Avril Lavigne

I was watching Avril Lavigne on the Today show this morning and I confirmed something I had noticed when watching her live before. She is much worse in person than on the actual recordings. Does anyone else think that? I would have turned it off but I couln’t find my remote. Is she bad all the time and digitally made to sound good in the records or is she only bad in person? What do you think?

I never heard her in person so I can’t compare a recording of her to her actual voice. I do like her recording voice and have her album.

She’s not all that great live. I remember when she did a cover for “Fuel” during the MTV 20 century thing w/ Metallica. She just stood there, which made the act really boring to.

Every artist sounds worse live than on their recordings. Whether Avril is significantly worse than everyone else is not something I would know about however :slight_smile:

I can tell you I think her music sucks, imho :smiley:


I didn’t see the performance, so I can’t really pass judgment on it. Although you’ve got to remember that they get lots of chances to get it right in the studio. :smiley:

I also noticed this phenomenon with Evanescence when I got one of their shows. Then again, Amy Lee tends to be pretty active on stage. It’s hard to do that and sing well.

I happened upon a recording of one of her concerts once on TV, and I from what I heard, I think she always sounds bad. Well, the only thing that was really wrong was that she was horribly out of tune. Since from my experience good musicians are always concious of their pitch, this leads me to conclude that Avril Lavigne is this bad all the time, and her voice is digitally altered to sound in tune for her CDs.

Cory, you need to see more concerts. While I agree that Avril’s music sucks, you are way wrong with the first sentence… you just need to see the right artist at the right time. Sometimes, it’s a crap shoot and you don’t know what you are getting, while other times I have been amazed.

For instance, I was really excited to see Van Halen (with Hagar) in the early 90’s, but they were not good. On the other hand, I had tickets to see Elton John in the mid-nineties and was entirely blown away. His music was waay better live compared to what his albums put out.

Also, the Cure and Motley Crue had better music live compared to their album stuff. It really depends on the artist, their experience, and their ability to put on a show. My wife likes Steve Earle, and he is much better live.

I suppose that if an artist is younger, their stage show may lack skill, just because they need more experience.

for what that was worth, which isn’t much,
Andy B.

actually a lot of artists do that (there was the whole britney spears incident a while ago) … but if you think about the dance moves that performers like britney spears, beyonce, usher, justin timberlake, etc. do when they are on stage, no matter what kind of shape they are in (like usher with is 12 pack of abs), they have to breathe.
but when you think about it, what would you rather pay for … someone sitting/standing still and singing at a similar quality to the cd (you can look at a picture and listen to the cd then … save you some money ) or go and see a high energy show where the singing is prerecorded but you can only tell sometimes ??

but in terms of avril, yeah she is WAY worse in person, and she doesnt move around a lot, so i cannot think of an excuse for her … but so is mario winans (sp ? ) who i saw him doing a live performance on tv … a lot of artists are

I’m going to hop onto the your-wrong-here bandwagon :wink:

I’m a big Dave Matthews Band fan. Their album stuff is okay, but their real magic lies in their concerts. They do so much more stuff live - they just take the music to the next level. At every concert they take atleast one or two songs, twist them around, and end up making a 10-minute jam.

It is because of this ability that an entire bootleg community has grown up around DMB. For example, you can download just about any DMB concert from the early 1990’s at antsmarching.org. When I introduce people to DMB, I send them extended jam versions of songs from concerts I’ve been to. Granted, since these are bootlegs, the quality is not top-notch, but all that can be disguised with enough equalizers and DSP plugins :wink: That and they have released several live CDs like Red Rocks and Central Park where the recording is straight off the venue’s mixing board (and so, sounds studio-quality).

By the way, the band allows bootleg audio recording at concerts and actually encourages it - thats how they grew from a band origionally popular only with the college demographic.

Long story short - some bands sound better live than they do on studio releases.

As a general rule, I don’t like. Never have, probably never will. She is a typical sellout.

I agree Dan…There are plenty of other bands like this, but DMB is one of my favorites as well.

Some people can do both.

(By the way, The Central Park Concert is awesome…I’ve got the 3 CDs and the 2 DVDs and I like it better than any DMB studio album…The quality and technology behind live performances now is just amazing.)

The central park show in general was amazing - I was there that night :wink: I’m just disapointed they didn’t play Tripping Billies - thats one of my favorite DMB songs. The version I have from the August 25th show this past summer (to which my tickets were a birthday present for my sister ;-)) has so much energy - Carter went insane with the rhythms and the drums. PM me and I’ll send it to you or you can get it off of antsmarching.org

Anyways, more on-topic - I think that artists can be divided into two groups. There are the plain songwriter types that are more mainstream (like the origional subject of this post), and then there are the musician types like DMB or Phish. I love to see the musician types perform because they often improvise their songs or change them around, add parts, extend parts, put parts of other songs into their songs… you know, put some creativity and energy into the concert. I’m probably exagerating this a bit, but the point remains - some bands, like DMB, if you just know them from their studio release stuff, if you were to go to one of their concerts, it will seem like a completely new band.

Her music may not be my cup of tea, but I have to give her some respect for sounding so bad live.

It means she’s acutally singing.

-Andy A.

As many have said, some bands / singers are better live than on CD, some aren’t. That’s just the way it is. I saw Green Day live and they are just as good if not better live.

Add PUSA to the better in concert list.

I don’t like Avril Lavinaneninean, or how ever you spell that. Her singing on the album isn’t very impressive, so naturally her live stuff eats it.

Good points Andy :slight_smile:

P.S. You’re right, I do need to go to more concerts :rolleyes:


I’m definitely with Andy on this one. Done right, there is nothing like a good live show. The energy level you pick up from a good live performance is virtually impossible to capture on a recording. When the audience really gets into it, and gives good feedback to the artist, the performance quality can go through the roof. Whether they sit in one place and just belt out the tunes with a lot more soul (like when I saw B.B. King) or practically blow up the whole stage (AC/DC) is almost a secondary concern - in either case, the quality of the music was what mattered to me.

That said, the thing that you really have to look for is the basic capability of the artist. If they have legitimate talent, and you really like their music, then you are almost certain to like them in a live performance. If they are basically talentless posers (hhmmm … Avril Levigne on a skateboard in her first video - all she could do was go in a straight line), then you should have a good indication of what they will be like during a live show. You just need to recognize the difference between Ray Charles and Milli Vanilli.

Also, don’t expect that only big-name, big-money bands will always give the best shows. After the Southern California regional on Friday night, a few of us went over to the House of Blues in L.A. and saw Eek-A-Mouse. The next night we saw Leftover Salmon at The Knitting Factory. These are not groups that you are likely to see any time soon on MTV. But both of them turned out to be absolutely great small-venue shows that really pulled in the audience without assuming that cheezy tricks, massive pyrotechnics or flying surfboards (take that, David Lee Roth!) were all they needed. Both of these bands were mature and experienced enough to know how to work with the audience, and get them involved with the performance. They were able to show, once again, that a talented band with an appreciative audience is virtually impossible to beat!

Other bands that were much better live than on their albums:

  • AC/DC
  • Doobie Brothers
  • Eagles
  • Elvis Costello
  • Metallica
  • Concrete Blonde
  • Elton John (again, Andy is right on this one)
  • Chicago
  • John Fogerty
  • Arlo Guthrie and John Prine
  • Preservation Hall Jazz Band
  • Grateful Dead
  • Rush


So is this why I could never get into the NASA webcasts of the regionals as much as I did Palmetto (and at least the competition side of Archimedes)? (grin)

Cool… I get to tell Cory he’s wrong too… :wink: I think bands just sound different live and sometimes when you get used to hearing the recorded music it’s hard to accept a different rendition of it. I don’t really like live “albums” but actually going to a concert can be great! A few years ago I made all of my friends and loved ones go to the Fairfax Fair to see They Might Be Giants. Now, Eric, my other, absolutely hated them and would cringe and whine about them when I would play their music at home. He now admits that their concert was one of the best concerts he’s ever been to because they just perform so well live and he doesn’t whine when I play them at home now…

Other performers I’ve seen that have been completely amazing are Jethro Tull, David Bowie, Concrete Blonde and Violent Femmes. All of them were good because I liked their music but there were other factors that made them spectacular. Tull was really great because a group of us decided to risk the anger of the rain gods and get lawn seats and make it a picnic concert. It didn’t rain, so we had a fun evening sitting under the stars, and we had wine and cheese and strawberries and chocolate… and we took bets on whether or not our one friend, who was 8 months pregnant at the time, was going to roll down the hill when she went to get up… I saw Violent Femmes at a HFStival (can’t even remember who else was there, Counting Crows, I think and the Meat Puppets and Cracker maybe) and my friend and I had a blast singing along with every single Femmes song while Gordon Gano bounced around on stage with non-stop energy. Bowie is a born performer… I saw his Glass Spider tour when I was 17 and there was a giant spider draped over the stage and when he did Time, he floated down from the top of the spider (on a little platform) dressed all in white with big white angel wings… it was magical… Concrete Blonde also did a good performance. When they did Bloodletting, they turned off all of the lights except for some black lights and all of the band members came creeping out from behind the curtains wearing black body suits painted with neon colors to look like skeletons. It was spooky and fun and full of energy. Being there made the difference, if I had seen a recorded version of any of these concerts, I wouldn’t have enjoyed it.


Okay, the Monkees reunion tour in 86 was fun too and my first concert!