|
It's important. I go to a lot of shows, but there are some acts that are kind of "bedroom" musicians or whatever so I don't expect them to have an incredible live show. That doesn't mean they aren't good musicians because they're typically doing mixing/manipulating/audio editing/layering that requires a lot of skill as well.
Point being, it doesn't ALWAYS dictate the talent a band or musical act has; depending.
Then again, I've seen some real minimalist acts that put on a really good live show. The show isn't always about "technical" skill or instrumentation. Rappers generally aren't going to feature any instruments but they can put on a good live show. Though I'll say the Beastie Boys were probably the most impressive hip hop act I've seen live and they DID play instruments.
Diamond Rings puts on a good live show, and it's just one dude with a guitar and some synths/synth drums. He has a ridiculous persona, dances like a maniac and has a great voice, so he puts on a good show.
Atlas Sound is very much a "studio" project, but holy fuck, Bradford Cox is incredible live. It's amazing the sounds he makes with an acoustic guitar, a harmonica and a bunch of pedals. Sounds like an entire band, by himself. Dan Deacon too, all manipulation and twisting dials but he makes the show participatory so it's incredible.
I guess I'm kind of negating my argument in some ways.
I guess what I'm saying is it is important. And even acts that rely heavily on production CAN put on a live show if they are innovative. Acts like that typically are innovative anyway.
I can still enjoy a musician if they aren't great live. 99% of the time you hear the songs, they're recorded. I just won't see them live.
|