Live Tracking versus Overdubbing (Live Sound versus album Sound)

[chipdip18]

Which do you prefer? What is your opinion on the controversy of overdubbing in the studio. Questions for consideration:

- Is it good since an artist can use their full imagination and creativity to incorporate more elements into a song?
- Does it create a false, larger than life sound for the band? Can it be replicated on stage at all?
- Do you approve of an artist hiring studio musicians to write and play string, horn, vocal orchestrations, that won't be played during a tour, or most shows?
- Does it bother you when an artist playing a show live and plays a song differently than the album version because it cannot be replicated?
- Is auto-tune acceptable in any circumstance?
- Do you approve of a lead vocalist recording their own harmonies for a song?
- What is your view on extremely polished production? Does it make songs sound less life-like?

Think of other questions to ask to prod discussion.

Talk away!

[TheOtherAndrew]

- Is it good since an artist can use their full imagination and creativity to incorporate more elements into a song?
Yes. There are no circumstances under which this is a bad thing. If people are complaining about all the overdubbing and autotune on a Paramore record, the problem lies in the fact that it is simply shitty music, not the production.
- Does it create a false, larger than life sound for the band? Can it be replicated on stage at all?
Obviously this depends on circumstances. There isn't much that can't be replicated live though, so if they choose to cut a few parts out its more than likely due to personal preference or budget issues.
- Do you approve of an artist hiring studio musicians to write and play string, horn, vocal orchestrations, that won't be played during a tour, or most shows?
If a band decides to play a song live and the viola part isn't there, I won't get mad. Promise.
- Does it bother you when an artist playing a show live and plays a song differently than the album version because it cannot be replicated?
No, not at all. Limiting creativity for the sake of being able to replicate the songs live is ridiculous. Songwriters and musicians should be able to use everything at their disposal to make their albums as good and creative as possible.
- Is auto-tune acceptable in any circumstance?
If its being used for creative purposes (i.e. "Woods" by Bon Iver or Kanye's entire 808s album, lol) then yes.
- Do you approve of a lead vocalist recording their own harmonies for a song?
Absolutely! If the singer is the only person in the band who can sing, I don't want the bassist doing the backing vocals and having them sound like absolute shit just for the sake of "legitimacy." Fuck that. Do it the way it would sound best. Of course, if your bassist can sing and can do the harmonies just fine, let him do it.

[chipdip18]

Great answers Andrew, i added one more question if you want to answer it.

[TheOtherAndrew]

Great answers Andrew, i added one more question if you want to answer it.
On it!
- What is your view on extremely polished production? Does it make songs sound less life-like?
Yes, absolutely. Sometimes this is a good thing, though. Songs don't always need to sound lifelike. It really depends on the type of song. If you took an album like Against Me!'s Reinventing Axl Rose and gave it the Jerry Finn treatment, it would probably sound like shit. Conversely, if you recorded a Jimmy Eat World album on a 4-track, it would be god awful. (For proof of the latter statement go back and listen to the Clarity demos. I think they're on the bsidesrus blog.)

The production needs to compliment the song. Always. That's why Bright Eyes albums sound so fantastic and albums like Louder Now wind up sounding so terrible.

[TachyonEvan]

Hm. I'll probably take a look at this later.

Thought-provoking, Jacob.

[handlikesecret]

moderation in everything.

i don't have a huge problem with really polished albums, but i find that i have a lot more respect for bands that release gritty/raw albums.

[oddwithoutend]

Wow...I agree with everything Andrew said...guess I got nothing to argue about.

[TheOtherAndrew]

Wow...I agree with everything Andrew said...guess I got nothing to argue about.
/thread

[handlikesecret]

The production needs to compliment the song. Always. That's why Bright Eyes albums sound so fantastic and albums like Louder Now wind up sounding so terrible.
this x1932487534895734290345349.

[handlikesecret]

/thread
you're pretty much Buddha.

[theguy77]

- Is it good since an artist can use their full imagination and creativity to incorporate more elements into a song?

one hundred percent. my buddy william doyle's album is like, 75% synthesized. obviously performance is a factor when it comes to vocals, because a better vocalist in my mind is one who is more expressive, but for the most part its all about the creativity factor and how well the songs are developed.

- Does it create a false, larger than life sound for the band? Can it be replicated on stage at all?

im not going to fault the artist for not being able to replicate it, and in a lot of cases they find a way. will doyle brings a laptop to his shows for a lot of the synthesized shit, and has friends who are musicians on various instruments that he brings.

- Do you approve of an artist hiring studio musicians to write and play string, horn, vocal orchestrations, that won't be played during a tour, or most shows?

again, the record is not the live show. the record is the record and they should go all out with the arrangements. depending on how integrated they are in the bare bones composition it might hinder the live show, but i can be understanding in that case. putting on a good live show is important, but the records are what make the band. regardless, most artists will figure out some way for those other instruments to be played. and maybe even in the case of baroque folk, like sufjan stevens for example, the stripped down acoustic versions give you a different insight to the song and make the live show interesting because its an entirely different and more intimate ballgame.

- Does it bother you when an artist playing a show live and plays a song differently than the album version because it cannot be replicated?

no not at all. different versions live are always fun. also, to add to this, the atmosphere on the record and guitar tones on the record and the noise on the record are impossible to replicate live. you can get a different atmosphere and a different guitar tone that are just as idiosyncratic live but they wont be the same as on the record because noise is sporadic and atmosphere depends on the acoustics of the room, down to the conditions of the instrument. you wont get your vocals to sound the same through a different mic. you wont get the studio computer reverb to sound the same with a reverb pedal or your amp's built in reverb, and you wont get the natural reverberations of something room mic'd in a studio room, with the acoustics and shape of an auditorium or a bar. these are things that are on every record that cant be replicated live. how can you fault a band for that?
- Is auto-tune acceptable in any circumstance?

if it's used like its supposed to be and not abused. auto-tune, in my opinion, is meant to make the recording process smoother and round off the edges, but if its used in a way that enables the singer to just be sharp or flat and be corrected i'm not okay with that. it also creates an undesirably fake timbre to the vocals, making them sound entirely unauthentic, and im not just talking about the kanye west type thing where it snaps to the notes robotically, but even on like all time low albums, the vocals just dont sound real. i dont care what the tabloids and ultra-polish producers tell you, autotune changes the sound of your voice. and hell who cares if you dont sing absolutely perfect; those little imperfections can make an album sometimes, and they make it sound more authentic and honest. if anyone needs an example, a trained ear can tell you that the use of autotune on deja entendu was minimal for the most part, and that album just feels totally organic and real to me. you get ALL the character in jesse's voice.

- Do you approve of a lead vocalist recording their own harmonies for a song?

hahaha most lead vocalists do that. a person must not listen to non-obscure pop-rock music ever if they have a problem with this. someone's own voice is going to have the proper consistency to get the harmonies to come out tight on record, thats just the way it works.

- What is your view on extremely polished production? Does it make songs sound less life-like?

that, and its just annoying haha. i hear it too much. i cant put my finger on what it is about overly polished albums that i dislike, though there are a few things that fucking annoy the shit out of me (every "alternative" band on the radio uses the same contrived "atmosphere" instead of creating organic ones by breaking rules in the recording, drum fills sound so spliced and disconnected, etc.). i just dont like it.

[handlikesecret]

The production needs to compliment the song. Always. That's why Bright Eyes albums sound so fantastic and albums like Louder Now wind up sounding so terrible.
ragmag mogul!

[11:11]

I agree with everything Andrew said, but I'd also like to add that I enjoy when artists like John Mayer or Jason Mraz switch up their songs live, because they both have incredible vocals and do creative things with their playing. And John always does some awesome intro to his songs.

Also, Bon Iver was the first thing that came to mind when I thought of using autotune for good.

[googirl8907]

Yes. There are no circumstances under which this is a bad thing. If people are complaining about all the overdubbing and autotune on a Paramore record, the problem lies in the fact that it is simply shitty music, not the production.

Obviously this depends on circumstances. There isn't much that can't be replicated live though, so if they choose to cut a few parts out its more than likely due to personal preference or budget issues.

If a band decides to play a song live and the viola part isn't there, I won't get mad. Promise.

No, not at all. Limiting creativity for the sake of being able to replicate the songs live is ridiculous. Songwriters and musicians should be able to use everything at their disposal to make their albums as good and creative as possible.

If its being used for creative purposes (i.e. "Woods" by Bon Iver or Kanye's entire 808s album, lol) then yes.

Absolutely! If the singer is the only person in the band who can sing, I don't want the bassist doing the backing vocals and having them sound like absolute shit just for the sake of "legitimacy." Fuck that. Do it the way it would sound best. Of course, if your bassist can sing and can do the harmonies just fine, let him do it.
:appl: Agreed.

[Burn That Shit]

I disagree with everything that Andrew guy said.

[theguy77]

wow andrew way to say everything right from the get go and render my post absolutely useless. hahaha i worked hard on saying what you said with way too many words :-(

[chipdip18]

Dang, i was hoping for a bit more diversity, but i agree with everything Andrew says essentially too. I'll come back and answer my own questions more directly though. I bring this up since many people find that it's inegrity compromising to create things that aren't in your capacity. At least many people in my Audio class. I mean it's along these lines that we're disscussing that for example many people loved Our Endless Numbered Days and didn't like The Shepherd's Dog. One of many factors at least.

[brwnhawaiin]

I dont want to hear a band live, unless I like their studio stuff.

[theguy77]

Dang, i was hoping for a bit more diversity, but i agree with everything Andrew says essentially too. I'll come back and answer my own questions more directly though. I bring this up since many people find that it's inegrity compromising to create things that aren't in your capacity. At least many people in my Audio class. I mean it's along these lines that we're disscussing that for example many people loved Our Endless Numbered Days and didn't like The Shepherd's Dog. One of many factors at least.

answer yo questions, dawg. this still has potential to be interesting if someone has a different opinion.

[TheOtherAndrew]

I won the thread, get over it. :-)

[chipdip18]

Which do you prefer? What is your opinion on the controversy of overdubbing in the studio. Questions for consideration:

- Is it good since an artist can use their full imagination and creativity to incorporate more elements into a song?
Oh absolutely. It'd be a sad place if we couldn't hear all the imagination of artists. I mean take the Beatles latter work into consideration, as far as i know none of them could play horns, yet Abbey Road has them all over the place.

- Does it create a false, larger than life sound for the band? Can it be replicated on stage at all?
Technically speaking, it kind of has a larger than life sound to it since there's more going on then they could do themselves. But it's far from false. In fact, it could be considered more honest with them not being restricting to keep their ideas limited. It can't be replicated perfectly on stage, but i have my own opinion on it you'll read later.

- Do you approve of an artist hiring studio musicians to write and play string, horn, vocal orchestrations, that won't be played during a tour, or most shows?

- Does it bother you when an artist playing a show live and plays a song differently than the album version because it cannot be replicated?
The questions are so similar i'm answering them both at the same time. It depends. If an artist has enough creativity to show the audience a different take on the song, like a new angle to hear it, and it's good, then yeah, i say go for it. I mean it's a poor reflection on an artist who can't make an acceptable side of a song that would be nearly impossible to do live. But you can have great live and album versions of songs. And sometimes it needs to have a different version because you're taking away instruments and orchestations specific to the album version.

An easy example of this is thinking about acoustic versions of songs. Take Fall Out Boy's Grand Theft Autumn. If Patrick Stump had played the power chords in the acoustic version, it'd be pretty bad sounding. Just the fact that he playing broken bar chords makes it a better version of the same song. If you can't do it, change it up and give the listener a new artistic perspective on your song. It's really neat.

- Is auto-tune acceptable in any circumstance?
Auto-tune was suppose to be made like a studio processing effect like Reverb or Delay. Use it artistically, not to cover up your mistakes.

- Do you approve of a lead vocalist recording their own harmonies for a song?
Yeah, if no one else can do it, have him do his own. If someone else in the band can, i think it adds more character and cohesive-ness for the band. They feels more together when you have parts, especially vocal parts, mesh together.

- What is your view on extremely polished production? Does it make songs sound less life-like?
Definitely, but i think it also comes down to what your target demographic is. If All Time Low had the lo-fi aesthetic of Neutral Milk Hotel, they're just going to sound band. And the other hand if Neutral Milk Hotel had the pristine clarity of an All Time Low record it'd lose a lot character and life. I just say give it enough production to sound good but too much to change how it's meant to be received.

[chipdip18]

I dont want to hear a band live, unless I like their studio stuff.

But if you saw a band live you enjoyed would you want to check out their album? How would you react if it was noticeably, but not intensely different?

[brwnhawaiin]

But if you saw a band live you enjoyed would you want to check out their album? How would you react if it was noticeably, but not intensely different?

Im not quit sure. Ive yet to see a band live that I like enough to want to go buy their cd. I like to know how the song is suppose to sound on cd, what to expect, hear if the songs different. If I dont know how their cd is, I just feel like im hearing noise. It could change one day, I wish I saw a band live that I didnt have the cd, and was blown away and immediately went to buy the cd. Id be very happy.

[Chromefox]

Everything mentioned I find acceptable in the vast majority of cases.

[AndrewIcex]

Im not quit sure. Ive yet to see a band live that I like enough to want to go buy their cd. I like to know how the song is suppose to sound on cd, what to expect, hear if the songs different. If I dont know how their cd is, I just feel like im hearing noise. It could change one day, I wish I saw a band live that I didnt have the cd, and was blown away and immediately went to buy the cd. Id be very happy.


What about openers for the bands you went to see?

[UnderMyDreams]

Which do you prefer? What is your opinion on the controversy of overdubbing in the studio. Questions for consideration:

- Is it good since an artist can use their full imagination and creativity to incorporate more elements into a song?
- Does it create a false, larger than life sound for the band? Can it be replicated on stage at all?
- Do you approve of an artist hiring studio musicians to write and play string, horn, vocal orchestrations, that won't be played during a tour, or most shows?
- Does it bother you when an artist playing a show live and plays a song differently than the album version because it cannot be replicated?
- Is auto-tune acceptable in any circumstance?
- Do you approve of a lead vocalist recording their own harmonies for a song?
- What is your view on extremely polished production? Does it make songs sound less life-like?

Think of other questions to ask to prod discussion.

Talk away!

1. I think it can be good in some ways, especially to fix a few problems that may have been on the live recordings. Sometimes live you can't get the full sound of the song with all the parts, and overdubbing may be necessary.

2. Again, sometimes to get the full sound of the song it may be needed. Obviously if the band is real good live, a few extra pieces added in the studio may be what they need. If they don't sound good live then there really is no way to go back and fix it without it losing the live sound.

3. Of course! If a band wants to throw in horns or violins or whatever else they might not play into a song why shouldn't they? Not all bands are going to have members that can play all those instruments and certainly no band will have 10 plus members for that purpose. Why limit what goes into the song if they can't do it themselves? If the artist/band wants those parts, it's perfectly fine to hire someone to have them.

4. Not at all. Some parts of songs on the album obviously can't be fully reproduced live, especially in the circumstances that they have more instruments/ parts than they have members to play them. No band is going to be able to perform all of their songs exactly the same because they have the option of more parts than band members in the studio. It's even better that way. You don't want to go to a concert to see a band sit there and play their album exactly the same as it is on the CD... What would be the point of going to the concert then? The band has their creativity, and they can do what they want with their songs live.

5. Yes. Like Andrew said above if it's for creative purposes. It gets real annoying when an artist uses auto tune for everything just because they can't sing and need to cover it up. It doesn't cover anything. Bands like hellogoodbye use lots of auto tune in their songs, but they are talented without it. There's nothing wrong with a little auto tune here and there.

6. I agree 100% with Andrew on this one. If the vocalist is the best sounding singer(and he should be) and the rest of the band aren't so good, let the vocalist do it. Obviously the vocalist cant harmonize with himself live, but you want the best sound you can get out of a studio album. If the rest of the band just can't do it, I don't want to hear a great vocalist being taken down by less than good back up vocalists on the songs. Sure they can do it live, but if they don't sound great leave the singing to the vocalist.

7. Depends. Sometimes you hear a band and it's real overpolished and you can just tell they took a ton of time on making the band sound perfect. It just then can end up being real bland and lose creativity. However, I listen to lots of bands that have a real polished studio sound and I think it's fine. The songs are catchy and sound good. I wouldn't expect them to sound just like that live, but it can make for a good listen depending on how they do it.

[theguy77]

3. Of course! If a band wants to throw in horns or violins or whatever else they might not play into a song why shouldn't they? Not all bands are going to have members that can play all those instruments and certainly no band will have 10 plus members for that purpose. Why limit what goes into the song if they can't do it themselves? If the artist/band wants those parts, it's perfectly fine to hire someone to have them.

ahem BROKEN SOCIAL SCENE hrm. :-)

[theguy77]

okay, i have an issue with peoples responses to one of the questions so far. this is gonna be long but please hear me out.

a lot of people are misinterpreting the typical use of auto-tune. its not at all meant to correct a vocalist who cant sing; there is no way to do that without it sounding robotic like on a hellogoodbye or kanye west album. you can map out the melody but you are going to hear it snapping to the notes blatantly if the singer is unable to sing on key. also, most of you people saying you have a problem with autotune used for non-artistic purposes, im willing to bet that at least 75% of the albums you listen to used autotune to some extent. it is the industry standard for keeping vocal tracks clean. any pro studio (and even some semi-pro studios) will apply it automatically without question, and will do their best to convince any artist who objects that it is necessary and that that person's opinion on it is based on a misconception.

the fact is, most singers in bands do have a good sense of pitch, and can sing the right note easily. however, it is nearly impossible to hit the exact frequencies WITHIN each note. singers in pop music with trained voices are generally better at this than self-trained rock vocalists, but regardless they are still not perfect. there is almost always going to be a slight discrepancy between the exact note and the note sung no matter how precise the vocalist is (you may be familiar with the associated terms: "sharp" if the frequency is higher, "flat" if the frequency is lower than what is perfect). if the singer is good, the casual ear will rarely ever notice this discrepancy; however, when it comes to recorded material, it is absolutely necessary for these frequencies to be as close as possible to what they're supposed to be, or else the vocals will not mesh as well with the music, and will not blend as well into the mix. therefore, all auto-tune really does in most cases is take the already on-key vocal performances of an artist, and tightens them up and smooths them out so they sit nicer in the mix.

however, with all that said, i still have an issue with it being used on more than a minimal level. for one, i appreciate a vocalist who is willing to put the effort into getting his vocals as tight as possible on his own before the auto-tune is even implemented, and turning it up so the vocalist can be lazy and just sing noticably sharp or flat and have it corrected, thats just lame. on my own record i had too much pride and confidence to do that, i made my engineer turn the autotune down a lot lower than he normally has it, and if the autotune had to make too much of a correction i just did another take until i myself got it right. also, autotune can make vocals sound really fake and strip them of their character. im not even talking about in the robotic way, but even on all time low albums (and for that matter most everything matt squire has produced in the past few years).

a good example of the right amount of autotune for me is on brand new's album deja entendu. they for sure used it, and it's probably used more in some areas than in others -- for example, the long harmonies on the "i lie for only you" line in quiet things have a little bit more htan usual to keep those long notes tight with each other, while the verses of tommy gun barely have any at all so that jesse has room to be expressive. with a trained ear you can hear sharp and flat notes all over the place on that record (though its not sharp/flat enough to sound bad), because of the minimal use of autotune. but jesse's voice has a distinct quiver to it that makes him expressive, and in my case, makes his vocals very emotionally engaging, especially on songs like "play crack the sky". he also likes to slide into his notes sometimes. if they used autotune to the extent that it is used on ATL albums, all of this character would be lost and you would just hear mechanical notes with no variation whatsoever, stripping the album of a large part of its soul.

long story short: auto-tune is not what you think, people. it is practically necessary on albums that are not meant to be lo-fi or totally unpolished, and it only acheives the desired effect when the vocalist already knows how to sing.

[Troggy]

Good discussion guys. Couple of albums that come to mind for me right now are Zao 'The Fear is what Keeps Us Here' and Avril Lavigne 'The Best Damn Thing'. On that record, Zao recorded straight through live, and when you compare it to their really polished, produced by that As I Lay Dying guy new record, it is so much more raw and likeable. There is nothing as sinister as 'Physician Heal Thyself' on their new record. I really like the chance they took with that, and I revisit that record a lot more than some of their other slick sounding records.

As for Avril, good production is a blessing to her, not a curse. Getting everything in tune to get her exact image across with that record causes it to be a great success. Face it, she can't sing very good, but she has a great artistic personality for pop: bratty, inappropriate, youthful, fun. It makes for good pop music when all the elements come together. So I've gotta say, production is obviously a double edged sword, and it is properly applied and improperly applied at about the same frequency.

[Derka Derka]

if it's used like its supposed to be and not abused. auto-tune, in my opinion, is meant to make the recording process smoother and round off the edges, but if its used in a way that enables the singer to just be sharp or flat and be corrected i'm not okay with that. it also creates an undesirably fake timbre to the vocals, making them sound entirely unauthentic, and im not just talking about the kanye west type thing where it snaps to the notes robotically, but even on like all time low albums, the vocals just dont sound real. i dont care what the tabloids and ultra-polish producers tell you, autotune changes the sound of your voice. and hell who cares if you dont sing absolutely perfect; those little imperfections can make an album sometimes, and they make it sound more authentic and honest. if anyone needs an example, a trained ear can tell you that the use of autotune on deja entendu was minimal for the most part, and that album just feels totally organic and real to me. you get ALL the character in jesse's voice.


totally agree with your views on auto tune

[TheOtherAndrew]

okay, i have an issue with peoples responses to one of the questions so far. this is gonna be long but please hear me out.

a lot of people are misinterpreting the typical use of auto-tune. its not at all meant to correct a vocalist who cant sing; there is no way to do that without it sounding robotic like on a hellogoodbye or kanye west album. you can map out the melody but you are going to hear it snapping to the notes blatantly if the singer is unable to sing on key. also, most of you people saying you have a problem with autotune used for non-artistic purposes, im willing to bet that at least 75% of the albums you listen to used autotune to some extent. it is the industry standard for keeping vocal tracks clean. any pro studio (and even some semi-pro studios) will apply it automatically without question, and will do their best to convince any artist who objects that it is necessary and that that person's opinion on it is based on a misconception.

the fact is, most singers in bands do have a good sense of pitch, and can sing the right note easily. however, it is nearly impossible to hit the exact frequencies WITHIN each note. singers in pop music with trained voices are generally better at this than self-trained rock vocalists, but regardless they are still not perfect. there is almost always going to be a slight discrepancy between the exact note and the note sung no matter how precise the vocalist is (you may be familiar with the associated terms: "sharp" if the frequency is higher, "flat" if the frequency is lower than what is perfect). if the singer is good, the casual ear will rarely ever notice this discrepancy; however, when it comes to recorded material, it is absolutely necessary for these frequencies to be as close as possible to what they're supposed to be, or else the vocals will not mesh as well with the music, and will not blend as well into the mix. therefore, all auto-tune really does in most cases is take the already on-key vocal performances of an artist, and tightens them up and smooths them out so they sit nicer in the mix.

however, with all that said, i still have an issue with it being used on more than a minimal level. for one, i appreciate a vocalist who is willing to put the effort into getting his vocals as tight as possible on his own before the auto-tune is even implemented, and turning it up so the vocalist can be lazy and just sing noticably sharp or flat and have it corrected, thats just lame. on my own record i had too much pride and confidence to do that, i made my engineer turn the autotune down a lot lower than he normally has it, and if the autotune had to make too much of a correction i just did another take until i myself got it right. also, autotune can make vocals sound really fake and strip them of their character. im not even talking about in the robotic way, but even on all time low albums (and for that matter most everything matt squire has produced in the past few years).

a good example of the right amount of autotune for me is on brand new's album deja entendu. they for sure used it, and it's probably used more in some areas than in others -- for example, the long harmonies on the "i lie for only you" line in quiet things have a little bit more htan usual to keep those long notes tight with each other, while the verses of tommy gun barely have any at all so that jesse has room to be expressive. with a trained ear you can hear sharp and flat notes all over the place on that record (though its not sharp/flat enough to sound bad), because of the minimal use of autotune. but jesse's voice has a distinct quiver to it that makes him expressive, and in my case, makes his vocals very emotionally engaging, especially on songs like "play crack the sky". he also likes to slide into his notes sometimes. if they used autotune to the extent that it is used on ATL albums, all of this character would be lost and you would just hear mechanical notes with no variation whatsoever, stripping the album of a large part of its soul.

long story short: auto-tune is not what you think, people. it is practically necessary on albums that are not meant to be lo-fi or totally unpolished, and it only acheives the desired effect when the vocalist already knows how to sing.
theguy77'd em

Actually I learned a lot.

[UnderMyDreams]

ahem BROKEN SOCIAL SCENE hrm. :-)

I never heard of them haha.

But ok maybe SOME will. But most wont haha

[brwnhawaiin]

What about openers for the bands you went to see?

I usually find out who the openers are, and then listen to their stuff. And if i like them, ill show up a little early, and if I dont, I show up like half way through their sets so i can get a good spot for the band that I actually want to see.