Live Rocordings > Studio Recordings?

[bassaficionado6]

So, I was just listening to the new live albums from Muse and Rush, and I realized that I really emjoy live recordings. I enjoy them more than regular studio recordings.

Often, if I want to get into a band with a really big discography, I'll find myself getting a live album over a best of album.

How do you guys feel. Live or studio?

[the_fonz]

i prefer live albums
they just seem to have a certain "feel" to them that i like

[bassbrad]

Many of my favorite recordings are live or live in the studio sorts.

[MoD_Scotty]

First Rush album I ever got was Exit...Stage Left....so I'm a little biased. I played that tape until it wore out!

[seanm]

I'm also a fan of live recordings. They seem to have an energy that is quite often lacking in studio recordings.

[Nyarlathotep]

I actually prefer studio recordings over live in most cases.

However, I love live DVDs or video of some sort. I guess, to me, live albums are OK, but miss out the most important part of the show: seeing 4-5 sweaty guys with no shirts kicking the s*** out of they're instruments

[jerry]

There are not many "live" CDs that are actually live anymore. Especially the bigger name groups.

[Bass_Machine]

Well, I really love the Fleetwood Mac live album "The Dance".

Probably much more than any of their studio albums....

[jerry]

Originally Posted by Bass_Machine

Well, I really love the Fleetwood Mac live album "The Dance".

Probably much more than any of their studio albums....

That's one of the albums I'm talking about, that one and the Eagles Hell Freezes Over "live" album.

[TheInsane]

Studio - no doubt about it. I rarely, if ever, listen to the few live cd's I have.

[Bass_Machine]

Originally Posted by jerry

That's one of the albums I'm talking about, that one and the Eagles Hell Freezes Over "live" album.

A pox upon thee sire! :P

Well, it has the energy and the improvisational aspect (see bands like Muse and RHCP altering their songs as they go live) which is what I love about live albums, without the poor sound quality. If you're being a purist and saying that "live" means awful sound quality then it's not technically a live album, but I think it still is, as all the playing was recorded live and the only studio changes are the mixing etc to make it all more listenable.

[rutty24]

personally it does bother me whether the recording is live or studio.. live tone and studio tone will probably vary but its carrots for me.

[The Lurker]

Originally Posted by jerry

There are not many "live" CDs that are actually live anymore. Especially the bigger name groups.

yeah, though some take a purist approach to it..... there's a Gov't Mule CD out there, Live at the Roseland Ballroom, that people praised left and right for a killer bass sound, and then Warren Haynes pointed out in an interview that the bass was all bleed through the background vocal mic..... the DI and the mic on the bass amp had both died and nobody realized it until the show was over.

They released it as-is anyways.

I like the 'warts and all' approach myself.... if you go back and do overdubs and so on, it's not a live album anymore, now is it?

Remember some of those 'live' albums from about 30 years ago, like Judas Priest's "Unleashed in the East" or thin lizzy's Live and Dangerous? I can actually hear where the overdubs kick in on that one....

[Nyarlathotep]

^ I think Slayer released a "live" album one time.

It was live alright. Live in the studio, with friends, etc, as the audience

[Deacon_Blues]

I couldn't choose between those two, so I voted carrots.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Bass_Machine

A pox upon thee sire! :P

Well, it has the energy and the improvisational aspect (see bands like Muse and RHCP altering their songs as they go live) which is what I love about live albums, without the poor sound quality. If you're being a purist and saying that "live" means awful sound quality then it's not technically a live album, but I think it still is, as all the playing was recorded live and the only studio changes are the mixing etc to make it all more listenable.

He's not saying that at all. He's saying that they weren't really live albums but albums recorded in the studio which were then mimed by the band in front of a crowd. And even real live albums will often have some level of overdubbing going on, either to fix mistakes or out-of-tuneness.

[Hawaii Islander]

I like both. Sometimes the live version of a song isn't as good as the studio version and sometimes the live version is better (for a variety of reasons). I usually try to get both versions.

[Jeremy Crockett]

Ugh! I'm an idiot. I meant to vote "studio"... DUH!

In any case. I'm probably one of the few who actually likes the "produced" and sometimes over-produced (Terrapin Station anyone?) albums. However the obvious true test is when a band sounds as good live as they do recorded. Jethro Tull, Moody Blues come to my mind.

[Bassist4Life]

I voted for "studio". I do enjoy live recordings; but if I'm learning a tune, I want to hear the studio recording. The mix is usually better to my ears. If I'm not trying to dissect the bass part, then I'll got with the live version.

Also, I enjoy a live version more if I am familiar with the song. That way I am familiar with how the band has changed things (or hasn't).

Joe

[Parabolic Box]

Live has a certain rawness to it that I enjoy, and is excellent if done right. Recordings can sound kind of lifeless, or overproduced.

I chose live, but only live if I actually am watching them, or see video. It's as much a visual experience as it is an auditory one.