Here is what I mean. This poor quality audio youtube clip is just awesome (to my mind) Dave Garfield I enjoy this kind of jammin' much more than the same slick song on the studio album. So call me crazy but I really like the "live" sound. |
Consider this...whether a live recording or a studio recording, the renditions of the songs will likely differ, but the performances are forever locked. If what one enjoys about live performances are the variations, then doesn't this novelty go away after the first listen to a recorded live performance, since the performance always remains the same...exactly as the performance remains the same on a studio recording? To me, listening to and enjoying live music does not correlate to listening to a live recording over and over again. This is why all things considered, I'd rather have the studio recording free of the artifacts of the live recording. But, that's just me. |
Hi Niacin, I'm not trying to start an argument. If you read my post I said "Many studio recordings", which means there are also many that haven't been overpolished. Jazz, at least the jazz i listen to, is more likely to have been recorded live in the studio and not be overpolished. An example of what I am referring to that is familiar to us all is Tom Petty. His studio albums are fine but I'd rather listen to his live set, but that's just me. |
I prefer live recordings. Even the clapping, screaming (although I don't like it) can be what the performer responds to, making it a more emotional, dynamic presentation in my room. If the performance is good, and there's a connection with the audience, that's when I get the goosebumps. "But for me, I would rather listen to a mediocre recording of a a live track than a higher quality studio track." I agree. Gato Barbieri, Van Morrison, Otis Redding, Aretha, Ray, Rhassan... |
