David Byrne: American Utopia Tour

Everyone raving & drooling about him 'reinventing' the rock concert?


I like Byrne but...get a fuck-off wall of Marshall stacks and a drum-riser, ya arty ponce!!

 

It was peeeeeure awesome, ya cranky old fud

Although pretty close to what the knife/fever ray's been doing live for several years in terms of a large cast of mobile musicians doubling as dancers

 

4 guys standing still playing instruments with no visual component is lazy and dull as fuck

 

Sure, if music is just some condiment you add to your life sandwich

For some of us, music is the meal itself, cunt

 

Oh what snow white purist. Everybody, close your eyes and place your hands on your lap, the band is about to start!

A gig is a STAGE SHOW, ffs.

 

Saw Dylan on tues and sunday

 

I heard it was really good. Byrne not Dylan, fuck Dylan.

 

If he was as shit as I remember when I saw him in 2003 then you had a fun time..

 

A gig is a chance to hear music played live with no filter and no do-overs

What does Stevie Wonder do at a gig?

But if music's not really your thing, I hear P!nk has en elaborate stage show involving trapeze, sounds right up your alley!

 

Cdogg at a Tangerine Dream concert in 1975.

 

It's amazing... Dylan was unlistenable by 1988 and the cunt is still stealing money 30 years on

 

That's strictly limey shite... nobody knows that silly crap here

 

Looks dogshit to me:

 

Well it wiznae it was class in a glass my good man

 

I think you and I know full well Byrne needs Frantz, Harrison, Weymouth and Belew on stage with him, not those arty dancy nobodies...

 

Lol in another words as an opportunity to demonstrate musicianship and be suitably wowed by it. Because that's all music is for or about

 

LCD Soundsystem did some stuff with lights when I saw them, but not that much really. Khruangbin don't really do the lighting much either, just the music.

 

No, as an opportunity to HEAR MUSIC

Music isn't mustard or a Chardonnay

It's a meal itself whether it's as complicated as Thelonius Monk or as simple as Lou Reed ... music doesn't require visuals any more than Van Gogh needs a soundtrack... "what am I meant to do with this?", you always ask ... "listen", I say ... you then interpret that as some sort of fascist demand

 

You bastard! Fuck Byrne. Why doesn't he just be gay?

 

Lol. To be honest I'm not a massive fan of either. I prefer Byrne and I like a fair bit of Talking Heads, couldn't really get into Dylan bar a couple of songs.

 

Doesn't need visuals. It's often augmented or recontecxtualized in interesting ways by them, and ditto the images by music. Lots of people get this even if you dont and Byrne always got it. And 'sit still and listen' is certainly one perfectly good intended purpose for music but a million miles from the only one and there's no hierarchy which says it's the best one. And its far from being the historically dominant one which, by a long distance, is to soundtrack and provide focus to social gatherings.

 

1) nonsense. I totally get it. It's not particularly hard to understand... there are many examples of this... Wagner wanted you to see his operas 140 years ago ... some music is created to be accompanied by a visual medium... I'd argue that in most cases the music could still be engaged even if your eyes were ripped out but the visuals without the music would be likely pointless ... but yeah of course there is music that has visual accompaniment and done well, is meant to enhance/illuminate the experience

2) nobody said this. The only person who actually dismisses anything here is you. You consistently rail against music if it is any or some of the following: A) well-played; B) has any harmonic complexity; C) possibly indicates a romantic/emotional state and was recorded after about 1966; D) may have been recorded when bell bottoms were the default style of pants... the list goes on ... I merely rail against your railing, your consistent equation of "listening to music" with manners, order, oppression, elitism, joyless-ness etc ... that's what I rail against because it's ridiculous

 

Sorry but that's utter bullshit. You judge stuff on the basis of how hard it is to play. Whether you admit it or not, that is your criteria. Must kill you there are thousands of successful musicians not as "good" as you.

 

No I don't, you absolute moron

You can say this 8000 times and it will never be accurate

You don't get music, you don't get art, you don't get why people create, what motivates them, which is why you consistently assume that every artist is seeking fortune and fame or defines what they make by those things ... you understand nothing, that's why you hit out with simplistic horseshit like this.

You can't tell at all if something is hard to play or not, you can't tell if someone you've heard can play well or is barely competent. You don't know a thing about any of it, so how the fuck can you even begin to imagine what you think my fucking criteria is?

Here's a clue, shitstain, guys that love The Rolling Stones aren't guys that judge music on the basis of difficulty ... useless, daft cunt. Stay in your lane, fuckboy

 

I like music.

 

I'll explode hot music all over your back, twattycunt

 

You just like that because those chaps sing well!

Best O'Jays tune: "Backstabbers"

 

No.
I prefer 'Music'.
Childhood song.

Hate 'Backstabbers'.

 

One does not simply hate Backstabbers

Only an absolute cunt would prefer 'Music' over 'Backstabbers'