Uh... what the fuck La Roux?

[RPS]

I went to see La Roux last night; she played no more than 40 minutes, there was no opener, her sound was WAY too quiet and I could hear people talking behind me during her performance, and Miss Jackson definitely lacked any stage presence at all. Seriously... I don't know if she was bored, or what. The first half of the concert she seemed bored, but she came around the second half, but given that it was a 40 minute concert, it really didn't matter. I only paid 25$ for two tickets, but seriously. I was so overly disappointed with the entire concert experience. Lost some MAJOR points in my book. People say how La Roux is way better than Lady Gaga... well, I saw Lady Gaga in concert 2 months ago and needless to say in every way comparable Lady Gaga blew her out of the water, easily.

[Dingle]

People say La Roux is better? Bulletproof is alright, but heh, she's not exactly owt special. Still, I do wish she hadn't headlined the dance tent at Leeds so I could have watched her.

[hackerjack]

Ay never heard anyone say she's better than Gaga.

She's interesting, I expect her to knock out a few more memorable tracks but Gaga is an all-american style show girl, her shows are always going to be huge.

Either way 40 minutes is piss poor for a proper charting act, you get more than that from 19 year old kids playing in the local boozer.

[YI]

Don't get me wrong, I think La Roux are fucking shit. But I don't particularly understand this...La Roux have 1 album...a 40-minute set is probably about right...I don't understand how you can really expect them to play much longer...because they basically only have the material for a 40-minute set.

And comparing GaGa's and La Roux's live shows is stupid. GaGa's tours are in every way a manufactured pop SHOW like all the big acts like Britney, Kylie, Pink, Girls Aloud, Westlife etc. have (and personally I have a massive distaste for this sort of shit...although, I've never been to such a show, but these sorts of shows it seems as though the music is an afterthought for flashy shenanigans, wardrobe changes and all other sorts of shit, I could watch fucking trapeze artists on youtube whilst playing MP3's and save £60, thank you).

And I hate shit sound. So many venues around here are plagued with it (in certain places, so it's all about know where to stand/getting so drunk you don't give a fuck).

[EddieG]

Nevermind...

Edited February 9, 2010 by Eddie 'AW' G

[METALMAN]

And comparing GaGa's and La Roux's live shows is stupid. GaGa's tours are in every way a manufactured pop SHOW like all the big acts like Britney, Kylie, Pink, Girls Aloud, Westlife etc. have (and personally I have a massive distaste for this sort of shit...although, I've never been to such a show, but these sorts of shows it seems as though the music is an afterthought for flashy shenanigans, wardrobe changes and all other sorts of shit, I could watch fucking trapeze artists on youtube whilst playing MP3's and save £60, thank you).

that's a load of shit. that's like saying "WHY BOTHER GOING TO SEE THIS BAND I HAVE THE CD ANYWAY."

And so what if it is a SHOW rather than just the music? I can't judge on whether Lady Gaga's show is any good live having not seen it myself, but countless bands have concentrated heavily on the visual part of their show as well and it is something that can really make or break their performance.

[Dingle]

And comparing GaGa's and La Roux's live shows is stupid. GaGa's tours are in every way a manufactured pop SHOW like all the big acts like Britney, Kylie, Pink, Girls Aloud, Westlife etc. have (and personally I have a massive distaste for this sort of shit...although, I've never been to such a show, but these sorts of shows it seems as though the music is an afterthought for flashy shenanigans, wardrobe changes and all other sorts of shit, I could watch fucking trapeze artists on youtube whilst playing MP3's and save £60, thank you).

that's a load of shit. that's like saying "WHY BOTHER GOING TO SEE THIS BAND I HAVE THE CD ANYWAY."

And so what if it is a SHOW rather than just the music? I can't judge on whether Lady Gaga's show is any good live having not seen it myself, but countless bands have concentrated heavily on the visual part of their show as well and it is something that can really make or break their performance.

But it should never be at the expense of the music, EVER, which some artists (I'm looking at Pink for this) do just because they, most likely, need to cover up their lack of vocal ability in a live setting. My live experiences are limited compared to yours and YI's, but when you see a band like Muse or Radiohead, the visual aspect IS a massive part of the show, but the music itself is still the focal part as it always should be.

To be honest, if a band isn't good enough to be able to put on a good show without special effects and the like, they aren't going to be worth my money to see them live. Instead, I'd much rather sit at home and bitch about how little value they have to the music industry and how their fans are idiot.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Devil In Jouzy City

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Speaking of Muse, I got to see them a couple of weeks ago and while Japanese sterility threatened to suck the life out of the event the people that went got into the spirit and Muse put on an incredible light, video, performance and big-ballons-full-of-streamers show. But then they've got five albums of stuff to put out there (which they did for 2 hours pretty much). Just a shame so much was from the latest one

[Dingle]

Yeah, I'm off to see them at the LCC come September, and I'm hoping that they've been touring The Resistance so much that by September they are sick of playing the same songs and throw some more older ones in.

[YI]

And comparing GaGa's and La Roux's live shows is stupid. GaGa's tours are in every way a manufactured pop SHOW like all the big acts like Britney, Kylie, Pink, Girls Aloud, Westlife etc. have (and personally I have a massive distaste for this sort of shit...although, I've never been to such a show, but these sorts of shows it seems as though the music is an afterthought for flashy shenanigans, wardrobe changes and all other sorts of shit, I could watch fucking trapeze artists on youtube whilst playing MP3's and save £60, thank you).

that's a load of shit. that's like saying "WHY BOTHER GOING TO SEE THIS BAND I HAVE THE CD ANYWAY."

And so what if it is a SHOW rather than just the music? I can't judge on whether Lady Gaga's show is any good live having not seen it myself, but countless bands have concentrated heavily on the visual part of their show as well and it is something that can really make or break their performance.

No, it's not...not in any way shape or form...at all.

I've got nothing against choreography and dance routines and stuff, hell, I agree, for lots of this sort of stuff it can make or break the performance, but shit that's so ridiculous and over the top, just really gets on my tits. As I said, trapeze artists, random pyros and shit, and ridiculous stage set-ups and shenanigans...when an artist is concentrating more on being in place for the rising platform than vocals, there's something fucking wrong.

[RPS]

Don't get me wrong, I think La Roux are fucking shit. But I don't particularly understand this...La Roux have 1 album...a 40-minute set is probably about right...I don't understand how you can really expect them to play much longer...because they basically only have the material for a 40-minute set.

I forgot to write this because it was really what pissed me off... but they didn't even play all of the songs off the album. They missed 3 songs. That's really the part that pissed me off. Sure, they've got one album, but she missed 3 songs off her album. That's 1/4th of the album NOT played live. Very weak showing. I'll give them another chance when they put out another album, but as someone who's been to his fair share of shows, I was not impressed.

(and personally I have a massive distaste for this sort of shit...although, I've never been to such a show, but these sorts of shows it seems as though the music is an afterthought for flashy shenanigans, wardrobe changes and all other sorts of shit, I could watch fucking trapeze artists on youtube whilst playing MP3's and save £60, thank you).

I've been to a number of big name acts before - Britney, Madonna, Justin Timberlake, Pussycat Dolls, Christina Aguilera, etc. Putting Lady Gaga into this category is misguided. Music was integral to the entire experience at her concert. I get you when you say Britney - she lip synced the entire time I saw her and it was really about the theatrics. Lady Gaga sung every song live, she interpreted it in a different way than on the album and the theatrics added to the musical experience. I've seen a shit load of bad, pop stadium shows and Lady Gaga certainly wasn't one of them. A bit over the top? Absolutely. But having seen her live, I will say that it was similar to when I saw Justin Timberlake and (lesser so) Madonna. They understood how to fine this balance between theatrics and music that worked well. Britney Spears and the Pussycat Dolls did not.

Edited February 9, 2010 by RockPaperScissors

[hackerjack]

So they only have one album? Are you seriously telling me that's all the material that they have? Most bands write a load of stuff that never makes it to album, and then there are covers. I'm sorry but if unsigned bands can manage 80-90 mins then someone charging that much a ticket should do the same.

As for the Gaga comparison, you get what you expect, her shows are a show, a performance not just a recital but as well as the visual aspects you will also get a damn sight more than 40 minutes worth of material. Doesn't matter that style you have you still should not short change your fans because they simply wont come back.

[YI]

Who the fuck would get excited by the prospect of a fucking 80-minute La Roux set made up of b-sides and album outtakes though? If anything, I'd have 40-minutes of good solid material (not saying La Roux is ) as opposed 80-minutes of shit nobody cares about and will just turn you off. I'd use the same arguments about not playing the 'dregs of the album'.

Honestly, 40/45 minutes is about right for a one album artist (who doesn't have a wealth of EP's/known b-side material - ie. La Roux). However, I will say the lack of a support act is a total crock of shit. These are the sorts of shows over here that would have like a 3 band bill at least.

And I very rarely see smaller bands playing 90-minute sets. And to be honest, unless you've got 3-albums or 2 INCREDIBLE albums, you shouldn't even attempt a 90-minute set...The Killers at Leeds Festival 2 year ago are a prime example, yes they were good, yes they had some massive hits, but Jesus Christ did they have to fill out the set with some shit.

Arguably the best band I saw last year was Polar Bear Club...their headline shows were about 10/11 songs - picking from their album, a few from their AMAZING EP, a new track and one of their demo songs or a cover (Get Up Kids - "Ten Minutes"). They only did about 45-50 minutes, tops...but they were fucking unreal. I honestly don't think the time has anything to do with it. Bad sound, lack of enthusiasm, lack of supports...yeah, but the duration/make-up of the set, nah.

Edited February 9, 2010 by YI

[RPS]

Who the fuck would get excited by the prospect of a fucking 80-minute La Roux set made up of b-sides and album outtakes though? If anything, I'd have 40-minutes of good solid material (not saying La Roux is ) as opposed 80-minutes of shit nobody cares about and will just turn you off. I'd use the same arguments about not playing the 'dregs of the album'.

Honestly, 40/45 minutes is about right for a one album artist (who doesn't have a wealth of EP's/known b-side material - ie. La Roux). However, I will say the lack of a support act is a total crock of shit. These are the sorts of shows over here that would have like a 3 band bill at least.

I understand that I don't want La Roux to play for 2 hours and play songs I've never heard. But we are talking songs off her album she didn't play - not obscure b-sides or covers. I knew 6 people who went to the show and all the same thing "I waited to get in and for coat check longer than she performed" followed up by "and she didn't even play all of her songs!" I think people wouldn't have been as miffed had there been an opener, it was just a tad ridiculous to pay regular concert fare for 40 minutes of a concert, especially when it was clear she didn't bring her a-game, as the first half she seemed bored.

And YI, we all know you have a boner for La Roux, stop covering it up .

EDIT

Also, not to beat a dead horse, but Wikipedia says that her album runs 46 minutes, while she played about 40 minutes. Her album is longer than the live performance. Lame.

Edited February 9, 2010 by RockPaperScissors

[Dingle]

I really don't get this La Roux argument. People, SURELY, only go for the big hits for artists like that? Sure, be pissed that there was no support (I find it insane that this is the case), but hell, very few bands play all of their stuff live and I know that YI has seen a few bands that only played about 6 or 7 songs. The lack of support is what gets me, not the short La Roux set.

[RPS]

I'll be honest and say I've never seen a concert from a headlining act that didn't go over an hour. Heck, an hour and a half really. Maybe it's just cultural differences, or something, but unless you are some small local/regional band here, you play more than an hour.

[Katsuya]

Hm...from what I vaguely recall when I saw La Roux, the performance was only about an hour long and she didn't do any covers etc., just songs from the album.Think she missed a song or two out, but she certainly interacted a fair bit with the crowd (plus the support act were really good) and I enjoyed it. Maybe it was an off night?

And for what it's worth, my expectations for the La Roux concert differed completely at the time than what my expectations for GaGa's concert later this month are. GaGa, I'm very much expecting a big show and performance, because that's GaGa in herself. You couldn't compare the personalities of Elly Jackson and Lady GaGa one bit, they're completely different worlds even if their music is vaguely the same.

[Dynamite]

How many people were at the show? If there was a lot of people there then you're right to expect more than 40mins, even if its just a few support acts doing 20mins each or so.

[RPS]

How many people were at the show? If there was a lot of people there then you're right to expect more than 40mins, even if its just a few support acts doing 20mins each or so.

It holds around 500 people.

[Dingle]

Right, I'm gonna go see La Roux in May or whenever she's over here, just to see what she's like. Then I'll be back with my thoughts ¬_¬.