Alive 2007 v. Alive 1997

[nspurway]

Now I know 2007 is a kickass show. But here's my point:
1. Alive 1997 was done old school, with synths and drum machines. Really really classic 90s house. Whereas it's all software based now, and "basic" mixing is done - the computer does the rest.
2. That's not a kick in the butt for Daft's creativness, but it does give way to where mixing is going - I loved ALive 1997 for it's ... originality. It had more soul and was improvised and changed constantly (a la Rollin & Scratchin or the 16 minute Da Funk)
3. Now with 3 albums to play with, it's highly varied, and sounds much more 'spacey' and electronic, whereas 1997 sounds 'earthly', as if created by human hands the very moment you hear it.
4. While Alive 2007 is good, it's more visuals. Just imagine, say, Fatboy Slim with that set up. It'd be amazing. You can play any music to that (within reason) and still think it 2000x better than any club that would play it. It's more visuals now. 1997 made you PAY ATTENTION to the music and feel it coursing through you. I'm not saying 2007 doesn't do that, but 1997 feels much more genuine.
5. Both shows are amazing in quality. But the difference is, the songs are OVERLAPPING, there are no new beats coming in, with the Exception of "too long/steam machine". In 1997, Da Funk was stretched to 16 minutes with rapid bass lines and killer beats - generated on the fly, rather than pre-constructed.
6. Length. Songwise, Da Funk in 1997 was a brilliant piece of improv and beat lines. Now, in 2007, it's done in Abelton Live, with no "real" elongated improv. While the shows vary slightly in sound and light changes, there is no MASSIVE extenstion to any show, unlike 1997. SO if you go to two separate shows, chances are it won't change too much, a big difference to 1997.

This is not dumping **** on either show. This is a constructive analysis of each show and comparing them from both decades in world where ****ty people like that ****ING GUMMI BEAR can release a single and be called an artist. What has happened to our music? Like 2007, it's changing, more pre-constructed, and genuine dance artists are disappearing, being replaced, ever so slowly, by those ****ty ringtone assholes.
What say you guys?
PS - my vote is with 2007 - purely because of it's overlapping of songs. 1997 kicks ass over 2007 in the mixing department, though.
with love.
spurway.

[iRollToDaftPunk]

alive 2007>live@ rex club>alive 97

imo.

[hani]

Alive 2007 FTW. Imho.

[JJGHWULL]

Omg. It's all Daft Punk. Daft Punk can't be better/worse than themselves

[hani]

Yeah, but I prefer Alive 2007, because I was actually there and I've saw it with my own eyes.

[iRollToDaftPunk]

[quote1196767889=Young Predator]
Omg. It's all Daft Punk. Daft Punk can't be better/worse than themselves
[/quote1196767889]


i was talking about performance and integrity...
you can tell when theyre pussy-footin around, really into it, or just high, but this is my opinion.

[JJGHWULL]

Yes, i understand. But it's not a fair comparesment. Cause ofcourse the sounds, visuals, kwality etc etc are better 10 years after alive 1997

[CJVercetti]

[quote1196800217=Young Predator]
Omg. It's all Daft Punk. Daft Punk can't be better/worse than themselves
[/quote1196800217]
Agreed.

[nspurway]

That's true. But I never will say it's worse than a previous performance. It's just a constructive breakdown - showing where live shows have gone in the last ten years....

[DaftSnow]

[quote1196804899=iRollToDaftPunk]
alive 2007>live@ rex club>alive 97

imo.
[/quote1196804899]

No way, Rex Club lacks so much energy, Alive 97 is such a better listen.