Big Boi - Sir Lucious Left Foot: The Son of Chico Dusty (2010)

so we shelled out $50 and sat around for 2 hours and then dude came on for 20 min and left... none of the same vibe or enthusiasm as the show i saw alone.

yeah i think a real shitty part of this is the build-up/wind down, as much as the limitations of the show itself. like i entertain thoughts of short shows, think that there is a theoretical half-hour set that is a perfect fit with our frazzled attention spans, flexes respectable variety in its picks but also gets to careen wildly from one thing to the next riding high on energy, & can imagine that a high-energy half hour would be a blast that people might not necessarily feel cheated by (bc it is nice when shows aren't 'they played both of my favourite songs!' or 'i wish they'd played creep' but 'we all had a wild & communicative time in that room it was musical'). BUT i kinda feel some of that might be contingent on the preceding hours not being the usual ritual of just waiting & standing & queueing & a guy walking past and putting his hand on your back & you are carrying your stupid bag & you wish you could be at home checking your e-mail. a real bill - not even a bill, just djs!, or whatever, distractions, a support act you give a shit about - would go some way towards depleting the 'quantity = value' proportionality of shows imo.

(leather jacket, big jew fro, elvis swagger... anyone know what i'm talking about)

My attention span for any band is about 45 minutes

sometimes it is good to just leave. an hour and a half is a long period over which to have a kind of 'arc', also.

I honestly cant do much more than 45 min withou gtting antsy

"saw" big boi in london, ticket said 7.30 went for food ended up getting there at 9:00, saw about 5 minutes, ha, it sounded rubbish anyway (i do love this album tho)

seen him three times this year and each time was 60-70 mins and ruled

My attention span for any band is about 45 minutes

well but Whiney yr attn span isn't exactly legendary

not an insult btw, don't you kind of take pride in your short attention span

imo set lengths are like movie running times -- obviously sometimes a little goes a long way and sometimes you're happy to be there for a couple hours or more. but i definitely agree with underrated that once you're a headliner people pay a certain amount to see, you gotta put some work in.

it's just i wish that work meant new & innovative uses of pyrotechnics, rather than additional songs

i am totally fine with grindcore sets being 12 minutes long but i guess that is a whole nother thing

yeah super intense underground music will always do fine w/ short sets

the spastic metal band i played in for a while was forever struggling to get our set over 15-20 minutes

i don't wanna blow everyone's minds here but you know what i think would be good, multiple sets. for some groups. especially if it was more of a dance thing. this is semi-formed by seeing old movies where some little garage-y teenager group is in the background of a dance scene rattling through twenty current pop hits & one of their own originals, but i could handle an 'interval' or a couple of sets different in tone, with a dj in between

maybe that's dumb if you just want to go see a group play their songs & not have to wait around through a terrible dj though, so

i think i blew my own mind this does not seem like such a reliably hot idea anymore

no you were right the first time - rock bands used to do 2 sets up through the early 90s (sebadoh did early & late sets in LA in '94) - it is a good idea

yeah it seems like w/ jam bands and certain aging rock bands with deep catalogs having two or three distinct sets is pretty commonplace. it's not a bad idea but probably not for many more bands than the ones that are doing it already.

wait for the same crowd though?, or like vegas/theatre style
xp

the whole thing i think is that it would be nice to go see like 'an evening of music' rather than go stand around in a dark sticky conference room and wait for the thing you want to see, partly because it would cut down on the waiting but also because sometimes live music can be very musical, and other times just like a box-ticking exercise. one of the neat things about tapes is getting two x track 1 and two x finishing tracks, and i can see the appeal of getting to shape two complementary neat little sets.

it would be pretty cool for bands to open for themselves, kind of like what Gus Gus used to do by allowing the non-famous members of their collective do spoken word and shit for 15-30 min before the band came out

it might be hard to draw a line between 'some of band opens for full band' & 'stars of band walk on stage after gratuitous forty minute instrumental intro' tho

well no, I'm thinking more like "band comes out and does new music/experimental set" *20 min break* "band comes out and plays all the songs you wanted them to hear" *5 minute break* "band does klezmer encore"

can the venue be fully evacuated in that five minute break though
no that sounds good, & for groups who have like 'additional parts' it seems like a pretty efficient way of doing things. i don't really know sigur ros, but iirc they toured with a string section (amiina maybe?) who would open for them, which seems like a really great use of having violin players who are otherwise only gonna figure sorta marginally throughout.

this really was done all the time in the 60s, when rock took more cues from jazz - all kinds of live shows (Dead, Burritos, etc) where at one point the singer'll say "ok, we're gonna take a break and we'll be back in half an hour, so tip your bartender" or whatever

I seriously might try to do something like this, it'd at least be interesting to see how it went

where at one point the singer'll say "ok, we're gonna take a break and we'll be back in half an hour, so tip your bartender" or whatever

for sure. i am still going with old films, here, but i get so bummed out when i think about various modes of entertainment that don't quite fit anymore; the jazz club in sweet smell of success w/chico hamilton's group is somewhere i would totally go & hang out, and is kinda pitched as this p anonymous, working musicians setup. i think it's maybe contingent on there being the ability to replace or alternate the music you're there to see with something else as compelling - so if it's music to dance to, a dj starts up, if it's more something to listen to then maybe you can go sit down or if music keeps playing then it's actually audible & well pitched at the crowd. i caught a couple of yo la tengo's hanukkah shows in hoboken & they do the mixed bill thing pretty well; i think it's just interesting to be liberated from the low expectation of 'how much standing up & hearing music i don't like do i have to get through before i see the thing i'm here for'

I’ve seen a variety of bands do the “we’ll be back in half an hour, go have a drink” thing, and it’s always great. But I can’t imagine it working in a theatre setting – the success is based on an audience thinking “sure, I could take a break from dancing, be good to chat to my friends, then it’ll be fun to have some more music,” which vibe only works in a club or bar, I reckon.

Have also seen bands do distinct multiple sets, in different styles or with different players. This is also fun, and when advertised is good for the venue too, as ppl will turn up earlier and put more over the bar.

it would be pretty cool for bands to open for themselves, kind of like what Gus Gus used to do by allowing the non-famous members of their collective do spoken word and shit for 15-30 min before the band came out

― sick yr finger up his butt (DJP), Sunday, September 18, 2011 5:37 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

there are some examples of this -- Eddie Vedder playing solo before Pearl Jam shows, They Might Be Giants have done a schtick where they open for themselves as a 'TMBG cover band'. hell you could say Prince having The Time and Vanity 6 open for him with sets full of songs he wrote counts. but now i'm just getting into trivia.

I like all these ideas (New Order said on many occasions that their shows were such Dada exercises because they balked at promoter/gig requirements), with one caveat: start early and end early.

if'n you dun like dis album suck a dick dipped in olive oil

Well put, sir

it's not nec finest territory but I just want to note I IRL giggled at ship's dn above

mission of burma did 2 sets for most of their reunion shows and it was much more pleasant than 90-100 mins straight imo

rap shows suck in my experience

― hank azaria & III (flopson), Sunday, September 18, 2011 1:11 AM (22 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

fwiw ime not at all true of big boi

not an insult btw, don't you kind of take pride in your short attention span

― pathos of the unwarranted encore (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Sunday, September 18, 2011 4:14 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah, but I don't think 45 min is too short. Also, movies should all be 90 minutes imo

also they should have an interval for dancing

Big Boi was fine when I saw him last year - an hour plus, lots of Outkast songs - but Outkast on the Stankonia tour were one of the top 3 hip hop live acts I've ever seen and it seems such a shame that they never followed that. They could have been festival headliner material if they'd pursued that trajectory. Big Boi now is just a standard hip hop show, albeit one of the better ones. (ie he turns up on time and (usually) plays a substantial set)

this album is still great

mostly

http://popdose.com/wp-content/uploads/Ripley_Newt.jpg

Is the follow-up worth a listen?

"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)
"Shoes for Running" (featuring B.o.B and Wavves)

Big Boi featuring B.o.B is the Sublime With Rome of rap music

haaaaaaaaaaaaaa

vicious lies & dangerous rumors = one of the biggest musical disappointments in recent memory. gave it a couple chances and immediately set about scrubbing it from memory.

I don't remember it getting any fanfare at all when it came out. Reminds me of when Idlewild came out. I know it's technically a soundtrack but you'd think the follow-up to Speakerboxx/The Love Below would have had some excitement behind it.

Idlewild > this album

what do y'all call that around here, challops? lol

really though I do like this album, I just always thought it was uneven. + Big Boi's basically a solid consistent rapper who's rocks one core style most of the time, not anything mindblowing generally, and some of the "he's better than Andre" post-Love Below sour-grapes revisionism is super o_O to me

Big Boi has always been a better rapper than Andre

there's a massive gap between the two's rapping on Stankonia, some of my favorite Andre verses ever vs. generally solid Big Boi verses

don't get this argument at all. Is it cuz Andre became too "out-there"/eccentric and people think it's lame? or something else. idk but it's not really close IMO

It is because it is much more difficult to do what Big Boi does than what Andre does.