Originally Posted by BrewBillfold
Didn't read the whole thread, and it may be far beyond this discussion by now, but on the issue of playing things "note for note" live, it's simply a matter of taste. Some people like to hear things played "note for note", just like the records, live, and some people do not. I'm in the "do not" category. I like Neil's playing a lot, but when I go to a concert, I want to hear something different than the records. It's not a matter of improvisation, necessarily, but at least evolution. There's not a right answer. It's just a different preference.
Also, unless I were making a TON of money doing it, I wouldn't want to be in a band that did things note-for-note live. Once I play or record something, I don't want to study it so I can recreate it. I don't mind still playing those songs, but I want to move on and keep developing them, so that years later, they're transformed into something very different. If someone wants to hear what we played or recorded years ago, they should put on the record.
You make a great case for the improv/evolution side. I can understand where you're coming from. It's nice to hear a song evolve and change to get a different perspective of how it was originally intended.
Though, I have to disagree when it comes to Rush. I DO wanna hear the song(s) played the same live as it/they was/were recorded. That's what makes Rush such a great band, and Neil Peart such a fantastic drummer.
Their recordings are so pristine, you HAVE to admire that they can pull off the songs live, and appreciate their commitment to the music. Sort of like a masterpiece painting in a museum. You wouldn't want to have someone redo it and change it to look differently, would you?
To hear and see the song "Natural Science" live now, the way it was recorded back in 1979/1980 is an amazing feat, if you ask me.
That's what impresses me about NP. His commitment to the "masterpiece"