May 2008 editorial by Kevin

I went to see three bands at the same venue recently and got into a debate about what makes a band worth watching. My argument was that a band or solo artist that has the ability to entertain an audience as well as playing their music is much more interesting than a band that just stands there and plays. The counter argument was that the music is more important than the entertainment factor so the entertainment doesn't matter. In my humble opinion, the owner of the counter argument has his head up his arse. The musician that can entertain has got such a huge head start on those that don't. A good entertainer can capture the attention of the audience and keep them listening to the music that they produce where conversely I have seen bands that play well but the audience is not interested because no empathy created by them.

One of the most entertaining acts that I have EVER seen is Emilie Autumn and that is because her band gave an unforgettable and unique show. I have lost count of the bands that I have seen live who's show I don't really remember because they just stood there and played. There are bands that can do that and provide a memorable event but only a few that I can recall.

Having written the text above I realise that what I am actually saying is only a few exceptional bands can get away with just playing songs on stage. The others need to bring different strategies into play that capture the imagination of the audience enough to persuade them to come along to another show.

To me it is like listening to an average song with and without a good associated video. With the video the song is interesting without it is dull. You can try this at home with 'Come Undone' by Robbie Williams.

As always of course, I may be talking self opinionated rubbish. What do you think?