Top positive review
29 people found this helpful
Red Rocks vs. Live in Chicago
on June 22, 2003
There have been 182 reviews so I'm sure a lot has been said. However, let me just say that if you're deciding between Red Rocks and Live in Chicago, Red Rocks has a rough, fresh, energy-packed feel with exellent versions of Nancies, Warehouse, Seek Up, Ants Marching, Watchtower, and Typical Situation, however, Chicago is many times more full, mind-blowing, and professional. While it doesn't have the same "freshness" as Red Rocks, it's simply amazing and does much, much more justice to Tim Reynolds, and come to think about it, all of the members of the Dave Matthews Band. Also, Red Rocks (1995) is much more weighted on Under the Table and Dreaming and some early versions of Crash songs, while Live in Chicago (1998) has a whole lot of Before These Crowded Streets with only two songs from Under the Table. This contributes to the different moods of the two CDs. When comparing the Red Rocks version of Lie in Our Graves to the Chicago version (the only song that appears on both albums with the exception of Watchtower), the Red Rocks version seems weak and immature, while the Chicago vesion is absolutely breathtaking. To wrap things up, both are fantasic CDs (it's DMB, after all), and you really should buy both, however if you want that unmistakable early DMB sound, go for Red Rocks, and if you want a more "evolved" and powerful DMB sound or if you want more Tim, then go for Live in Chicago. All right, that's what I have to say (I think), hope it helps somebody a little.
By the way, if you are interested in hearing two amazing accoustic guitarists playing absolute masterpieces of songs, then click yourself away from this and go to Live at Luther College; it's what started it all, for me. Okay, that's it, I'm done. Goodbye.