Live vs. Studio recordings - Page 2

Satchmo8101 · 02-18-2004, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seba Aethiad
...and as of this post I'm alone in my love of live recordings.

Don't get me wrong, I adore a well-crafted studio piece...there's just this unique quality of a live performance that could never be accurately put to tape, something intangible and important to those unique moments of musical performance...studio performances often come across as contrived and overbearing at times, while a true, honest, passionate live performance will capture a band/musician as they are, naked and real and 'in the moment' (assuming that the musicians we're talking about are a good live act and that they aren't just lip-synching to a recording...)...

...I often judge a band/musician solely on how well they present themselves in a live setting (obviously, this doesn't extend to Electronic musicians and those artists that simply detest live performance in general)...but this doesn't take away from the quality of their studio works, of course, but it just adds another dimension to their work and makes me appreciate them all the more if their live works hold up as well as (or surpass) their studio recordings...

...but ultimately, it all depends on the artist we're talking about. If we're talking King Crimson, Keith Jarret, Ruins, Bill Evans, Uz Jsme Doma, Cecil Taylor, I'll immediately go for a live recording over a studio work...

...if we're talking The Beatles, Talk Talk, Pat Metheny, and of course, most every electronic artist, than obviously I'll go w/ a studio work.

(and yet, while I did say most every electronic artist, Throbbing Gristle is one group that I almost always prefer to hear live.)

(( Of course, I'll take a studio recording any day over a poorly recorded/mixed live recording! :tongue: ))

I would add, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Anthony Braxton, Evan Parker, AMM, Steve Lacy, Zeppelin, Duke Ellington, Masada, Thelonious Monk.

And while Cecil Taylor has some excellent studio recordings, he is at his best on his live recordings! He really should be experienced at least once in concert while he is still alive!

He is 75, and he still is as intense as ever. And no other piano player comes close today.

Psychedelic Syd · 02-18-2004, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satchmo8101
You should listen to more jazz.

-

I'm getting there... My jazz collection is up to about 60 albums (mostly the masters like Coltrane, Miles, Monk,,, wth many live recordings in there).. I also like Dave Brubeck a lot (I know some feel he is not a master level jazz artist, but I like him)...

-

Heavy Metal Man · 02-18-2004, 01:45 AM

I think it depends mostly on the style of music, and how good the band actually is live. Led Zeppelin were fantastic in the studio, but some of their live material is truly magical. Phish is another example who had some great live stuff, and the live Pink Floyd I've heard I've been quite impressed with, especially the Wall live (so much more emotion, imo). I think a truly talented band can do both studio and live work very well.

Satchmo8101 · 02-18-2004, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psychedelic Syd
-

I'm getting there... My jazz collection is up to about 60 albums (mostly the masters like Coltrane, Miles, Monk,,, wth many live recordings in there).. I also like Dave Brubeck a lot (I know some feel he is not a master level jazz artist, but I like him)...

-

Nothing wrong with Brubeck. His Time series of recordings are all excellent. With Time Out being his masterpiece.

rancid rocker · 02-18-2004, 06:07 AM

usally studio, but i picked other because it realy depends on the band or if you all ready have a studio then its nice to have a little change !

Psychedelic Syd · 02-18-2004, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rancid rocker
usally studio, but i picked other because it realy depends on the band or if you all ready have a studio then its nice to have a little change !

-

That's a good point... Sometimes you get to the point where you want new material from a artist you like and a live recording is a perfect way to fill that need...

-

Sparrow · 02-18-2004, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seba Aethiad
Well, like I said, it all depends on the artist in question...I have far more studio records than live recordings, but as a matter of personal preference I'd rather have a really great live recording by an artist when I can find one.

Agreed. I love listening to a great live recording by a great artist.

My collection is about 50/50 live and studio. I think sometimes I like live recordings cause they're a little different from the studio one. Studio recordings are great but I like the way artists can sometimes expand or alter their music in live recordings to capture new perspective on their original.

chrisarclark · 02-18-2004, 03:20 PM

some bands are never able to capture what they do live in studio performances. for some its not even close. anyone who has ever heard Soundtrack Of Our Lives and then went and listened to their debut album from should know exactly what imean. if you havnt, download any live recording of 21st Century Rip-Off and compare it to the album version- an amazing song live turns into the biggest puss song ever. pathetic.

there other bands who are equally able to take advantage of both what the studio and the live performance can offer. the best example of this ican think of is Radiohead. especially on their last four albums, Radiohead hav pushed the exploration of their studio capabilties to create songs which at first seem impossible to bring to a live performance. then when you do here the live versions of tracks like Packt Like Sardines In A Crushed Tin Box, Everything In Its Right Place, Kid A, Like Spinning Plates and Idioteque it is simply amazing the translation they accomplish.

panbient · 02-18-2004, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rancid rocker
usally studio, but i picked other because it realy depends on the band or if you all ready have a studio then its nice to have a little change !

absolutely... it REALLY depends on the band in question... some of them have what it takes to truly perform their songs live and others only know how to regurgitate what they were told to produce in the studio...

D'yer Mak'er · 02-19-2004, 01:36 PM

It's been said before: it depends on what bands
Example: with U2 I prefer the studio-albums, because the live recordings don't add much to the songs. That doesn't mean that they're not good, because they are. I have about 6 concert bootlegs and 2 of their live-cds (including Rattle and Hum)
But with bands like Led Zeppelin and Metallica I can't say that I prefer the live sets, but they do add something. Like I prefer Metallica's Harvester of Sorrow (B&P) and Master of Puppets (S&M) live versions to the original studio versions, mainly because Hetfield's grunts and it just feels...angrier.