out on their first tour with a 40 minute set prepared and by the last date of the tour they had sped it up so much that they were playing it in 22 minutes or something like that. Right on.

One more factoid from the scary world of punk: Husker Du's debut record was called "Land Speed Record".

Semper fi. Play fast, dammit

[Flightwave]

Marillion's "Garden Party" is hit-or-miss live IMO because they tend to really speed it up (on occasions at least). Doesn't work fast.

[bigjohnwayne]

Marillion's "Garden Party" is hit-or-miss live IMO because they tend to really speed it up (on occasions at least). Doesn't work fast.

I have always felt the opposite. I can barely listen to the original now because of my preference for the faster version on Real to Real/Brief Encounter. (Although, I forgot that album existed for a while. I used to love that record. I always thought the Fugazi material sounded much better live than in the studio)

[JJ88]

^The drumming on the studio 'Garden Party' is absolutely shocking IMHO.

[nosebone]

He's actually 74. Speaking of older cats with great chops, I just found out Larry Coryell is playing at a club about a quarter mile from my house on Sunday night. I'll be there!


John McLaughlin is another oldster with monster chops.

He's blazing on his latest album, Black Light .

[Plasmatopia]

I guess for some people this is the rhythmic equivalent of not being able to get past a singer not having absolutely perfect pitch or having the songs transposed to different keys.

I think it really depends on the song. Sometimes faster (or slower) will feel right. I'm not sure it can always be said that the right tempo was chosen when the studio version was recorded.

Personally, when I'm playing in a band, I can tolerate more subtle and gradual increases in tempo. I don't always have the best sense of timing myself. I do recall being extremely annoyed when my brother was playing drums in a band with me. He's a really smart guy, one of those people who can teach himself anything and he has a very mathematical mind well-suited to playing all sorts of complicated stuff. But on certain tunes the tempo would just go down, and down, and down...and I (playing bass at that time) fought him all the way. You'd think being brothers we'd have some sort of telepathy or that he'd be able to read my signals...nope. That band didn't last long.

[Nijinsky Hind]

My wife and I saw Molly Hatchet at the Walla Walla County Fair and she filmed the band doing their song Whiskey man with her cellphone... The sound was nothing but static when we viewed it later.... So she dubbed in the album version behind her film.... Look at how well synced this is. Its almost perfect. The show was just this year... The album released many many moons ago.
http://youtu.be/_r-fR5LsGLM

[kid_runningfox]

In picking the lesser of two evils, I guess "too fast" is better than "too slow." But the closer to the original tempo, the better, at least imo.

Unless you're OZZY-era Black Sabbath, who specialized in playing many of their songs live much slower than on the records, thereby making them sound absolutely massive in the process.

[bob_32_116]

Merely slowing the tempo is usually a bad idea, but slowing a song down can work if they also change things by putting a few extra flourishes in.

Probably the worst example I have seen of "too slow" is a clip of Willy de Ville performing "Mixed Up Shook Up Girl". It was done at about half the speed of the single, and was awful. He must have been exhausted from jetlag or something.