Does anybody else get pissed when bands suck live?

if you never go to a large arena to see guitar virtuosos, you wont see too many bad shows...

People wonder why i wont follow the "van halen sucked with hagar" party line, but you've high-lighted the main reason.

david lee roth got paid when i bought tickets to more than 5 van halen shows and he RARELY sung a friggin note...while when i saw them with hagar the tunes were tight and sounded alot like the recordings i knew and loved...

...i dont want exact copies or anything...part of playing live is it should sound different because of the energy and acoustics and things...but it should also sound somewhat the same as it does when you hear it in your car

now playing:new found power - damageplan

Right on - and sometimes the band actually would sound good but the sound is not balanced properly. I think they too often underestimate the importance of a sound check - every venue is different.

My other pet peeve is when a band substitutes instruments - for example if they had an acoustic intro on the CD, but they decide to play it only electric on stage. Or if they ditch the backing vocals when playing live.

Of course! Recording in a sound studio sounds better than live. Bands can also use unnamed backup singers to perform lyrics and additional musicians playing percussion instruments to enhance the quality of the music.

Dragonforce and Fallout Boy come to mind.

first thing that comes to my mind is Hoobastank at the MTV awards a few years back... anyone else remember that horrific performance?

Dragonforce comes to mind.

Yeah, because not only is the band not as good as you thought, but they also lied to you about the true extent of their skill...or the lack thereof...

yeah...NOT COOL...

I lose most respect for bands when they suck live.