Some bands sound great in the studio, but can't cut it live. Some bands I haven't liked until I saw them live. What's some of those situations for you?

Bands I prefer in the studio - Tool, Tom Waits, or other bands that have very subtle aspects to there stuff. Some progressive rock and things that have no room for improv. even in a live situation. Sometimes the stage is not that forgiving to the mix.

Bands I prefer live - Tower of Power, Oingo Boingo, They Might Be Giants, any of the bands that are reserved in studio that really rock it out live. Depending on the genre, I don't want to hear the same thing the album offers.

Yeah I'm a bit the same as you, mpittman. Some bands I don't like the sound of and then I see them perform and they have a really cool stage presence and it gets me interested in their music, then also the oposite occurs...if I really like a band and then I see them on stage acting like idiots, I'll probably then lose interest in them.

But, in general, I'd rather listen to a band's studio recorded material than their live recordings etc, but being there at shows is always pretty special. I prefer studio recordings mainly because of the sound quality and precision, but if it's an artist which has a party atmosphere or are hard rockers/really into their music then seeing them perform is the best. There is nothing like crwod participation too.

Depends on the band.


Grateful Dead were terrible in the studio, but live.....


There were/are also bands/musicians who bring it in the studio and live....The Stones, Zeppelin, The Who, Hendrix, Genesis w/Gabriel, Yes, Death, Opeth for example.

If a band can play well in the studio and live, then wouldn't it be fair to say that that is the greater band?

You think that for all of their studio albums? I understand if you're talking about the more psychedelic stuff they tried to work in the studio, but Workingman's Dead and American Beauty are both classic albums. Some people tell me there're a couple other good ones from the studio as well, but I haven't listened to them.

Nah, just more consistent.

I think it's a great misconception that The Dead were a strictly live phenomenon. Obviously they have some classic booters but their sweetest gems are the wonderful melodies they recorded in the studio. I could name off some other records but JFH named the best two.

Now, Kiss on the other hand...

Not all, but on the whole they were at their best live....and considering I probasbly saw them live more times than most here combined. As well as have everything live and studio worth having....


Any money they ever made was from touring, since their studio recordings didn't sell that well. It's no surprise they're making a killing by opening up the Vaults with the Dick's Picks series and others, while the remastered studio recordings are not doing anywhere as well on the whole. Only three of their studio recordings really sell, and beside the two you mentioned the other would be In the Dark.




Kiss was terrible in any setting....and Kiss Alive has a great deal of studio work, for those that don't know.

Perhaps greater than a band who can't play well live/record well but for me it all comes down to the music they create. They could perorm really well but their songs are average which to me doesn't make a great band.

One more point about the Grateful Dead....for those that don't know, they just didn't remaster the Warner Brothers studio recordings....they remixed them as well. So....they're no longer the same as the music on the original lp's or even older cds. A lot of fans were/are not happy with the new remix.