Poll: How do you feel about GBS going electric?

At least since Dylan there is contraversy when a musician goes electric. I know a lot of people are displeased that Great Big Sea added drums and electric guitars. Personally I like them both ways. Some performs do some shows solo and acoustic and others electric with bands. Which do you like better? Does it depend on the band? I usually like the solo acoustic shows better. Richard Thompson being a notable exception. So who do you like better solo/acoustic, who is better electric/band. Mix and match as you please.

It's all good. Even Peter Mulvey went electric and it was great.

in this case it's very simple. GBS with electric guitars and drums is not GBS. it's some other band pretending to be Great Big Sea.

That's a bit too simplistic.� That's like saying that the Beatles weren't the Beatles when their hair grew out... or when they stopped touring.� Change isn't always an improvement, but it doesn't render the changed version insignificant.

I could support something like, "The reunited Guns N Roses weren't really Guns N Roses."� Since only one of the original five members was involved, there's a substantial argument.� You could argue that GBS isn't a traditional band, since drums and electric guitars aren't traditional instruments.� But they've been evolving toward original work for quite a while.

Even Guster with drumsticks would still be Guster.� Why is GBS' evolution not GBS?

That's a bit too simplistic. That's like saying that the Beatles weren't the Beatles when their hair grew out... or when they stopped touring. Change isn't always an improvement, but it doesn't render the changed version insignificant.

but it's not just change, and it wasn't exactly gradual in their case. they haven't just continued in a particular direction. they've completely redefined what they are as a band. and the new GBS is NOT the old GBS.

the things I would use to describe the two eras of GBS have nothing in common.

This is one of those arguments that can't be won (or lost.)� :-)

I think my viewpoint is due to the late time I picked up GBS.� My first brush was Rant And Roar, and then just before Turn was released.� I've since backtracked (imagine my disappointment in Play and Up, with their relatively few new songs... again, given that Rant And Roar was my first.)� I can agree that you can't really connect Sea Of No Cares in any logical progression.� I used this view point for the Fruvous albums as well, but Fruvous was a case of almost perpetual reinvention.� GBS definitely had a direction in place, until Sea Of No Cares.

I agree that I liked the earlier GBS better than the later GBS.� I haven't heard anything from the new album yet.� Your argument sounds like you've given up on the band.� It also sounds like you're chastising anyone who still listens.� Not that it's a matter of great importance either way (when you listen to the types of music I do, you get used to ridicule.)

If I can bring this back to the Beatles, I still have trouble believing that the same group that recorded "She Loves You" also recorded "Strawberry Fields Forever."� So, using those examples, the new Beatles were definitely NOT the old Beatles.� Maybe their change was gradual... maybe after John heard Pet Sounds, he realized he had some catching up to do.� Imagine the actual turning point (album wise) for the Beatles... and put yourself in the shoes of someone who dismissed their new direction.� Sorry, their new definition.

Your argument sounds like you've given up on the band. It also sounds like you're chastising anyone who still listens.

I still like some of their new stuff on its own. but not really in a GBS context, because it doesn't sound at all like GBS. yes, Fruvous changed from album to album, but there were still core parts of their sound that they retained, too - the lyrics and the 4 part harmonies, specifically. Great Big Sea seem to have pretty much abandoned their old style.

I still have trouble believing that the same group that recorded "She Loves You" also recorded "Strawberry Fields Forever."

that's not really the same comparison, though. there was a progression between those songs. you still hear bits of "She Loves You" coming through in the middle albums, even as the songs start to sound more like "Strawberry Fields Forever."

�"imagine my disappointment in Play..."

But...but...that's my favourite album!!

*sob*

Well, yes, performers change the presentation of their performance. I don't mind. Whether Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel or J. S. Bach (via W. Carlos) go electric, is neither here nor there. If the music is good, it is good in any format, unless of course it is just badly ripped off.

If I liked bluegrass, the Hayseeds' version wouldn't induce me to like AC DC's original performance any more. Conversely, if I didn't appreciate bluegrass, the Hayseeds' interpretation of AC DC's numbers wouldn't make me appreciate the latter's creations any less either.

To my mind the "Electric vs Acoustic" argument is an interesting expedition, trawling for prejudice. I used to hate *all* "heavy metal," "waltz," "punk" and many other categories of music categorically. Now I find exceptions everywhere.

Erm... huh?
Now I could see the argument being made that it was GBS pretending to be another band (like XTC with the Dukes of Stratosphere) but when I hear newer GBS (still haven't heard the newest album, and won't see them live again until monday, but the major change was a sea of no cares I think) I still recognize them as GBS. Pretty much every good band I know has at least one major style-shift in their run.

Plus, from what I've heard, they got rid of the drum set, and at that point, it would just be the shift from trad. to their own stuff that most (or many at least) folk bands from the sixties did.

i'm sorry. but years ago, there was this lame kid who used to follow my brother liam around--liam was just learning electric guitar, and adam was just learning acoustic guitar, and adam used to pester him all the time about, "let's start a BAND together!!! it'll be called 'ELECTRIC VS. ACOUSTIC'!!!!!!!!!"

so that was my first thought when i saw this poll.

um.

but yeah. i like gbs better acoustic. la.

excuse me.

That's what I was thinking about when started the forum. Everyone else got it wrong.

> in this case it's very simple. GBS with electric guitars and drums is
> not GBS. it's some other band pretending to be Great Big Sea.

Yeah, I wonder when They Might Be Giants will reunite. I mean, they've been on hiatus for about 15 years now.

maybe not 15, but at least 8. :)

they're actually doing a bunch of shows at Joe's Pub in New York themselves and letting their imposters play shows on the road and put out albums.

I just saw GBS in concert last week, and that was my first time hearing them. and I got their newest album. I haven't heard any "old" stuff. I think they are awesome. But I think I will like their old stuff too.

It's my favorite album as well.� But when I first heard Play and Up, Rant and Roar was my only experience with their music.� Between the two albums, I'd heard half the songs already... and they weren't even changed.� I can see that it's a problem with Rant and Roar, but initially, I was soured on the two earlier albums, and on the band because of it.

I've since seen the error of my ways.

If I liked bluegrass, the Hayseeds' version wouldn't induce me to like AC DC's original performance any more. Conversely, if I didn't appreciate bluegrass, the Hayseeds' interpretation of AC DC's numbers wouldn't make me appreciate the latter's creations any less either.

As an occasional fan of both bluegrass and AC/DC, I not only find that Hayseed Dixie makes me more appreciative of�the original, but also makes me realize that good music can cross genres beautifully.� Ok, calling either of these beautiful may be a bit much... but it's good in both formats.� The only real problem with Hayseed Dixie is that they occasionally do original work. *shudder*

Pardon the departure from GBS content.

Some of us are old enough to remember the early 90's, when acoustic versions of electric songs became the rage (courtesy of MTV Unplugged.) There was a rash of acoustic albums or acoustic B-sides from everyone. Even recently, The Cure released a greatest hits album with an acoustic bonus disc. Same track list, just alternate versions.
In different versions of the same song by the same artist, do you prefer acoustic or electric? And, just to twist it a little farther, does it matter whether the original release was electirc (with an acoustic alternate) or acoustic (with an electric alternate)?

What bothered me about the whole unplugged craze back then is most of the artists seemed to decide that acoustic=slow, muted, etc.� So it became a formula of "take your classic song, slow it down a whooooooole lot, sit in a chair bent over seriously and sing it mournfully." So few people got that acoustic music can be full of life, uptempo, intricate and rockin' in its own right.

*looks in the direction of eric clapton*

One of the foremost examples in my mind. :)

Amen sister

Some of the features artists and their songs were better for that very treatment.� Others (like Clapton) were not.

The artist I had in mind when I was typing that was Warrant.� They weren't great electric and weren't great acoustic.� I don't think they were even invited to do an Unplugged.

Pearl Jam did a really good Unplugged show.� It was totally rockin'.

Ah, MTV Unplugged, back in the days when MTV played music.

You mean I've been going to Sapphire Bullets shows all this time???

Ron Wood: "This song is very hard to do unplugged..."
Rod Stewart: "Yeah, it's really hard to do this song unplugged...� but we're unplugged and seated..."

[preparing to start "Stay With Me" on Rod Stewart's unplugged...and seated]

-- Pauley :-P

EDIT: Btw, I rather thought that his unplugged CD stayed pretty close to the speed�of the original versions of the songs, as I've heard them.

so, your argument (or stance) is that you are generally opposed or�hesitant to accept�bands that choose to amend their sound?� That leaves you with�quite a narrow choice of�musicians.�

I think that if an artist amends or changes their sound it shows a progression or a broadening of their horizons and that should be respected. Just because an artist starts using new sounds or instruments doesn't mean they have changed or abandoned their own ways completely. They are human, humans change, simple as that, and if their direction alienates some of their die-hard fans, so be it, if you want a certain sound or genre, go make it yourself.

I think that if an artist amends or changes their sound it shows a progression or a broadening of their horizons and that should be respected. Just because an artist starts using new sounds or instruments doesn't mean they have changed or abandoned their own ways completely. They are human, humans change, simple as that, and if their direction alienates some of their die-hard fans, so be it, if you want a certain sound or genre, go make it yourself.