[Georgekrz]

I vote Live Music. However, I live in NYC so I'm spoiled for choice. Probably 99 percent of the way I experience music is by going to live shows. Records are more of a way to support the artists I go to see. I buy them, but rarely actually listen to them. Don't have an Ipod either.

[Torn Curtain]

As some as said I think it depends on the musician/band. For instance Tim Buckley was good, or even great in the studio, but live he took another dimension (cf the brilliant "Dream letter live in London 1968", "Peel sessions" or "Live at the Troubadour").

[Torn Curtain]

The other way around, Bob Dylan has put out great studio records but live he generally sucks (apart from some shows in the mid-60s, like in the "live in 1966 Albert Royal Hall" from the Bootleg series).

[gualbert]

Originally Posted by 5Against1

The smaller the venue the better the live show.

I tend to think so , too. I guess 50 people is fine.

One day , I was in a pub ; the people around were : me , a guy , drunk and/or asleep , the barman and a jazz band performing.

As nobody was giving a shit about them , I took a chair and sat in front of them , trying my best to be the audience on my own , applauding at the end of each song.
That was a rather uncomfortable and ridiculous situation.
An audience needs at least 2 people , I suppose.

[Sheriff Rhys Chatham]

I prefer records of recorded live performances.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by daydream

Okay,

I'm writing an editorial piece for a magazine on the debate over whether recorded or live music has the edge, and I'm honestly after everyone's thoughts here, given that the people that frequent this place tend to be some of the most musically opinionated and open-minded characters I'm likely to interact with on any given day. I'm not going for shameless self-promotion shit here - I won't even name the mag.

SO, that said, what does it for you? What would you rather have, when it's all said and done? The performance on record or the show? I'll come right out and say I'd rather listen to albums than go see people play. The experience - seeing people play live - usually leaves me underwhelmed. Even seeing SY play DDN live left me longing to hear the record.

What... about... you...?

I prefer live recordings myself. you get the best of both worlds. however, in the raw, live music is ALWAYS preferable to recorded. but then again, I play music, so of course live music is my preference. I think your question is best asked in this form:

which is more preferable, going to a dancehall to see a live band, or going to a dancehall to listen to people spin records. it sounds like you prefer the records... I-man prefer the live music, as it has life! but as I said, with Live recordings you get the best of both worlds.

[evollove]

I've had trouble getting into quiet, subtle songs live because of the buzz of the audience. My ears can't tune them out. The audience chatter becomes part of the song, which is unfortunate. (e.g.-the only Shins song I really like is New Slang. When I saw them live, however good their performance, the audience of, say 1000 or so, ruined any chance for me to be moved by the song by talking through it.)

Audience chatter has ruined a few loud shows as well. The guy behind me who yells, "I got to take a piss," in the middle of an SY freak-out is sure to take me out of the moment.

I've often tracked down recordings of shows I've seen, so I can listen to the band w/out as much background noise from the crowd. I'm usually pleased, but then I wonder why I bothered to go to the live performance to begin with.

I'd like to go to a show where everyone gets earphones that connect to the soundboard. Or, perhaps a show where everyone is gagged with duct tape. Both, ideally.

[Toilet & Bowels]

it baffles me as to why anyone would choose recorded over live

[daydream]

Records are artistic statements whereas shows are just performances of those statements, right? Unless you're talking about improv.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by daydream

Records are artistic statements whereas shows are just performances of those statements, right?

so a song counts as an artistic statement if it gets recorded, but not if it doesn't? and performing a song in studio doesn't count as a performance of a statement? and if a song gets performed live before it gets recorded, does the record still count as an artistic statement? what about music that was created or played before the advent of recording?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by daydream

Records are artistic statements whereas shows are just performances of those statements, right? Unless you're talking about improv.

no, not necessarily. the way in which music is performed live is equally if not more so an artistic statement and specific creative process. also the way in which a set list is chosen and songs played into and out of each other sets another artistic mood entirely then just act of a record. in other words, no, records are performances of records. sometimes they are artistic events unto themselves. you cant dance, pit or sing along terribly out of tune to your record player at home.

[Norma J]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Rhys Chatham

I prefer records of recorded live performances.

That's one thing I don't dig - live recordings. I mean, I love old live stuff, like, Jimi is an exception, a huge exception - I love his live stuff. But most live recordings quite bore me. Even if the band are great, the recordings rarely show the energy the show contained, which is more due to the audio.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

kinda off topic, but side two of my war ranks as high as any of their greatest moments, in my opinion.

I always assert that is one of my alltime favorite lp sides! But the 2nd OM album has kind of superceded that I think

As someone who has recorded live music for years sometimes with very good gear I tell you recordings never match the live sound. A studio recording serves (or should serve) a different purpose than a live set. But what you hear never quite gets recorded (or is it the reverse), even with digital.

[gpw_sucks]

==================

[evollove]

Originally Posted by tesla69

I always assert that is one of my alltime favorite lp sides! But the 2nd OM album has kind of superceded that I think

As someone who has recorded live music for years sometimes with very good gear I tell you recordings never match the live sound. A studio recording serves (or should serve) a different purpose than a live set. But what you hear never quite gets recorded (or is it the reverse), even with digital.

Maybe I'm repeating what you wrote (I got confused near the end), but: what you say about recorded shows never equaling the performance applies to studio recordings, as well. Neil Young has been complaining for years that the sound in the studio never makes it on to the album. It becomes something different, and is never a true mirror of the studio sound. Not sure that's good or bad. Just is.

[pbradley]

You know there is a point in discussing such massive generalities that you end up not saying anything at all. Both mediums can impart transcendent brilliance, both can make you regret money spent. I'm not trying to be wishy-washy. I've seen bands blow away venues but suck recorded and I've heard studio brilliance fail on the stage.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by tesla69

I always assert that is one of my alltime favorite lp sides! But the 2nd OM album has kind of superceded that I think

As someone who has recorded live music for years sometimes with very good gear I tell you recordings never match the live sound. A studio recording serves (or should serve) a different purpose than a live set. But what you hear never quite gets recorded (or is it the reverse), even with digital.

class class post.

and to complement the last part: in like half the cases, digital does even less for capturing the performance.

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by pbradley

You know there is a point in discussing such massive generalities that you end up not saying anything at all. Both mediums can impart transcendent brilliance, both can make you regret money spent. I'm not trying to be wishy-washy. I've seen bands blow away venues but suck recorded and I've heard studio brilliance fail on the stage.

I hear that - I once saw Blood Circus blow away both Nirvana and the Butthole Surfers. Obviously that was a one night fluke that no recording could ever prove.

50/50 and no cheating. If you are of the opinion that being a good live band is enough, why would you put mediocre records out? After all, not everyone is going to be able to see you live, so the recorded output assumes more importance, in those cases. There's also plenty of music that doesn't particularly need a live setting to prove its value, so I take that into account when it comes to giving the two listening experiences their respective importance. The whole '4 real' thing is normally something that comes from rockers through and through. Good point, but not necessarily a more valid one than others.

[RdTv]

I haven't bothered to read all the post due to my lethargic state of being at this time of the day, but I always say it depends on the band/artist. If you can perform well consistantly live, then odds are you can lay down some tracks in the studio, I'm not sure if that works the other way around. I mean, you can always do another take or on overdub or what have you in the studio, you have countless things at your disposal, the same isn't true for live music.

So which one is better? Who knows like I say it depends a great deal on the band playing. I will say that jazz and/or most improvised music sounds better live.