Heartland

Methedrome wrote:It is not outside the realm of proven possibilities that there are individuals who may not be what they seem.

I'm intrigued... whatever can you mean?

Also, it's a bit sad, it seems to me, that the chat on here is more focused on bickering between posters about whether someone or another has the right to post negative reviews, the correct way to do so, the quantity of smoke, the level of the vocals, etc. I think this says more about The Sisters than it does about their fans, unfortunately.

On the subject of smoke Andrew Eldritch once wrote:One of the reasons is that our early records had a certain amount of sonic haze to them. I don't really like to hear records and then be able to visualize every twang that every damn fool musician is playing on the record. I like to hear a song when I hear a record. I'm not terrifically bothered about being able to hear people playing instruments. That's very secondary to me. And one of the reasons that I think the smoke on stage is valid is because it provides a similar kind of haze. If the song can't reach the back of an arena or a hall or a club, then it really doesn't matter how much you prance around and show your underwear, it still doesn't really cut it.

Not sure if I fit into that category or not. Personally if I am happy at a gig, that's all that matters.

Methedrome wrote:Not sure if I fit into that category or not. Personally if I am happy at a gig, that's all that matters.

Lets face it, if I'm conscious at a gig its a bonus

weebleswobble wrote:

Methedrome wrote:Not sure if I fit into that category or not. Personally if I am happy at a gig, that's all that matters.

Lets face it, if I'm conscious at a gig its a bonus

Lucky you, having a 1,5 hour 'Floorshow'.

As I stated in the Washington DC thread, I had a great time at the show, as there was a celebratory mood all around, but I did have a problem with Andrew's voice as it was really low in the mix.

I also feel that by listening to the Sisters for well over a decade now, I have been brainwashed and will probably be there no matter what. I can also see that, objectively speaking, if someone dragged me to a show, and I didn't know anything about the band, I might think that they're mediocre at best. Andrew is all about the nuances in a way, and that doesn't come out live, at least not these days.

Anyway, these conspiracy theories that people might not be who they say they are when posting on here appear to me little far-fetched, honestly. Who would they be? Wayne's army perhaps, as he has folks all over the world registering to bash the band? I am half joking, but a part of me is also curious about who these people might be. In my opinion, people whose first post is negative, may be the ones who care about the band but got really disappointed.

Again, as I had sort of witnessed what some of these other people are talking about, I have no reason but to believe that that is their opinion based on some of the things that took place. If I had been there, I am sure that I would have managed to have fun, as I would have been singing instead of Andrew.

"Those who complain, THERE is our manager!"

My first real laugh of the day...at the avatar

But I CAN actually see musicians on the Denver pictures! What about extreme fog?!

sunshine wrote: But I CAN actually see musicians on the Denver pictures! What about extreme fog?!

The tales of the girls' visibility are greatly exaggerated.

That and cameras trump the naked eye.

Actually I think complaints of the fog are just because of cameras on cell phones and cybershots, et al. These people are the ones waving their stinking screens up over their heads for half the show and then when they get home and realize almost none of their shots came out, then the real disappointment sets in.

How about investing in a dedicated digital camera and not rely on that 1.2 megapixel junk on your cell?

Just a general statement, not directed towards anyone in particular.

Thank you.

Just keep in mind folks that on the Tech section of the Official Site it's noted that Andrew sings at a rather low volume and the mic must be very sensitive to pick him up. Now, there could be one of 1000 reasons for the problem, be it dodgy mix or Feedback from Hell keeping the mix low.

The counterpoint to the particular brand of computer-generated drums/bass/keyboards and "unique" vocals is the band is a mixed bag live and a little tougher to adapt from venue to venue. I'll bet this isn't a really big-budget tour, meaning they're also using some house gear, again varying from venue to venue.

Point being if someone says the sound sucked, I will believe them. There are numerous reasons why it could. I certainly don't like the band any less.