"Live" or Studio

[teal'c]

While I don't mind seeing a new band/person in a live setting, I've found live versions, in person or recorded, of music that I enjoy off the studio albums is more annoying than enjoyable.
Improvised riffs, whatever that vocal up and down thing is, audience singing is...
Yuck.
I've heard a few live performances that were listenable, but never a superior live performance.

Give me studio, or give me silence.

 

[N8Nagel]

I'm the opposite... live recordings (assuming the performer isn't just mailing it in) if done well have so much more energy and emotion than studio, so I'm willing to overlook lower SQ, crowd noise, etc. To enjoy that feeling.

 

[w1jim]

Plenty of music can be made "exactly right" in the studio (for example the Boston albums) - but I prefer my jazz and Grateful Dead live.
Depends on the music and the artist.

 

[KDAC]

I'm overwhelmingly biased in favor of studio recordings. It's as if "teal'c" leaped into my brain and put my thoughts about this topic in text. I've found myself in situations where over several years of time I'd come to cherish certain songs by some of my favorite artists only to have them borderline ruined and nearly losing a fan in the process by them doing silly shit during live performances. The over-the-top vocal runs and unnecessary on-the-spot "interpretations" might do it for some, but not for me. No one expects the artist to replicate the effects of a multi-track "mix down," editing, and mastering on stage, but I'd surmise most would like to hear the song performed as they've become accustomed to hearing it.

 

[N8Nagel]

You know, it would be interesting to correlate the type of music to which one is listening to one's opinion on this thread. I tend to enjoy stripped down rock/jazz/blues type stuff and IMHO that is always best performed live. I also listen to a lot of classical and due to the nature of a symphonic performance there is very little difference between "studio" and a live performance. Music that *relies* on multi-layered mixing etc. such as electronica might not be so easily translatable to a live performance - although I have friends that swear that a Front 242, Nitzer Ebb, etc. show was fantastic, I can't say as I've ever gone to any of that nature. Nothing against them and I'd go in a second given the opportunity.

 

[swechsler]

IMO it depends on many things, including the quality of the performance and the quality of the recording. I have to admit that I don't listen to most "bootleg" live recordings more than once since quality varies so much. I have, however, purchased many live albums over the years, and there are few, if any, that I don't listen to any more. There are some songs where I prefer the live version, others where I prefer the studio version.

 

[mikel68]

Simple...listen to Cheap Trick's studio version of I Want You To Want Me then the Live version on Live at Budokan. However, outside of most bootlegs, "Live" LPs have been doctored so much in the studio, they aren't really all that "Live."

 

[jcamero]

Both, studio/live are fine. What's even better is a live studio recording, (Fleetwood Mac in Chicago). The Who has some great studio albums, Who's Next, Quadrophenia, Sell Out, Tommy, but can't beat the raw energy of Live at Leeds. I personally like hearing the dead notes, buzzes, feedback, in live recordings, it makes the artists "human".

 

[klosterman]

I recently picked up a double live, Tabla Beat Science, Live at Stern Grove. It's insanely good. Recorded in front of 10k in San Fran in '01. I always prefer live with one exception: chowderheads who loudly whistle during the ditty. I despise whistling at shows. Yelling too for that matter. Jeepers I'm getting old.

 

[rebellovw]

Just bought Live Rust LP and listened to it last night - loved it. I love live over studio. Ex:
Made in Japan
Bootleg (aerosmith)
Double Live Gonzo
REM Live
I think Pulse is OK - but rather PF studio albums better- that is an exception

Really depends.

 

[N8Nagel]

found this in my box of old, uncleaned LPs, despite the cover being destroyed it cleaned up well and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Concert/dp/B000008JSU

I have no idea where I found it, I must have had it for 15 years or so and don't know if I ever even listened to it before.

 

[4-2-7]

I like studio best for a whole album listening but it doesn't mean that a live track can't be the best version of a song or ones favorite.

 

[tubed]

Depends on whether one listens to stuff for audiophile reasons or the sheer enjoyment of the music.

 

[r_deming]

Nothing better than live Jazz recordings. Audience reactions, energy of the performers, bad choices during a solo(wrong notes) warts and all. as long as its a clear clean recording and doesn't sound like it was recorded thru 2 tin cans and some string, I'm in!

 

[teal'c]

Depends on whether one listens to stuff for audiophile reasons or the sheer enjoyment of the music.

I listen for sheer enjoyment of the music. So people that listen to live stuff are listening for audiophile reasons?

 

[holyman772]

I don't think this is a all or nothing question, it really does depend on a lot of variables. There are some really well done live recordings out there, but a shitty sounding or blah live recording by any artist at any venue will turn me off. Also, if the artist deliberately did something different in the live recording that will usually get me more interested since its not a rehash of whats on the record. Take Eagles Hell Freezes over for example - very, very well recorded, and its primarily acoustic so a different twist on the songs. Not a big fan of live Rush recordings because they generally try to stick to what they recorded in the studio - so give me the studio version. Just my .02

 

[Dude111]

I picked STUDIO but I have been getting some LIVE stuff lately that was DONE WELL.. (Loud vocals)

1) Neil Diamonds first concert (HOT AUGUST NIGHT (1972)) -- 8 track tape
2) Woodstock 69 (3 records)
3) Led Zepplin - The song remains the same (2 records) - 1973
4) ZZ TOP - Fandango (Side 1 is LIVE from various concerts in 1974 I think)


Those are some

 

[savatage1973]

I voted "depends on the artist" because some artists are absolutely amazing live, and some rely upon the tremendous processing power of the studio environment. I am willing to live with the inherent "flaws" or "background noise" of a live recording, just because the performance was so dynamic and engaging, but some artists should never try to go on the road--get them out of the studio and they literally fall on their face.

 

[Dude111]

Yea thats true also!!

 

[SoCal Sam]

I chose depends on artist. Some artists sound terrible live while others sound more spontaneous and unrestrained live. Between live and studio recordings, I prefer live because I detest mixers and loudness wars.