Unplugged or Undrugged: Acoustic Shows, Classic or Dud?

This was what I thought of the show last night:

The Rocks were just a tedious sub-Libertines shambles. I didn't think they could get worse than their "rock" shows but I was wrong. Honestly, it came off like a bad joke with someone else's punchline.

Crash Convention - the singer had a very pretty voice, which I'd never noticed before. But stripped of the arrangements, it just really showed up how tedious, conventional and trite their songs were.

Luxembourg, however - they're normally very heavily synth based, so I thought they would fare worst of all. However, yes, I'm a fan, so it felt like a rare treat. Their singer in civvies (rather than his normal suit) so it felt intimate, flirting with the audience and his band, like he was letting us in on a private joke. Even their keyboardist, known for his "I'd Rather Be Painting My Toenails" glare, cracked grins as frequently as jokes.

And for a band who rely so much and circumstance and arrangement, style and samples and flashy guitar - it was a welcome relief that the songs stand up completely stripped bare, maked emotional vulnerability wrapped up in singalong tunes. We physically couldn't stop ourselves from singing along, the front rows of pressing closer and closer to the stage.

Was it great just *because* I was a fan? Because I already "got" the songs to start with? Or can an acoustic show be a chance for a band known mostly for texture and arrangement to show that the actual *songs* really are what's special about them?

Richard Thompson solo/acoustic was one of the best live shows I've ever seen. I'd love to see him with a band to have the two versions to compare.

is there a way such a show cannot be hommage to the somewhat rockist myth that a song is a only a good song if it sounds good on an acoustic guitar/instrument first?

I think the problem is with the conflation of the idea of "good melody" with "good song".

With the former, it's absolutely true. Same as the best guitar solos are the ones you can hum. But the "rockist" mistake is in thinking that melody automatically equals song, or more specifically "piece of music". When there really is more to music than that.

(That said, there are actually many non-rockist classics that you can actually hum, as well. THough they'd sound rubbish on an acoustic guitar.)

Interesting - I was going to post a similar thread after hearing some in-studio 'acoustic cafe' drivel on the local station ... I don't know who it was, but it sounded exactly like every other band that does the radio visit unplugged session... (i.e. boring as hell.) So the unpluggedness of it maybe just points out how dull the songs are to begin with, and it's some electro-hook that makes them catchy enough to get airplay in the first place. Without amps, idiepop is as anemic-sounding as the band members are anemic-looking.

On the other hand, Richard Thompson .. well, his music lends itself well to solo acoustic - but that's because he's a fucking genious.

I recently saw Todd Rundgren do an all-acoustic solo show that was, .. good, but I would have rather seen a full band..

A truly great songwriter can be great in an acoustic performance .. but a shitty band just proves how shitty it is - even if they're competent musicians.

I assume someone explained this to U2 once.

Prince's solo acoustic set on his last tour was, ironically, electrifying.

theres an acoustic version of Live's "I alone" that's kind of great. YEAH YEAH YEAH! oh Ed....

I've seen Neil Young all acoustic, it was great but because of the songs, not necessarily the performance.

The best guy to see perform acoustic is Richard Thompson. Nobody's even close.

I saw Tom Verlaine do a solo acoustic show once, and though it was good I'd have prefered an electric show. I got the impression he was doing it to "prove" he was a good songwriter rather just part of a twin-lead dynamo.

Richard Thompson keeps showing up in central Arkansas: He played Riverfest a week ago (Hank Williams, Jr. and The Black Crowes headlined the next night) and he's played in Conway, Arkansas, a couple of times in the last couple of years as well!

It's kinda weird, but kinda cool, too.

I've actually been thinking about this and the "rockist" accusations.

But funnily enough, I think if anything, it's not rockist at all, and actually quite Popist.

Because so much of "RAWK" actually is shown up for being tedious and dull and overly reliant on "atmosphere" and loud guitars and volume and mythology, rather than an actual good tune.

While a perfect pop song will sound good played on an acoustic guitar, and will also sound good sung at midnight by you and your mates drunk on the night bus.

I think this method actually dispells the myths and illusions that rockism depends on.

yes, that's a good point.