A debate on whether Live still matters, Interesting Blogger Discussion Options

[SJN1279]

http://unscene.blogspot.com/2007/07/debate...live-still.html

July 11, 2007
A debate about whether the band Live still matters

Last week, my friend Daniel (who knows way more about pop music than I do and should be a famous writer by now) had a friendly debate about Live. I was not kind to them in an essay that'll be out in the Inlander tomorrow. But here are both sides of the story.


JOEL: OK. This is about the Live/Collective Soul show, but how much we talk about Collective Soul may be limited by the fact that there is nothing interesting about them.


DANIEL: It's true: they, Hootie and the Blowfish and Toad the Wet Sprocket (to some extent) are all the nineties listening equivalent to drinking a glass of water.


JOEL: My problem with Live, I guess, is that while the earnest spritual-ness and general rocking out were great for me in the mid-90's, they got more and more clunky, both with their music and lyrics. And of course, the three simple words Birds of Pray are exhibit A. (Not that I even heard that album, to be fair -- did that have "Heaven" on it?)


DANIEL: Ok, yes, "Heaven" was Creed-ish, but not nearly a fair representation of the album. The song "Like I Do" is possibly one of the best songs of their entire catalog. That, in my mind, brings up one of the largest problems in pop music as of late: the death of the album. Live is a band who has constantly ignored the critics, yet maintained a consistently strong and loyal fan base.


JOEL: Actually, I think Heaven is a good song. I kind of got choked up when I heard it on the radio, while I was also thinking, "Live is still around?"


DANIEL: It is a great pop song, but easily pigeonholed.


JOEL: How much of your love for Live is based on nostalgia? Percentagewise.


DANIEL: 25%, maybe. Honestly, I was so belligerently against pop music at that stage of my youth, I didn't get into them sincerely until "Secret Samadhi". If my love for them is based on nostalgia, then my love for David Bowie must be also. I've followed their careers equally consistantly, yet I didn't get into Bowie until '93.


JOEL: Interesting. I figure that for our generation -- if we measure time in singles -- Live was really an "important band" starting with "Lightning Crashes," and ending with "the Dolphin's Cry." I'm trying to figure out why they stopped feeling relevant to pop culture at large and started to become what they seem to be now, which is either a nostalgia act or a band with a "cult following." I honestly don't feel like they sound much different than they used to, but I do think they've succumbed to something many 90's bands have, which is sort of sounding like a caricature of themselves.


DANIEL: You've just admitted to not having heard their most recent albums, yet think they sound like a caricature of themselves? I would say their pop culture importance cycle would start with "Pain Lies on the Riverside" or, if you didn't watch 120 Minutes, "I Alone" and ENDED with "Lightning Crashes", maybe "Turn My Head." The point is that the pop culture radar is no meter of musical validity.


JOEL: No no no -- "Throwing Copper" and "Secret Samadhi" are totally their cultural apex. A string of flawless singles from Lightning Crashes, I Alone, etc etc etc all the way through Turn My Head. Anyway, touché about the caricature thing. But: the American Idol thing. Does it lower their status in any way? What did it mean for Live? Did it prove something?

DANIEL: I feel out-of-the-loop. American Idol thing?

JOEL: Oh man.

DANIEL: Oh no.

JOEL: They performed their song "Mystery" with Chris Daughtry, a Kowalcyzk-alike who was on American Idol and whose whole persona was an homage to Live.You can actually listen to it on their myspace page I don't think it's "bad," but I feel like it's a strange place for a band like Live to be.

DANIEL: I hate Daughtry. I hear his version of "Daniel" at work 5 times a day. I hate, hate hate him. But that's not a sellout measure. We live in the most consumer-oriented age that has ever existed. Paul McCartney is the first musician on Starbucks' label, yet The Beatles top every cheesy 'Best of Whatever' list in every magazine ever. American Idol sucks, but Live has not sold out other than that moment ever in their career, despite suceess that would warrant cola endorsement.

JOEL: Right, we don't necessarily believe in "selling out" anymore. On the other hand, sometimes I feel like Live -- considering Kowalcyzk's rampant focus on spirituality --being as famous/major label-ensconced as they are is not unlike Rage Against the Machine's being on a major label and selling $40 concert tix. If you feel that strongly about love/peace/God/meditation/etc, why is your career selling records and playing Greyhound Park?

DANIEL: That feels like you defeated your own argument. If they were being hypocritical semi-spiritual rockers, whose actions are counter to their lyrics, their last album would have been called How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. They're playing at the Greyhound Park, not Wembley Stadium. The venue alone speaks for their desire to make the music they want to make and not follow pop music trends.

JOEL: You keep saying they're not following pop trends...but really? I mean, writing songs with Glen "Hitmaker 2000" Ballard? Return of the Mummy Soundtrack? Paid fanclub? I'd accept the argument that they're a worthwhile band, but not that they don't follow pop trends. I'm more inclined to think that bands of their ilk HAVE to follow those trends to some extent.

DANIEL: I'm going to disagree with you in their case. This may be my bias speaking, but the proof of following pop trends is monetary of Billboard chart success, neither of which were achieved with Ballard, the Mummy or the fanclub.


JOEL: The notion of "Pop trends" is a tricky beast to pin down. Kelly Clarkson had her tour cancelled because her records weren't selling, but her whole career is built on pop trends.


DANIEL: The song of the Return of the Mummy Soundtrack, "Forever May not Be Long Enough" was very experimental in respect to their established sound. In fact, the entire album it was from, "V" was their most experimental anti-Live record to date.

JOEL: I liked "simple creed" but I seemed to remember really disliking the other songs I heard...obviously I'm not the best person to be arguing the side of the debate I've ended up on since I stopped listening after Secret Samadhi. But maybe the debate shouldn't be "Does live still matter" or even "is Live any good" but "is this a nostalgia tour and how does that make us feel?" For you, it seems not to be a nostalgia tour, because you are one of (I think) the relative few who stuck with them. For me, It's like bringing up everything I felt about music and life when I was 16

DANIEL: It may be a nostalgia tour for a few people. Those people know 75% of the words to Lightning Crashes, and lip-sync to it while swaying in a frat bar just before last call. I'm guessing most of the people at this show will know most, if not all of the lyrics. Live fans are die hard fans. I hate to liken them to Pearl Jam or Phish, but the fan base is as sincere.

JOEL: That seems like a very apt comparison. But these are bands that have outlived their commercial viability, parading around for some reason, none of them having records to support except maybe greatest hits. That’s a pretty cynical thing to say, because I know they still have fans. But not NEW fans. And maybe I should just deal with that. The Moody Blues don't necessarily have any new fans either, but thousands of people will be happy to see them play again this summer for the 25th time or whatever.

DANIEL: What I'M saying is why is commercial viability something to be outlived? When a band has a core following before success, they're considered grassroots and underground. When they maintain that after modest to moderate commercial success, they're considered hacks.

JOEL: That's true. I seem to have some kind of pop-culture instinct that says "OK, you've outlived your usefulness for radio singles, please break up now" -- which I would never say about the bands I got into post-high school. We didn't have the internet, really -- I lived by radio singles.

DANIEL: The value of music should be evaluated on each listening to each piece of music. Live has been burdened with snide criticism from reviewers that stopped listening to them the last time MTV played the Throwing Copper video (which, coincidentally is the last time they EVER played a video). Cultural nostalgia is largely a function of the mass majority of a culture's lack of absorption or appreciation of art, and tendency to merely remember that which they've heard.That is to say they like it because they remember it.

JOEL: I agree, but I also think maybe in this case I am just as much if not more interested in music as a social phenomenon as a musical one. That's probably a whole other conversation.

[+Ed+]

Dunno if it is a nice thing to discuss... Have not read the whole yet...

But Heaven sounding Creedish? ffs go clean your ears.

[jpochas]

It sounds like two idiots performing mental masturbation. I didn't read one insightful comment in it and I couldn't even identify a cohesive argument for either party in this "debate." The things they wrote are some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in their rambling, incoherent responses were they even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on their souls.

[LiveRoCkS77]

It sounds like two idiots performing mental masturbation. I didn't read one insightful comment in it and I couldn't even identify a cohesive argument for either party in this "debate." The things they wrote are some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in their rambling, incoherent responses were they even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on their souls.

My thoughts exactly, I scrolled straight down after reading the first half of it. Useless diatribe that could have been spat out by a retarded third grader in a special ed class.

[Merica]

It sounds like two idiots performing mental masturbation. I didn't read one insightful comment in it and I couldn't even identify a cohesive argument for either party in this "debate." The things they wrote are some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in their rambling, incoherent responses were they even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on their souls.

God bless Billy Madison.

[Badman]

It sounds like two idiots performing mental masturbation. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on their souls.

True, Mental masturbation indeed. And god dang you Merica for beating me to recognize the Billy Madison Reference!

[Merica]

And god dang you Merica for beating me to recognize the Billy Madison Reference!

[Nedra]

Too bad.

A real debate on the subject might have been interesting...

[Hoodstock]

At no point in their rambling, incoherent responses were they even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. May God have mercy on their souls.

Billy Madison rocks!

Does Live matter to your average person, probably not. Go around and ask general people. You really have to be in the main stream to have an impact on music today and Live is currently on the fringes. With a successful album, however, they could be of importance again just like any other band.

I really can't think of any so called "90's band" that is still having a huge impact in the music industry today. Rock bands that were huge like Pearl Jam, Nine Inch Nails, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins, 311, Bush, No Doubt, Stone Temple Pilots, Collective Soul, Soul Asylum, Soundgarden, Oasis, Counting Crows, Blues Traveler, Live, Nirvana, Foo Fighters, ect.. have seen their impact in the current industry erode over time for various reasons.
In fact, unless I'm totally forgetting about somebody, I would say Green Day is the most relevant band today from that decade (as far as reaching the middle and high school audience). I would have never of guessed that would happen back in the 90's.

Many of the "90's band" fans are busy raising families and working hard. I would assume that some of these bands will find fame again later in their careers much like many of the 70's bands do today as they tour. Their main audiences will find more free time and disposable income with retirement and there will also be an added interest by children listening to their parents old albums.

This post has been edited by Hoodstock: Apr 20 2008, 7:53 pm