Play It Like the Recorded Version or Improvise in a Concert?

Tweet

A friend and I were having a discussion on FB about the pros and cons of acts improvising or changing the arrangement of a song when they do it in concert versus playing the song more or less exactly the way it was recorded. She said that's one of the things she loves about the Eagles: they are so identical to the recorded version that we both agreed that we were waiting for their live version of "Doolin-Dalton (reprise)/Desperado (reprise)" (that closes out the Desperado album) to fade out the way it does on the album when we saw them in 1978! In contrast, that's one of the reasons I absolutely refuse to drop a mortgage payment on ONE Eagles concert ticket: they DID sound exactly like their recordings when I saw them live (I saw them twice). Honestly, they were pretty boring when they were in their late 20's and coked up, so how much more boring will they be in their late 60's and on One-A-Day Senior vitamins? On the other end of the spectrum there's Frampton Comes Alive, one of the biggest-selling live albums in history. Frampton's extended version of "Do You Feel Like I Do" is twice as long as the studio version, and it's so popular now that many people don't care for the studio rendition. That goes for other classic "live" versions of songs such as Kiss's "Rock and Roll All Night" and Bob Seger's "Turn the Page." So what does an artist do in concert: do they replicate the studio version of a song so much that you wonder if they're lip syncing? Or, is it more fun if they do something different, even if it means a radical switch from the "original version" of the song? My personal take is that I enjoy the improvisation. The local bar band down the street can duplicate the recorded versions of "Hotel California" and "Free Bird," so what is the "greatness" in seeing a band for about 200 times as much money do the exact same thing? If you've got a great musician on stage, let him/her go to town!