this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
64 points (98.5% liked)
askchapo
22818 readers
176 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try [email protected] if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
AC/DC is good, Dire Straits is really good, House of the Rising Sun is good
I had greater tolerance for acdc before seeing them live. They suuuuucked. Ended every song on a full band ringout/cymbal smash, a pause and then the next song. No set flow at all, no banter when they did pause and I guess the one thing different from listening to their greatest hits at home was a boring guitar solo
I mean they're old as hell now. Same with Guns and Roses. I know someone that managed to go to a Guns n Roses show in South Africa when they did a show here, and apparently it was also terrible. So yeah being terrible live is sadly a thing for a lot of these older rock bands. The money is too good to turn down and retire I guess.
First off, Guns and Roses at their peak had notoriously bad live shows, usually cause axl just wouldn't show up or they were too fucked up, now guns n roses is axl and session people, so yeah, it makes sense that a cover band led by the original lineups biggest liability in a live setting they'd suck. Acdc kept a lineup for the most part aside from the bon Scott thing. I've seen people their age and older either rock way harder in the case of some older punks in reunited or new bands or just have a more well put together and rehearsed set. This also would have been in 2008 or so.
Aight we can agree on one point :)