Live vs. recorded

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...

Tom - my question was relating to your comments regarding musicians that come together for the recording only, not regarding recordings that have too much polish. And as an aside, I never did find Steely Dan too polished, as others have mentioned, but they did get blander as they got "more professional". Both "Aja" and "Gaucho were sterile in many ways.
Interesting comments from Tvad about the live recording losing its spontaneity once you have listened to it a few times. Very true but that's rather the allure for the better live albums, as long as the performance is different to that of the studio version. It's nice to hear a band's take on music post recording of the original. Some artists just don't alter the music enough on stage, perhaps they are not comfortable with improvisation. It reminds me of John Cipollina - he would rehearse his guitar solos note for note and never vary them. It's why Quicksilver bootlegs offer little interest to me.

Earlier, I posted that I prefer live recordings, but this thread got me thinking about a specific situation.

For the last couple of years I've had the same two CDs in the #3 and #4 slots of my car's CD changer:

#3 holds Lindsey Buckingham's "Out of The Cradle"
#4 holds Buckingham "Live at The Coach House", a bootleg recording of the tour he did in support of "Cradle".
The song lists aren't identical, but there's a lot of overlap.

First off, Cradle is just about my all-time favorite record and, typical of Buckingham (a Brian Wilson disciple), it's a monster studio production - immaculate in every detail - although I'm sure it's overproduced for some tastes.

The live record features mediocre sound quality. Some of the brilliant song craft on "Cradle" is jettisoned in favor of pure R'n'R energy. I've heard these variations a million times over the last 2 years and the energy is still compelling.

If I had to pick one, I'd have a hard time, but I'd pick "Cradle" - so I guess there really is no easy answer. At their best, both types of record have their charms.

Marty