You saw the Hourglass live?
my measuring stick with bands was always can they do it live.
the police made some great albums that were produced well but the live stuff i heard sucked.
maybe before they went with the keyboards they could do it live but not after.
i always wondered why bands would augment their live shows with additional musicians when they originally
played with just who was in the band. csn&y the who and the eagles come to mind.
[Edited on 5/22/2019 by 50split]
"i always wondered why bands would augment their live shows with additional musicians when they originally
played with just who was in the band."
You ask a terrific question, especially when it comes to a band that was AMAZING live without added musicians. I can see a "studio" band adding musicians to approximate some amazing studio production. That makes sense. Nobody complains about Steely Dan having a big band onstage.
It makes me wince when a band like The Who, whose live album "Live At Leeds" is deservedly considered one of the best live albums in rock ever, adds musicians. They made a live masterpiece with 4 guys and sounded great that way for years! That being said, I DO understand that as they changed their studio sound, they wanted more of that sound: horns, keyboards, etc.
I grumble with The Stones, and I wonder what lead to the change. Now, the Stones did have horns and a keyboard player on their AMAZING 1972 tour. No one complains about that. But they have added so many more.....is it that massive stadiums need a fuller band sound? Is it that the band did not have confidence in its own capabilities? Is it that more recent audiences have wanted that studio sound live rather than the raw sound of the smaller band? Is it that the band wanted the lushness?
One nice thing the Stones did on their "Bridges to Babylon" tour, which did feature their massive modern live show band onstage, back-up singers and an extra guitar player etc, was to briefly appear on a smaller stage as just the 5-piece band, for 3 songs. That was great. The crowd went nuts. But I guess it was not enough.
Has any group ever debuted with a live record? I seem to recall there was one but I forgot. Wait, aha . . . Hot Tuna. Any others?
Gosh I thought Burgers was Hot Tuna's first one
Glass Harp -- unsure but Live at Carnegie Hall 1971 might've been their 1st one -- Phil Keaggy, a great player
Reading through this thread and being a teen in the 70's there was no thrill like unwrapping that new LP and placing the needle on the vinyl for the first time. If you liked what you heard, you spun it over and over and waited for that band to visit your town so you could see and hear them perform... Makes me wonder why record execs didn't grasp this concept right away and just introduce people to new bands with a "Live" disc, I mean if touring was the means to sell albums, then why not hit the race running and give fans the real thing?
Gosh I thought Burgers was Hot Tuna's first one
Hot Tunas first and second albums were both live recordings, they gotta stand alone in this regard. Serious records too, not just cult, but commercial successes. punched in wiki for details: First one was 1970 self titled Hot Tuna , excellent record, live acoustic at New Orleans House in Berserkly. Reached #30 on Billboard top 200 album chart. Pretty revolutionary, live debut, acoustic, in electric 1970. 1971 was Electric Hot Tuna: First Pull Up Then Pull Down, double album, live in Santa Cruz. #43 on Billboard albums. Burgers was 1972.
Tuna rules.
Was thinking Live at Fillmore East qualifies as a debut, commercially anyway, it was a smash breakthru. Not many folks, including myself, ever heard their first two studio records until Beginnings.
