Live vs. recorded

Studio over live all ways.

I buy live music for the "many" variations the artist comes up with during a performance, not for it's sound quality. Some performances are better than others.

You can tell an artists commitment to their music by how well/often the play live. One of the best live rock performers is JAY FARRAR. His studio and live recording are exemplary.

live venue over studio and live-recording

To paraphrase the Duke - There's only 2 types of 'live' and studio recordings, good ones and all the rest! I could easily come up with a list of great 'live' recordings and just as easily make a list of the 'dogs' I've heard!

The Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers Live Anthology box set (4 CD's) proves that live can sound just as good as a studio production.

I suspect that many pop/rock bands simply cannot deliver the carefully crafted, dubbed and over-dubbed polished performances that you get on their overproduced studio productions.

I also suspect there is some essence that is lost when stuff is overdubbed or people play in separate sound booths. Perhaps it is only me - but I hear something better when people are actually playing live.

For example, the overproduced Steely Dan stuff just leaves me stone cold - don't get me wrong - it is still great stuff and sounds ever so slick - but it feels lifeless to me.

I am not sure why but something different occurs when people play live together - either it is in the acoustics or the way musicians play off each other - little mistakes perhaps - is this is why Sheffield Direct to Disc were so good?

Probably for the same reason, I hate drum machines.

Anyway, I can't put my finger on it but I definitely hear something and I wish that more live music was better recorded.

The thing I can't stand with live recordings is the clapping between tracks. It always seeems to be much louder than the track itself. Get rid of it!!! Mind you, I also don't like the sound of tea being poured. Okay, I'm a weirdo!