Do you prefer studio or live records?

[sunvalleylaw]

Long ago, I liked studio albums best, because the songs sounded the way they were "supposed" to sound as I had heard them on the radio. Now, most times, I like Live albums best. The energy is different, sometimes the sound is less produced, which I like, and the artist may strike out a bit on a solo or an aspect of the performance.

The exception for me is project albums, in the vein of the Pink Floyd albums like "Dark Side of the Moon", "The Wall" etc. where it is a story, and the studio production enhances the experience of the tale being told.

What is your vote and why?

 

[Robert]

Live, because there's no hiding. No punch-ins, no fixing - everyone is nekkid - and that's when the best musicians shine.

 

[R_of_G]

It depends very much on what kind of live album we're talking about.

Firstly, there are many live albums that are fixed up after the fact with overdubs and all kinds of other things that make it something less than an a real document of a live performance. The most notable example is The Stones' Got Live If You Want It! which is about a fraudulent as it gets for a so-called "live" album but there are myriad other examples out there.

Second, and more important to me, is whether the live release is a document of an actual show or a compilation of stuff from several live shows or a whole tour. What I look for in a live recording is an idea of what a band/artist actually sounds like if you go see them live and that means setlists and mistakes and everything, not some culled together highlight package of just the popular songs or just the great moments of the shows. I want the real thing.

So I guess to answer Steve's question, I prefer studio albums and when it comes to live stuff I prefer to find actual shows on the internet or in trading circles. I listened to hissy Grateful Dead tapes for years so I can deal with less than professional audio quality if the quality of the music is worthwhile. I also love a lot of artists who make exceptional use of the studio tools they have available to them (Tom Waits, Radiohead, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, etc).

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Ok, good answer and statement of thoughts and reasons. Now follow the beam and cast your vote; I would count it as "other".

So I guess to answer Steve's question, I prefer studio albums and when it comes to live stuff I prefer to find actual shows on the internet or in trading circles. I listened to hissy Grateful Dead tapes for years so I can deal with less than professional audio quality if the quality of the music is worthwhile. I also love a lot of artists who make exceptional use of the studio tools they have available to them (Tom Waits, Radiohead, Pink Floyd, The Beatles, etc).

 

[R_of_G]

Sorry, I completely forgot to vote. I've now cast the vote for "other".

 

[markb]

Live, because there's no hiding. No punch-ins, no fixing - everyone is nekkid - and that's when the best musicians shine.

Add Thin Lizzy's Live and Dangerous to the list of fake live albums. Practically everything on that record was "touched up" in the studio. If live albums are recorded to stereo straight off the board, OK, but when they're put down to a mobile multitrack rig, anything goes.

 

[Spudman]

I prefer studio albums almost always. I find there is better experimentation overall. Some bands can pull it off live and that is the exception that makes me say wow!

The only live material that really exemplifies greatness to me is The Flower Kings - Alive On Planet Earth and Quebec Limited, Yes - YesShows, Deep Purple - Come Hell Or High Water. All of these artists can make improvisation sound like it belongs. They take the songs in new directions live and it fits. Amazing!

 

[just strum]

I voted studio because live recordings are sometimes so poorly recorded. Then there are bands that just can't achieve what they do in the studio.

I will say that a well done live recording is a gem, but I most often will go for a studio recording.

 

[Robert]

Well, guys, I was referring to live albums, not fake live albums.

 

[just strum]

Well, guys, I was referring to live albums, not fake live albums.

So was I.

 

[Tone2TheBone]

It depends on who it is. Some live recordings sound like ***** though...but then again those ones were back in the 70s where it was all midrange coming out of the PA. But if you're Rush then you're gonna sound pretty good live. I've always preferred Jimi's live recordings cause you can hear his manly Marshalls loud and proud they way they're meant to be heard. It just depends. Yes had great studio mixes.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Good points. But it seems that live albums have gotten better. The Live in LA Mayer album is an example. The George Benson, Weekend in LA album is another example from the past, though they did add some production after, including strings that I wish they had left off. But both performances I think demonstrate that there can be some awesome improv live, and though I really like their studio albums, I like both of those live albums better.

 

[Kazz]

Live albums have definitely gotten better over the years....what I did not like about them in my younger days was all the crowd noise....now I appreciate that crowd noise a bit more as it is part of the spectacle that is a live show.

Tesla's 5 Man Acoustic Jam is just that....a live performance...Geffen wanted them to go back and fix things...and they refused...they said either put it out live or do not put it out at all.

 

[wingsdad]

I supposethat with very few exceptions there's hardly such a thing as a 'real' live album other than bootlegs. So, what's the difference, then, between a raw live album of that nature and a carefully crafted studio album that might take months, 147 overdubs, called-in musicians to cover parts, and 27 argument-filled mixes to complete?

Some great performances, full of the the artists' adrenaline, energy and kharma, inspired moments of improvisation fueled by playing to an enthusiastic audience are essentially captured live, but then touched up with varied amounts of studio overdubs and remixing.

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with polishing great performances like that if it makes great music and great, enjoyable listening. (That said, you can't polish a turd...well, you can, but then, all you have is a polished turd.)

I appreciate the artistry at all levels of a great studio album, but some of my favorite albums to this day, that I've listened to countless times, but that I can still catch nuances of brilliance that vary from the 'original' studio recordings are:

The Allman Brothers Band's 'Live At The Fillmore East': a 'breakthrough' live album, a compilation of performances taken from a couple of different yet consecutive nights, but barely touched up with overdubs.

Bob Seger & The Silver Bullet Band's 'Nine Tonight': Seger at one point announces giddily to the crowd that they're recording 24-Track...encouraging them to be a part of the energy. Loaded with overdubs and remixing, there's stuff on this album that captures Seger and that particular incarnation of the SBB a their best, better than any of his studio album cuts of the same tunes.

Lynryd Skynrd's 'One More From The Road': as originally released, it took what the band considered their best performances from 3 consecutive nights at Atlanta's Fox Theatre. I picked up the 25th Anniversary CD version of this a couple of years ago...to hear alternate night performances of their 'biggies' (how many different versions of 'Freebird' have you found?), but also, of 'Crossroads', one of their 'honky tonk bar band' cover tunes that they never did on a 'studio' album. Here's where you hear them (at least Allen Collins and Leon Wilkeson) faithfully paying homage to one of their major influeneces, Clapton/Cream.

I'll take a great live album like those, that offer a performance I wouldn't hear otherwise, but I voted studio, if only because some artists best work just can't be captured live for one reason or another, and I'm partial to the art of great, tastefully done production with strong values, and because of the technicality that the best 'live' albums I've found were 'doctored in the studio', but for the better.

 

[R_of_G]

Anything from the John Zorn 50th Birthday celebration series are some great live albums. The downtown NY scene (of which Zorn is one of the leading figures) celebrated his 50th with a month of concerts featuring many of Zorn's numerous projects. Many of these were subsequently released as live recordings and all are full performances of actual sets without overdubs. These are musicians that absolutely thrive in a live improvisational setting (particularly Masada, the Masada String Trio, Bar Kokhba, and Electric Masada).

 

[mcgreggor57]

Long ago, I liked studio albums best, because the songs sounded the way they were "supposed" to sound as I had heard them on the radio. Now, most times, I like Live albums best. The energy is different, sometimes the sound is less produced, which I like, and the artist may strike out a bit on a solo or an aspect of the performance.

The exception for me is project albums, in the vein of the Pink Floyd albums like "Dark Side of the Moon", "The Wall" etc. where it is a story, and the studio production enhances the experience of the tale being told.

What is your vote and why?

Live albums for pretty much the same reasons as yours.

 

[mcgreggor57]

...you can't polish a turd...well, you can, but then, all you have is a polished turd.

Great signature material :beer: