Thread: Unplugged or Plugged?

I am curious to get input on which you perfer in a venue. The unplugged venue, or plugged. I understand it depends on a lot of factors, place, mood, band, music etc... but in general do you perfer an unplugged, acoustic show (acoustic guitars, less distortion....etc..) or the opposite?

where ever there are less people

I think acoustic gigs can work well. Seen Roy Harper a number of times, and I'd say his shows - just him & his guitar - are amongst the best I've seen.

Generally though, I prefer a bit of outrageous volume...

I feel that this is a case of horses for courses...............there are situations where acoustic performances are appropriate and give great effect........there are some musical situations where the music can be best communicated by power and volume.......................depends on the situation

Originally Posted by gryphon

I feel that this is a case of horses for courses...there are situations where acoustic performances are appropriate and give great effect...there are some musical situations where the music can be best communicated by power and volume...depends on the situation

Yep.

I think unplugging is a good test of quality. The ability to perform live without technology, effects, or studio production says a lot about the integrity of a band or artist. A lot of pop stars wouldn't survive that test these days.

unplugged...its more raw and organic

I agree with kvincent5555, it's a good test of quality. A great artist should be able to translate what they do to it's most basic form (melody and accompaniment), and still represent who they are. This is why so many of the original MTV Unplugged episodes were so successful. All that said, I'm still a bigger fan of "plugged"!