Oblivion Ball Tokyo Live Streaming - Page 8

dubman · #1 11-24-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aNt

Hope you all liked it, was fun to do...
Thanks to everyone that tuned in- went smoother.
More to come- rockin action!

thanks aNt! and thanks for answering my PM. absolutely invaluable!

idoru · #2 11-24-2007, 04:16 PM

Of course it's a bit samey. I thought the same thing. I think right now they're at a bit of a "crossroads" of sorts. At first, all of the "improvs" they were doing were just Darren playing and sequencing his own tunes. Now they're at the point where Rick seems to want to be more involved and more in control again and make it an actual "Underworld jam."

I think today's show was a beginning of things to come. They brought out old tunes, old lyrics, rather than just re-sequencing Cowgirl, Rez, Pearl's Girl etc. they actually effected bits and pieces of the track, and Rick actually sang on Cowgirl. We saw this at the Roundhouse as well, where Rick time-stretched Pearl's Girls vocals.

Compared to the sets they've been playing lately it was a big change. I'm not saying that it was a huge change from their old style, I'm not saying it was fantastically unique, I'm saying that compared to the recent tour gigs they did a lot more to the tracks than what they've done in a while. I see this continuing through every gig, and I see it progressing into something more over time.
________
MFLB

dubman · #3 11-24-2007, 03:42 PM

guys it always turns into this.
yes, we're spoiled, yes of course we appreciate all they do for us. and no thats not a token disclaimer before i take a deep breath and head into a diatribe, i really do appreciate all the things they rig to bring us as much as they possibly can. we enjoy an interctivity with this band shared by few, and especially by those as big as underworld.

but for the love of fuck, can we finally start to approach these things not as immunity granting devices of awesomeness but as actual creative endeavors open to some form of criticism and raise the possibility that for everything they're talking about and for all the excitement generated that our imaginations seem to continually run a bit wilder than what they're actually doing?
it *was* a bit... disheartening to see that after months of reported tweaking and different ideas and renewed post-hospital excitement that it was a. the same 'tour' show and b. the same setlist as the night before, which are mild variations on the setlists this whole tour. i'm not talking about doing some grand experimental thing (though it's entirely possible and not *so* cracked out), but you can do something different to what we've been seeing recently without going off the deep end.

i'm not talking about whether they should do these things or not. i'm talking about whether these could be missed opportunities of some kind to really extend on a limb and surprise us in some way, especially when you're recording and releasing them. we have 5 releases of what could have been some beautifully ruthless run of the dynamic and off-the-cuff potential of underworld at their real-time flexibility and adaptation for the moment, and instead we have 5 releases of, by and large, the same thing. i found myself looking for which two had the most difference between them so i could snatch them up if i dont get the others, which by now is a real possibility. i should be wanting all of them.

nothing beats actually being there, and it's easy to look at it with this sort of distance when viewing it on a computer screen, but that also gives us a conceptual eye for their live setup that says that for all the creative flow and energy this duo experience on a daily basis, and for everything else they've done before that proves they're a top-caliber group of music AND design, what they've been doing on this recent incartnation of the tour is showing that there's a lack of fluidity and a sort of stagnation within the setup. there's a thousand different ways to end an underworld set brilliantly than with just jumbo. moaner doesnt have to be the climax of the show that leads to exhausting whatever's left in everyone (it was actually really great and refreshing when played early in the second london set. that sort of energy should feel like part of a set, not just driving it home), the seocnd half of the show doesnt have to be a string of hits after showcasing the shiny new album stuff in the first half, but it's been nothing *but* this.

all i'm saying is may we please air some reservations without being countered with how special all the "stuff" we get is, and treat the live and interactive experience with the same creative standards that we do their albums? it's great that they still do albums, but should we be so grateful for them as to not note what's wrong with them? how is Underworld Live much different than that?

BeautifulBurnout · #4 11-24-2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dubman

all i'm saying is may we please air some reservations without being countered with how special all the "stuff" we get is, and treat the live and interactive experience with the same creative standards that we do their albums? it's great that they still do albums, but should we be so grateful for them as to not note what's wrong with them? how is Underworld Live much different than that?

What I am saying is, why the need to critique each gig as if each one ought to be an innovative work of art in itself? Because we are between 50 and 100 geeks on here that listen to, and watch where possible, every single gig we can get our hands on, does that give us the right to moan because the gigs aren't "different" or "special" enough from our personal obsessive-compulsive view-point?

There were 20,000 people in Tokyo tonight. What did they want to hear? What did the band want them to hear? The singles/strong tracks from the album and a melange of their classic numbers - each with a little twist all its own: a little improve here, a new intro there. They have an album to promote, and more ephemeral fans than us to please. There were lots of nice new bits were in this gig, but some people just seem to fixate on what they personally have heard too much of recently - what they DIDN'T like about it rather than focussing on what was new and interesting and exciting.

It just annoys me, when you compare them to the other kinds of plug-and-play bands out there who never even change a setlist from one venue to the next, much less improvise on their numbers, to hear people having a whinge all the time. We are LUCKY we have had these gigs streamed. We are the lucky ones who get to go to two, three, four gigs during a tour, sometimes more. We are lucky that we can buy the live CDs now. How many boots are out there of 5 or 6 shows from a single tour from previous years? I bet there aren't actually 5 or 6 from the same tour. And if there are, I also bet that, if you gave them a listen back to back, you would suddenly realise that, actually, this is what Underworld has always done. Two or three new tracks to promote the album, and a selection of hits.

Like I said, we were spoilt with the 3 hours shows and Cocoon, because they had no new album to push at that time - in fact, I would go further and suggest that we were hearing a variety of new stuff that they had created, a DARC here, a Globe there, a Faxed Invitation somewhere else, to test the market and see what got the best responses, and got the forums chattering. One or two new tunes out of a 3 hour set doesn't make much of a dent, which left plenty of time for the classics and the less mainstream stuff as well.

I understand the need to critique to a certain extent, but sometimes it is really done from the Ivory Tower of the ardent fan and Dirt, and doesn't take into account the bigger picture.

dubman · #5 11-25-2007, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

What I am saying is, why the need to critique each gig as if each one ought to be an innovative work of art in itself? Because we are between 50 and 100 geeks on here that listen to, and watch where possible, every single gig we can get our hands on, does that give us the right to moan because the gigs aren't "different" or "special" enough from our personal obsessive-compulsive view-point?

There were 20,000 people in Tokyo tonight. What did they want to hear? What did the band want them to hear? The singles/strong tracks from the album and a melange of their classic numbers - each with a little twist all its own: a little improve here, a new intro there. They have an album to promote, and more ephemeral fans than us to please. There were lots of nice new bits were in this gig, but some people just seem to fixate on what they personally have heard too much of recently - what they DIDN'T like about it rather than focussing on what was new and interesting and exciting.

It just annoys me, when you compare them to the other kinds of plug-and-play bands out there who never even change a setlist from one venue to the next, much less improvise on their numbers, to hear people having a whinge all the time. We are LUCKY we have had these gigs streamed. We are the lucky ones who get to go to two, three, four gigs during a tour, sometimes more. We are lucky that we can buy the live CDs now. How many boots are out there of 5 or 6 shows from a single tour from previous years? I bet there aren't actually 5 or 6 from the same tour. And if there are, I also bet that, if you gave them a listen back to back, you would suddenly realise that, actually, this is what Underworld has always done. Two or three new tracks to promote the album, and a selection of hits.

Like I said, we were spoilt with the 3 hours shows and Cocoon, because they had no new album to push at that time - in fact, I would go further and suggest that we were hearing a variety of new stuff that they had created, a DARC here, a Globe there, a Faxed Invitation somewhere else, to test the market and see what got the best responses, and got the forums chattering. One or two new tunes out of a 3 hour set doesn't make much of a dent, which left plenty of time for the classics and the less mainstream stuff as well.

I understand the need to critique to a certain extent, but sometimes it is really done from the Ivory Tower of the ardent fan and Dirt, and doesn't take into account the bigger picture.

i'm not even asking that much, just pointing out that it's all the same. i'm not asking for a dogman/leave home/why why why/mama nuxx improv for an hour followed by a 30 minute dirty epic. i think it's valid to say every show has been the same without poo-poohing ourselves as obsessives. it's not an ivory tower position it's just a disappointing observation. i dont really see what you feel the need to defend. if it's all whining to your ears then that's just as annoying to someone who likes to see something different. i dont care what other bands do in comparison, i know underworld have been a lot more fluid in the past and if you want to argue on that, then let's get obsessive and break it down:

1996: 5 gigs: quart, roskilde, ECG, reading, and werchter. werchter sees the most tremendous rendition of cowgirl ever, reading has the Bootleg Babies version of rez with the ludicrously slow build up, fewer tracks in favor of longer extensions, each one built up in reasonably different fashion. they all end differently, each gig has a distinctive vibe to it. different versions of confusion the waitress, original version of born slippy may or may not show up with nuxx. werchter is frenetic while ecg seems more regulated and club oriented, and quart and roskilde sounds more appropriate for a large festival crowd.

98/99: from i love techno to mojo to zaal to new years in london to belfort to koln to fuji, each one is all over the map. cups either goes into cherry pie or jumbo or confusion. drastically different version of rowla coming from what sounds like an honest improv in london, not to mention the KOS with moaner lyrics, the songs dont feel like it's one simply knocked down with a notch after another. again, it's all very fluid. each show ends differently. bruce lee and dirty guitar and juanita and kittens may or may not show up, and it's a different incarnation and interpretation each time (some much better than others)

2000-2002: dont even get me started here. all i need to say is electraglide. they pull a version of confusion thats one of their loosest, most abstract versions and ranks among their best. this was the time where they managed to juggle a large discography and keep it fresh. cappe ffuno creeps in here and there, ref 010101 shows up, push upstairs leads to spikee leads to leave home. kiteless leads to spoonman lyrics seguing into kittens. other days they could stand alone. festivals would sound drastically different than regular slot sets in that it was desperately crazy the entire time whereas the more regular tour shows felt looser and more natural. DA3d and momove would sneak in here and there...

i'm tempted to get into 2003 and their maida vale event of ne'er before done stuff, but i think the point has long been made with far too many words. bootlegs or broadcasted, we've had access to these things throughout many years, and the comparison is really obvious to me, you most definitely can entertain a crowd of thousands within a couple of hours while keeping it fresh and different most of the time because they've been doing it for years before that. it's not nearly as flexible now and is getting to sound like routine in comparison to that, the biggest variation is in which darren price bit to use as a bridge to the next if they dont just go quiet altogether. i also think i disagree that each concert has a different twist in their stand-bys. they really don't. out of the liveherenow sets, only london2 really knocked me on my ass due to minor tweaks that made all the hits so much more ruthless and devastating. and while the other gigs had their moments of bamboo and loud glam bucket guitar the hits and crocodile/BB specifically did the same things, and became placeholders *for* these moments instead of being in it. i can't point to a version of pearls girl or jumbo or beautiful burnout out of them and tell you which came from where. and if you think you have a problem with that notion and have to specifically defend their honor about it, then you can keep doggedly and indiscrimately and uselessly lavishing paise on them for deigning to interact with us whiners instead of, HEY, actually interacting back. i could be niggling and weird and wrong, yeah, but something feels very off about the relentless repetition of this tour and i think it could stand to be adressed instead of plugging your ears and talking about privelige. they're a creative force like anything else and deserve a response

BeautifulBurnout · #6 11-25-2007, 01:29 AM

And are you really saying that you are not able to look back over the recent gigs and say "Jesus, Glam Bucket was absolutely amazing in NYC" or "Wow, that's the first time we have ever heard Bamboo - isn't it a lush piece" or "OMG they opened with an incredibly dark, rich Dirty Epic at Glasgow - how awesome is that?", or "Everybody Jack into KoS in the Manchester gig. Fantastic stuff", or "The whole energy of the Roundhouse 2 show is the best form we have seen the band on in a good while".

Those are just off the top of my head - if I took time to listen to the boots/CDs I am sure I could say another dozen things in the same vein about different gigs.

We aren't going to agree on this, because imo we are in completely different mind-sets. I don't see the need to be constantly critical of anybody or anything just because my own personal expectations might be different from the bigger picture. Maybe that's cos I'm old. Maybe it's cos I'm a hippy. Sure, one can give feedback. But when it is of the kind that says "they didn't play x or y or z" or that it was "the same gig as yesterday" (a statement that I will challenge anyone to be able to corroborate), it really serves no valid purpose other than to whine about what we wanted to hear.

We want it all; we want it straight away; we want it streamed; we want it on official recordings. And with the technology available, our wish is our command. That means that, quite differently from the years you have referred to in your post here, we are able to listen to it all in succession without having to wait months or even years for things to surface. Had you been provided with a different bootleg every few days for each concert in 98 or 2000, who is to say that you wouldn't have had the same feeling about those gigs? "Yeah, they played these tracks differently, but why is there no <insert title or improv> in there, and why are they keeping to the same formula?"

And Dirty0900's point is a very valid one too.

In any event, I fail to see what was so bland and formulaic about this particular gig. We had some gorgeous tracks and improvs in there: Nuxx with Monkey Wink - awesome and so full of energy; the bizarre, almost Spikee-sounding drumloop that was just before Glam Bucket; a fantastic Vangelis-esque improv "noodly" bit that lasted a good 2 or 3 minutes; the first time I have heard Boy Boy Boy live, which was superb and so much more moody and powerful than the album version (I know not everyone likes it, but still); a luscious version of PG, imo.

King of Snake · #7 11-25-2007, 05:14 AM

bravo Dubman. I wholeheartedly agree that as awesome and generous underworld & crew are in brining us all this live goodness, it shouldn't mean that they become excempt of criticism.
While I still immensely enjoy the liveshows, at the same time I find it disheartening to see that parts of it have become quite formulaic. You can pretty much predict 85% of the sets now with reasonable accuracy and with a few exceptions, they don't deviate much from proven concepts anymore (like 2nd half of the set is always gonna go roughly: BS Nuxx, King of Snake, Moaner, encore: Jumbo)

Let's not forget it is Underworld themselves who always keep telling us "we don't use setlists" and "we have no idea what we're gonna play when we go onstage" (come on, really?). They constantly tell us how everything is one big jam and we should expect the unexpected. So when they then proceed to play rather predictable sets I think it's totally valid to point that out.

Dirty0900 · #8 11-25-2007, 12:01 PM

Darren Emerson?

big screen satellite · #9 11-25-2007, 12:34 PM

is it me or was this advertised pretty last minute... ?

i knew about this event in advanced a while back (then forgot), but today is the first time i've had chance to check the forums since mid friday and feel i've missed out...

mmm skyscraper · #10 11-25-2007, 12:37 PM

I don't think it's really fiar to compare the pre-BF shows to this tour. if you take out KOS, Jumbo, TMO, and the new songs that would free up a lot of space for other songs. With 5 albums worth of stuff and 10+ minute songs, you can only play 12 songs in 2 hours. So you get NUXX, PG, Moaner, Jumbo, King of Snake, TMO, Dark Train, Crocodile, BB, Glam Bucket, Boy Boy Boy, and Rez/Cowgirl. So Anthology + the new singles. Not surprising for an album tour.

I think we got a little spoiled with all the 2005 shows, where they didn't feel obligated to play stuff from the new album.

Listen to Leicester 95 or Octagon 94 where you can't even tell what the songs are or they all unreleased stuff. I'm not sure those type of shows are even possible anymore or you definitely need more than 2 hours.

I also think that Tokyo would have been different if they had got to play all the gigs in between. Being the 3rd show since the last London one I thought it was good.