Same reason I'd rather read an interview than watch a video one - I'd usually rather leave my other senses free to do other things.I'd always rather watch an interview. Heck, by that logic, it should be the opposite for you. I mean, you can listen to an interview and do other things. But reading an interview, at most the only other thing you could do is listen to music while you do so, and even then your attention is on the writing and the music just kind of fills the background noise.
Well, when I'm browsing the internet, I'm often listening to music, podcasts, whatever. "Here's a link to a great interview." "Oh, great!" "It's a video!" "Oh. Great."
I have to stop listening to my music, I have to digest the interview at speaking pace rather than reading pace (speaking is a lot slower), if I leave the room for a few seconds I might lose my place - video interviews are inconvenient. Especially since, as they're usually put together by video experts rather than audio experts, there are a lot more terrible-sounding audio interviews than video interviews (though that's a production issue rather than intrinsic to the medium), and because they've been produced for mixed-media lots of them flash questions up on screen so you lose context if you just listen... it can be a much bigger chore.
I don't need to see them play the instruments any more than I need to see David Mitchell's lips move when I'm listening to his radio show. It's a nice luxury to have, but most of the time it's an inconvenience. I get a lot more use out of CDs than DVDs, out of podcasts than films - you name it.Okay, now you COMPLETELY lost me. First of all, watching Dream Theater (of all bands) do their thing on stage is nothing short of amazing. Look at The Score version of Octavarium. That Continuum intro, half the awesomeness of it is seeing JR's face when he's performing it, that look of bliss and complete joy. Or Live Scenes From New York, which, with all its visual aids almost comes off like a musical. Not quite, but it's still incredibly spectacular to see.
And heck, any kind of a crazy instrumental breakdown by the band, such as the Instrumedley, it's just awesome to watch them in all their dexterity.
Also, yes, CDs are more versatile. But again, that's where studio albums come in. If you have the studio album, I don't see the point of buying a whole CD of songs that you already own, just sounding slightly different from being in a live setting.
I'm not entirely sure who you're trying to convince here - I've said several times this thread if it's one or the other I always buy the DVD, including once within the post you're quoting. They're very good. I have noticed that. q:
But the pictures are a tiny
part of the appeal of live music. The music is almost all of it. Shut your eyes and you can still get swept away in the energy, the technicality, the sheer emotion. Shut your ears and you're watching five middle aged men twiddling their fingers.
And WRT why you'd listen to songs you already own, I'll reiterate from a page or so back --I'll go through fairly frequent phrases when I'm properly craving live music. I like the slightly raw, rugged quality, and particularly the energy of a live performance. The songs on One Cold Winter's Night by Kamelot, for instance, tend to outstrip the studio versions by miles. Even when they're abridged! March of Mephisto's gorgeous.
Because there's a reason some songs only click when you see them live. A studio recording can often be sterile, every note recorded umpteen times, layered, processed into technical perfection. Pull Me Under's a good example - the opening notes barely sound like a real guitar, to me. Watch Pull Me Under at Download 2009
, it's the difference between the intro tape and the moment the drums kick in. Sometimes you don't want the clean, processed version - the jagged crunch of an electric guitar doesn't always grip your soul on a studio album like it does in a live arena. Peruvian Skies is another one that a live environment works wonders on. The soulful bits soar higher, the heavy bits are crunchier... you're clearly not getting the same things out of live music that I am, and that's fine. But it's not even a question for me - live music's superb, pictures or no, and because the music's what matters, the most convenient way to digest it will always be my personal favourite.
And umm... You'd rather listen to a podcast than watch a film? That just makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
I said I get more use
out of a podcast. I can listen to twelve hour-long podcasts in a day - have them on the go while I'm showering, browsing the web, working, driving, making dinner, travelling. I'll watch maybe one film every two months, when I've got two hours spare, and want to spend them watching a single story from start to finish. They're inconvenient. It's a lot easier to digest audio media because they don't demand your full sensory attention.
But I do like them more, yes!