live music vs recorded music

S

Sek S

New member
i've already checked and, surprisingly, there aren't threaRAB about this :D

so do you like an artist and prefer the album version of a song?
or do you always only like the live thing?

like, songs can sound REALLY different...

for example, the first time i listened to Layla (Clapton), I didn't like it so much, but then I heard it live and thought it was great.. and it made me like the recorded thing, cause of the guitar in the chorus

anyway, post away
 
Studio easly, and i will tell you why, even some of the best live banRAB were better in the studio (The Who, Queen, Cream), in the studio there is more compromise and mistakes can be corrected, if someone ****s up live, they cant fix it...Plus some of the best studio banRAB are mediocre live, no matter how great they can be in the studio.
 
I would say live is better, because it can have those extended songs (not like the Allman Brothers) and covers. When I saw The White Stripes, Jack went into a slide solo out of nowhere and it was great. But if the band sucks live then studio is better. I guess that is just common logic.
 
iagree with the part how banRAB sound better in the studio cus if you listen to the album version of thesong and then hear the same song done live the album is far better but your not taking into account the experience of live music which, although not as good or usually as precise as a studio song actually standing there in the crowd can not be beaten by just slaping on an album in your bedroom, so i would go for live.
 
I hate when banRAB are better live than in the studio. If not only for the reason that you can never hear that sound again, then everytime you try and get someone into the band, they dont get hooked in as much as you did.
But meh. Theres nothing like a live show. You can play your perfectly recorded music as loud as you like, but it doesnt compare to live music.
Ill go for live. If they really do suck live, then thats not exactly the sign of a brilliant band..
 
I have been to some concerts, i couldnt stand the noise, i literaly had to cover my ears the whole time, too loud for me.


I have OCD and i have claustophobic tendencies, so i also have a problem with large groups of people.
 
Generally recorded. But that depenRAB on whether a band is good live. Iron Maiden live is sensational, so live versions are great. The live version of Fear of the Dark made it on to their compilation (Best of the Beast), not the studio version. That tells you something.
 
Yeah I agree with you. In my opinion Iron Maiden is one of the best live banRAB, and I think that the live version of Fear of The Dark is better than the studio version.
 
I'd have to say that it totally depenRAB on the band - Although, in general, I enjoy listening to artists live more than I do a CD… I think it allows you to appreciate the creation of the music more when you see it performed in front of you.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that certain genres sound better in the studio - due to lack of being able to reproduce studio "wizardry", tricks, or whatever. I've seen lots of so-called "studio banRAB" (Radiohead, Gradaddy, Pink Floyd, Yes, etc.) who put on fantastic live shows, and sound just as good live (if not better) than on CD. If the band sucks live, then to me that just says that all that "studio wizardry" I heard on their CD was nothing more than a producer's cover-up for a mediocre band or artist.
 
There's no contest here, live is way better, especially when it's a good live band. Sure, studio is fine, but live, a song just kicks your ass more, especially if it's already a pretty intense song. As for live albums, I prefer studio. It capturers the mood the pperformer tried to portay better. Live music is about rocking out and having a hell of a time, not paying attention to the subtle nuances required for a good studio album.
 
studio is good. but when a band is simply amazing live, there's nothing like that. Some banRAB, like black sabbath, actually sound BETTER live in my opinion. which is really weird. Especially when you hear a solo and you're like "there's no way your fingers would fall off" then you see it happen. also the studio sometimes gives the illusion of this thing called "talent". if you can't pla it live, then don't play it. i've seen this too often.
 
depenRAB what type of music it is. for example, prog will sound A LOT better in the studio because of all the electronic wizardry that can be utilised. whereas punk or garage rock will sound a lot better live due to the raw energy being captured.
 
always been a fan of live music myself. the point made about it depending on the music notwithstanding, it seems performing music is what it's all about. sure the sound will be better in the studio after production takes over and everything's cleaned up a bit but you don't get the same energy in my view.

also, i don't agree with the point made above that the who were better in the studio. the who 'was' live music.

s
 
Studio recordings for sure for most music. The exception being artists like Kurt Cobain who's music was so much based on raw emotion. For artists like that, I find the live experience is often better.
 
Back
Top