Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluewater21
Ok I obviously didn't clarify myself. I wasn't suggesting that their albums were lackluster in any way. I love every album, what I meant by "half developed" was the main song constructed minus the jams built in on tour.
|
And again, that's a very, very, very different thing from saying that a song is "half-developed." Their first three studio albums were terrific in every way. BTCS is damn-near masterpiece status in my mind. Live music done right will always be incredibly satisfying, potentially far more so than a studio recording, but it does not mean that the studio recordings were half-developed ideas. They're great studio recordings of great songs. That they become greater in the live setting does not change the fact they would still be great if only the studio cuts existed and the songs were never played live.
And in terms then of relating that idea to everything released since 2001, I don't think you can say that a lot of that material was "great" in the studio nor even live. There were some solid tunes here and there, but nothing approaching the content on the first 3+LWS albums, and that goes for live and on the album. Those Everyday and Stand Up tunes had more room to grow live as they were starting from such a lowly place, but just because What You Are got better live over time doesn't mean that I think it's a great song. I still would just assume never hear it again.
Great songs are great songs no matter what. Stripped down to the barest of instrumentation, full band studio arrangement, full band live, a cappella, etc...there's little you can do to make a great song be anything less than a great song. And unfortunately, that theory holds fairly similarly for bad to mediocre songs. You can polish a turd and it's still a turd. You can make something mediocre a little more tolerable, but if that's the best you can say about something, you weren't starting out with much to begin with.
Great songs always win.