Live VS Studio

[Skyward]

I was just at a Stratovarius concert, my first one, and had a few thoughts over the course of it. There is definitely a difference between the entertainment of live shows versus listening to the music ('Duh' you might say ).

The first is that it seems much more based on the 'show' than the music, although the music is the main reason people come.

Another is the sociality. I met a few people and quickly became friends with them despite the age gap (Me being 18 and them being mid 20s) and it made the whole thing much more enjoyable. You can listen to an album with a friend, but it isn't like going to a show and just letting loose*.

Also, large venues versus small venues is a different paradigm. Large ones, like in stadiums, are pretty impersonal so I basically hope the music is good otherwise it feels like a waste of money (unless they are good performers and you have a good seat).

Please discuss your opinions and ideas or whatever about these differences, I'm interested in what y'all gotta say!




(SillySapienne, I'm looking at you and your 'SP Binge' thread )

 

[Kingfisher]

yeah, Skyward, i love albums and live shows for entirely different reasons.
with albums i love feeling the music, and getting lost in it.

but you are totally right, live shows are all about the performance. some of the best live shows i have seen had performaces that were NOTHING like the album version. with live shows i love the intensity of the perfomance, getting in sync with that, regardless of how different from the studio version it is.

 

[INTP]

music is allways better live

 

[pure_mercury]

music is allways better live

100% wrong. I've been to hundreds of concerts in my lifetime, and very few bands are significantly better live than they are on record. The White Stripes are a great example. Several very good albums, very mediocre 45-minute set live.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm going to take this extremely rare opportunity to agree with Pure Mercury. Some bands actually sound better in the studio, and I'd much rather listen to a clean recording of a particular song rather than a distorted or flawed live version.

Live shows can be fun. Some bands sound the same live. Some don't. Some sound great live. Others don't. I don't get the whole idea that music *always* sounds better live. I sometimes wonder if these people are using senses other than their ears to make this judgement call.

 

[pure_mercury]

I'm going to take this extremely rare opportunity to agree with Pure Mercury. Some bands actually sound better in the studio, and I'd much rather listen to a clean recording of a particular song rather than a distorted or flawed live version.

Live shows can be fun. Some bands sound the same live. Some don't. Some sound great live. Others don't. I don't get the whole idea that music *always* sounds better live. I sometimes wonder if these people are using senses other than their ears to make this judgement call.

The live set is the Achilles' heel of many younger bands these days. It's very easy and cheap to make a well-recorded song in this day and age, so you really just need moderate songwriting and instrumental talent to make a good single. You need a lot more going on for a truly memorable live performance. I would point to The White Stripes (as I mentioned earlier) and Radiohead as two great bands whose lives shows I have seen that have been underwhelming. Conversely, Pearl Jam (a band I don't particularly like) put on tremendous live shows.

 

[Kingfisher]

yeah, Pure Mercury, Pearl Jam did put on consistently great shows.
i have not seen them live in quite a while. do you know if they still tour? still rock?

Red Hot Chili Peppers were very hit or miss with their live shows, back when i saw them. when they hit they nailed it, though.

AC DC was maybe the best live band i saw. they really blew live shows out of the water.

 

[INTP]

100% wrong. I've been to hundreds of concerts in my lifetime, and very few bands are significantly better live than they are on record. The White Stripes are a great example. Several very good albums, very mediocre 45-minute set live.

its a bad band if they cant play good live . imo live music is the real thing and music made in studio is just a poor and easy alternative for the real thing

 

[pure_mercury]

its a bad band if they cant play good live . imo live music is the real thing and music made in studio is just a poor and easy alternative for the real thing

That's an extremely narrow view of music. Is Pet Sounds "a poor and easy alternative" because Brian Wilson stopped playing live? The Beatles post-Revolver? Any electronica artist who doesn't have live instrumentation? Motown records that were basically built on an assembly line?

 

[BlueinGreen]

its a bad band if they cant play good live . imo live music is the real thing and music made in studio is just a poor and easy alternative for the real thing

Eh, there are things done in studio that just can't be replicated live. How many live performances do you get of a Brian Eno album, for instance? And what about the at-least double-tracked instrumentals of pretty much every rock band since the 70's? There is a level of sound quality and fullness that can only be achieved in studio, and that makes being a great live band and having great albums two different qualities, and there are a handful of bands that have both of those things.

 

[Stanton Moore]

I love live music, but recording gives the musicians a lot of options,and that makes it difficult to reproduce the experience live.

But there is something to be said for showing up with a guitar and amp, and really owning it!