Full Clout

[bigfatlove06]

Originally Posted by Micodin

yo that writer was on some hater shit. i agree that Tougher than Leather was received as a step down from Raising Hell (sonically i think it’s a brilliant album with a couple wack songs) but they were still killing live shows in 88.

I think that writer made some pretty good arguments about why people were tuned in at the time. In hindsight these type shows were precursors to festivals where you grabbed the top artists, gave them a certain amount of time, and then turned them loose. Each one of them got 20 or 30 minutes to run their best routines. Run-DMC stuck to that formula as a top draw, and the Beasties did too until they went into left field with Paul's Boutique. Whatever any of our thoughts are about what broke the rap festival mode, and pushed individual artists to stop playing 5-8 songs and work on their game as a headliner, some took the next step. Innovation in live shows was rapid. Compare '87 to '92. This writer kinda pointed that out. That's all.

This is a key insight... "In fact, the structure of rap shows--short sets by several acts, rather than the practice of longer stints by two bands on arena rock shows--gives the evening a naturally competitive flair. Watching the parade of talent, it’s hard not to rate one against another. Because the acts rely on recorded music (mixed live by a disc jockey) rather than live musicians, the changeover time between acts is far less than at a rock show".

[Micodin]

Originally Posted by bigfatlove06

I think that writer made some pretty good arguments about why people were tuned in at the time. In hindsight these type shows were precursors to festivals where you grabbed the top artists, gave them a certain amount of time, and then turned them loose. Each one of them got 20 or 30 minutes to run their best routines. Run-DMC stuck to that formula as a top draw, and the Beasties did too until they went into left field with Paul's Boutique. Whatever any of our thoughts are about what broke the rap festival mode, and pushed individual artists to stop playing 5-8 songs and work on their game as a headliner, some took the next step. Innovation in live shows was rapid. Compare '87 to '92. This writer kinda pointed that out. That's all.

This is a key insight... "In fact, the structure of rap shows--short sets by several acts, rather than the practice of longer stints by two bands on arena rock shows--gives the evening a naturally competitive flair. Watching the parade of talent, it’s hard not to rate one against another. Because the acts rely on recorded music (mixed live by a disc jockey) rather than live musicians, the changeover time between acts is far less than at a rock show".

um what?

[bigfatlove06]

Just an opinion. I went to those types of shows as a teen.

[Micodin]

word up. i was just saying Run DMC was still rocking shows in 88. i wasn’t expecting a dissertation.

[bigfatlove06]

Not from me man. I just liked seeing a bunch of people perform together around '85 to '87. As I continued to spend money on tickets I started to gravitate toward shows that featured individual artists with longer sets. I am not claiming to be an expert. For me it was a kind of like following my passion for what I liked. I liked Greg Maddux, and followed him. I loved the Beasties and followed them, and when the it came time to decide how to spend my money on what I liked, I did. The only real point is that we started breaking away from short sets from 8 performers as a place to spend our money to view music live, and embraced headliners with new shows. That's what I thought was the critical insight of the author.