Live Performances and the Judgement of said things.

I want to know how people judge the quality of a live performance. Poll is up, and is a semi-damn good one.

Of course the band have to appeal to the crowd, but I also know that I wouldnt have gone t oa live consert if the band I was listening to was bad live and bad musicians so....

Bit of both....MUCH OF BOTH:D

I judge the technical prowess of the band. I voted for "both" because it is important for most to have that kind of atmosphere. Mutual respect between musician and fan and mutual enjoyment. But I like to hear a band recreate their songs exactly as heard on the album. Altering songs a bit with extended versions and the like is fine, but when a band just throws in a lot of unnecessary solos for breakdowns, that is something that does not appeal to me.

I am the guy that stands in the back of the room (or concert hall) with a smoke, not saying anything. I enjoy hearing and seeing the band, so the atmosphere of the crowd is of no concern, but this is just me. I think the band should strive to spice things up and enthrall the audience.

i go either way with the crowd thing.

I'm quite like Magus.

I forgot to contribute my opinion. Woops.
I judge the band on technical prowess. I believe that you really don't have to appeal to the crowd to have a damn good show. For example, seeing the Muse live, they didn't once stop to talk to the crowd. Played damn fine though, and overall it was a great show.

This is why Dream Theatre is one of my favorite live bands. Rudess can recreate his complicated keys flawlessly, and LaBrie's range is astounding. Some times they appeal to the crowd. LaBrie will attempt to have the audience clap their hands. But most DT fans just lie back and enjoy the music, and the band generally plays continuously without breakdowns and the like.

What I look for in a life preformance is energy. I don't care if they brutalize the song as long as there's an energy level to it that's amazing enough that makes me respect it as much as the original song, since sometimes it gets rather mundane doing the same thing over and over again.

if nobody likes the band...well it's pontless to be at the show. if the band is playing hardcore, everyone's gonna be hardcore dancing like jumping beans in a Tasmanian Devil's stomach.

but to be honest, i don't like it when the crowd is going crazy and smashing into each other. i like good music.

I voted fer both.

Both, IMO. Although it saves a lot, if band is really up to the gig, and plays with passion...

going to lots of local band shows I've realized that 'good' doesn't really matter, it's attitude and involvement of the crowd. One concert I went to recently the singer wasn't incredibly good and the coordination was quite off, but it was the best concert I've ever been to.

I look at concerts like this:
Of course the band has to play well, that's a given. But if the band tries too hard to play exactly like they do on the album, then it kills it for me. This is one of the many reasons why I dislike the Dave Matthews Band so much.
Crowd reaction is important, since the band derives a lot of their playing energy from the crowd. That, and it indicates that the band is doing something right, even if their music is horrible. However, if the crowd is too rowdy, the show gets ruined.