Meltdown Tracker Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 Curious to see how the two compare, strictly in terms of their live performances. I think an argument can be made for either one. Matt has a better guitar tone and is more willing (if it is his call) to play deeper cuts, but he fucks up with the solos/riffs of some songs and his banter/stage presence is very limited. Tom has a great stage presence, is hilarious, and can sometimes bring a lot of energy and showmanship. But he often doesn't care much and puts in a half-assed effort into songs or jokes around too much (First Date), and has a weak guitar tone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boring.........Alright Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 Tom for sure. The banter might've been forced in retrospect, but at the time was still pretty funny and there was way more improv with the songs. Loved the extended outros of Down and I Miss You and whenever he would fuck with First Date. Sure his voice was not that great but honestly Matt doesn't sound that great either on a lot of songs. He shouts on Feeling This, Man Overboard & Not Now and it sounds just as bad as drunk Tom. And also Mark's singing isn't great either (albeit better than the other 2) so I don't get why we single Tom out for being terrible. The guitar tone doesn't really bother me that much i don't really notice it for the most part. I just watched the latest London show the other day and Matt still fucks up WMAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedo Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzz Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 This is tricky, I think it depends on what you're basing this on. If you are grading the "live performance" based on the actual performance of the instrument/vocals, then it's Skiba by a mile IMO. But, if you're grading the "live performance" as entertainment, then it's Tom simply based on stage presence alone. This also assumes we are judging current Tom/Matt, because back when Tom gave a fuck he was the winner for both of these definitions IMO. I'm going to vote based on actual performance of the songs, and not the dick jokes, so I'll go with Skiba in current form. Sorry Tom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boring.........Alright Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 Just now, ryan1125 said: This is tricky, I think it depends on what you're basing this on. If you are grading the "live performance" based on the actual performance of the instrument/vocals, then it's Skiba by a mile IMO. But, if you're grading the "live performance" as entertainment, then it's Tom simply based on stage presence alone. This also assumes we are judging current Tom/Matt, because back when Tom gave a fuck he was the winner for both of these definitions IMO. I'm going to vote based on actual performance of the songs, and not the dick jokes, so I'll go with Skiba in current form. Sorry Tom. But is the actual performance of songs that much better? I would say no it's not like Tom's guitar playing was shitty. Tone you could argue but he performed the songs well at least imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxelder Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 this is actually strangely hard. i'm inclined to say matt, because blink has never SOUNDED better. but sounding great was never their charm; it wasn't even important. they're sloppy, lazy, and fast... or at least they were. matt brings to the table stronger vocals and drastically improved guitar tone. tom brought little in recent years besides mildly amusing/forced banter. but if we're judging as a whole, tom... the speed/banter/chemistry with mark pre-2005 is unmatched. but considering the past ten years, matt's still an adequate replacement. he's ably performing the tunes, but it's boring because there's no banter and everything's at album speed. still, we can't ask the man to be what he's not and they're all old now too, so that has to be taken into consideration. i still voted tom, because there's still some sort of weird energy they had onstage, like the three were meant to be playing music together. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghent Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 Spoiler Alert: Tom will win poll in landslide and discussion will break down into Feldmann bashing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ182 Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 I think they're about equal overall. Guitar Tom had the shittiest tone ever, Matt has a much beefier distorted tone Tom can run circles around Matt riff-wise, but his playing became lazy Vocals Tom sounded like he was having a stroke onstage, Matt can hit notes and enunciate Tom is the original singer in most of the songs so that gives him an edge, fair or not Etc. Tom had more energy by far and talked and joked between/during songs Matt and Mark don't hate each other 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghent Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 I voted equal. Speaking of music quality only, Matt is far better than Tom. Blink hasn't been this polished sounding in years. In terms of classic blink "fun" Tom wins. There is no banter or stage antics with Matt. So I say they are pretty much equal, with a slight edge to Matt era because they actually write new music and play tons of shows. (aka- trying) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Backing Track Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 Matt is just too boring imo. Also I think 'covering' so many old Blink songs really makes things worse. I don't like California at all really, but I'd much rather prefer a near full setlist of that since that's what he was a part of making.. Tom, was horribly sloppy post reunion at times, but it felt like a Blink show. Also, Blink never performed well live that's part of why many of us loved them is the 'fuck it' persona. Matt is just to stiff and seems uncomfortable majority of the time with everything blink. Can't say it's an easy task but at some point you have to just step up.. I saw them with Matt and it just felt very, empty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheerios4u98 Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 Matt sings better but overall I prefer Tom's performance, no matter how sloppy/drunk he is. Much more entertaining, and when you're there in person it doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as when you watch it on YouTube. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ182 Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 23 minutes ago, FightingTheGravity said: Also, Blink never performed well live that's part of why many of us loved them is the 'fuck it' persona. I agree with your post but I feel like in a weird way their glory years have become underrated at this point haha. They 100% had a "fuck it" persona but they had a prime few years when they cared about playing live, and Tom (even with talent limitations) actually tried to sing and did it decently well. Mark and Tom might not have had a lot of natural talent but they at least tried to max out their abilities, and then Tom took a huge nosedive, then anything post-reunion especially sounded straight up disgraceful to anyone who isn't a big Blink fan haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosferatu Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 I'd give the slight edge to Tom although his guitar tone became unbearable in the last two years. I thought the tone was decent enough around 2011 though, especially on that Vegas show. He improves, has his riffs or solos, and although has a shitty voice live, it works on songs like Feeling This, Violence, Stockholm Syndrome IMO. I really can't stand Skiba's voice on the shouting/talking songs like the three I just mentioned. Skiba's guitar tone is way more bearable than Tom's tone from his last 2 years. Although, it doesn't help when the live mixes for some of blink's performances has been downright horrid. The mixing sounded awful for Reading + Leeds, as well as that game awards thing or whatever that blink performed on. Funnily enough, the mixing was way better for that Red Bull Sound Space performance. Skiba's clean guitar tone however is fucking awful. Almost sounds like a damn xylophone or something. Tom's guitar tone works for the clean stuff. Skiba on songs like Always sounds great though. That song is kind of his style anyway. Punk rock and new wave. Blink should do more of that in their future albums. Tom has the presence, showmanship even when he's half assing it whereas Skiba to me doesn't have too much stage presence. Ideally, I'd rather see blink in person whilst Skiba is in the band, because I have a feeling that blink actually sound much better than they did with Tom. I say I'd give the slight edge to Tom, but it's kind of 50/50. My heart says Tom, the head says Skiba. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boring.........Alright Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 TBH I'm surprised Tom is killing this poll Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedo Posted August 2, 2017 Report Share Posted August 2, 2017 Speaking of killing ... Jan, did you think it over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vinegar Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 Tom mother-fuckin' Delonge. Skiba needs to get the fuck off the stage and go back to Alk3. He insulted my ears with his weird shouting and poor guitar playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSandt Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 Matt. The songs themselves sound much better while Tom's antics were half-amusing, half-infuriating toward the end of that lineup. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 I put equal. Matt may mess up some of the riffs but he actually tries and cares about his guitar performance, he has a better tone, and as much as I don't like the 'shout' singing that much, he does actually do it mostly in goddamn tune. He also makes Down 10x more enjoyable. His main failure is lack of mad stage bantz. Tom is funny and energetic and improvises yes, those are all true, but he also slurred his way through every performance and frequently just did not care whatsoever. Plus all of the post reunion shows are tainted for me because of that stupid goddamn shirt he wore for half of them. Tom was at his most disrespectful to blink-182 and it's legacy during the reunion tours, at least the first few. on top of that his guitar tone was pure dog shit. I think the balance of the show is half music capability and half banter and fun and I think neither of them are good at both, so it has to be equal. Also I hate the 'the fun matters more' element, because blink were much goddamn better performers even back in the 90s and they were still funny as all hell then with much less impressive equipment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vinegar Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 See, I think it's disrespectful to take someone else's songs they wrote and tour the world making money off them. I don't care what shirt Tom wore, I've seen Travis wear both a Famous Stars and a Give the Drummer Some shirt and it didn't bother me, I judge on entertainment and Tom didn't bore me. Honestly they need to fade out the Tom-only songs (which they've done by the smallest margin) and I'd enjoy the new lineup more live. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kay Posted August 3, 2017 Report Share Posted August 3, 2017 28 minutes ago, vic vinegar said: See, I think it's disrespectful to take someone else's songs they wrote and tour the world making money off them. I don't care what shirt Tom wore, I've seen Travis wear both a Famous Stars and a Give the Drummer Some shirt and it didn't bother me, I judge on entertainment and Tom didn't bore me. Honestly they need to fade out the Tom-only songs (which they've done by the smallest margin) and I'd enjoy the new lineup more live. Give The Drummer Some and FSAS were done alongside blink, they weren't projects created on the back of destroying blink. Very, very big difference. Toms decision to do AVA is a large part of why blink split, wearing that shirt every goddamn day for a tour is a constant reminder of 'Well yeah I'm back in blink but whatever you know what else I'm doing that I clearly care way more passionate about?! please pay attention to it!', it was a bullshit marketing move trying to bank on blink-182 fans high on the reunion. it was a dick move. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.