[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...?

[StevOK]

I used to be a die-hard live music fan. I would go to a show ever other week for years. The past year or so, however, I can't go to live shows anymore, unless I have earplugs and I've rested up first. And my taste in music is shifting. I can't listen to something unless it's got something weird going on, like sound effects, and lots of parts to it, stuff that couldn't be pulled off live. I think I'm becoming more and more a recorded music kind of person.

[ZEROpumpkins]

Recorded. Because there are more bands than sound good on record but live they suck as opposed to the opposite.

[daydream]

I think seeing bands play is almost as much about socialising as it is appreciating the music. As far as I'm concerned I'd far rather be sat back in a chair with a beer listening to a brilliant album on my nice stack instead of jockying for position in a crowd at a show with inferior music.

[Dead-Air]

It depends entirely on the artist and the experience.

Autechre "live" were so boring I had to listen to them at home immediately to remind me why they are one of my favorite groups. The Fall live was a fiasco, but I got the wrong night I'm sure.

However, seeing Rocket from the Tombs in the flesh playing the original coolest punk songs ever that they happened to pen in '75 was an experience I wouldn't trade for anything, and they were spot on. I bought one of their Rocket Redux cds from David Thomas (who to this day sells his own shit in person on stage after the show!) and it sounds great, but it can't compare to the intensity of these legendary men laying it down inches in front of you.

Sonic Youth albums are a life changing experience for me, but they make me so I can't wait until I can see them live to see how the hell they created such songs and what they do to their guitars to make it happen. In their case the records and the shows are inseperable to me.

[Everyneurotic]

a great band excells on both.

[drrrtyboots]

If a band can't pull of their material live then they're spending too much time making their recordings sound glittery and polished. There are a few artists in which an exception can be made but you should be great at performing on record and in person.

[gmku]

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...?

Is this what kids are debating these days--recorded music versus live?

Bush really does need to reinstate the draft. Then you'd have something real to debate.

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

a great band excells on both.

Yes, but there are great bands that excel at one more than the other, sometimes by far.

It was always said that Black Flag was infinitely better live than on record with the possible exception of Damaged. I can't be sure, because I never got to see them, but it always struck me as a credible explanation for why people continued to rave about them in the days of poorly produced mediocrity like My War and Slip It In.

Meanwhile, my experience being majorly disappointed by Autechre live doesn't take away from what I think of their incredibly well produced albums. Similarly, I'm sure Brian Eno could do some pretty interesting things in front of an audience if he chose to, but much of what he does that I love, wouldn't necessarily be exciting watching.

[Norma J]

A good live band should be able to reproduce that sound in the studio too. Which comes down to more than just the bands involvement.

[jonathan]

I think there are so many differences in live and recorded music that it is best to think of each as a medium with their own possibilities and limitations. I find that improvised music is FAR more entertaining live than a band playing constructed songs. Likewise, I find records made up of entirely improvised music to be pretty boring (with the exception of jazz). A band can take advantage of all of the possibilities a studio has to offer to really perfect whatever they are trying to achieve and I think it's a shame that more bands don't. Bands shouldn't pigeonhole themselves into trying to sound exactly like they do live as they do on record; it's an entirely different environment and it should be respected as such.

[Alex's Trip]

I agree with Dead-Air. You have to take each individual band into consideration. You can't make a generalizing statement about whether live shows or the record are better. Some bands are better live than recorded and vice-versa, and some bands that have amazing recorded stuff simply just don't translate well to the live setting, and you can't capture some of the energy on record that is on stage.

Personally I love seeing bands live, and I love listening to recorded albums, but which I love more is always in flux because of a number of variables (crowd energy, how the band played that day, how good the record in question is, what kind of music it is, etc.) that are thrown into the equation.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by Dead-Air

Yes, but there are great bands that excel at one more than the other, sometimes by far.

It was always said that Black Flag was infinitely better live than on record with the possible exception of Damaged. I can't be sure, because I never got to see them, but it always struck me as a credible explanation for why people continued to rave about them in the days of poorly produced mediocrity like My War and Slip It In.

Meanwhile, my experience being majorly disappointed by Autechre live doesn't take away from what I think of their incredibly well produced albums. Similarly, I'm sure Brian Eno could do some pretty interesting things in front of an audience if he chose to, but much of what he does that I love, wouldn't necessarily be exciting watching.

hmmm, but then you're talking, on your own estimates, of good bands.

in the case of flag, yeah, i never saw them live either, but, with the possible exceptiong of nervous breakdown (which sounds a bit clinical), early flag sounds way too vivid in the studio, and i really can't imagine other versions of these songs (which is why everything went black is not my favorite of them, but at the same time, it's more like a rehearsals compilation, you know, a live album without the audience); then, listening to gigs from the era, with keith, ron and dez, you hear them delivering live, interpreting the songs live in their own way.

i see you list post-damaged albums as being shit in the studio/awesome live, but that's more about the band not taking the time to really track or develop challenging material the way it needed to be. but regardless, the point and consessus is that flag dropped in quality considerably by then (meaning that they were not a great band anymore) but were still good enough musicians to pull one of their facets well. they became a good band instead of a great one.

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

[Norma J]

I agree with the above few posts aswell. Each are coming from different places, but yeah, I prefer a band who are great live and on record, whether they both be the same. I prefer a live show to be a live show though, and not just the record being played live, that really bores me. But I do like a record that is recorded to capture a bands live energy - after all, energy is the key.

I love a live show, but I'm more of a recluse, I get irritated by the general rock crowd, so I don't go to as many shows as I used to. But I could never live without records.

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

hmmm, but then you're talking, on your own estimates, of good bands.

What you say about Black Flag's decline has some substance, but I really don't think if a remarkable live band weren't ever captured appropriately on record that would make them any less of a great band.

Back to my earliest example - Rocket from the Tombs. They've yet to actually put out a major album and yet rank as one of the most important proto-punk and rock bands of all time. Certainly some of this has to do with the two groups they splintered into carrying the torch and the songs into history, but I've seen them live and they were fucking awesome for reals. The fact they didn't connect with the right studio guy back when they wrote "Final Solution" and "Sonic Reducer" in no way diminishes their vast relevance.

Meanwhile, I don't think Auetechre and Brian Eno are only "good" and not "great" at all. They just don't create music that is particularly meant to be experienced in a from the stage to the crowd setting. In Autechre's case they are apparently forced by industry conventions to tour and present their music in this way that doesn't really work for them, but it doesn't make their music any less great for what it is. Their records are amazing.

All music does not need to be dealt out from musician standing above crowd and creating for them on the spot and this is not the definition of "great" music. It's one, albeit one very popular, form of presentation. Eno's installations are just as valid, though not at all what people consider live music, and I don't think it would work well for Lightning Bolt to present their music in that way.

[Bollocks_to_Pop]

Why not have the best of both worlds, recorded live music!

In all seriousness though I enjoy going to concerts a lot to see bands and watching how they play their songs live. I like the song Mote, but when I heard it for the first time live, man it blew me away it was so amazing and better than the recorded version. I think more improvisational music, or music that does not has defined parts in it can be better live than recorded. However, I will have to say that I prefer recorded music better because you can have a more personal experience listening to the songs in your room or at your house as opposed to being in a club with a bunch of people around you possibly annoying you. I must admit I've had some concerts that weren't too enjoyable because of a drunk trying to talk to me while the band was playing or someone smoking pot right next to me.

[daydream]

Some of the above arguments are really interesting actually - about appreciating both as separate strands entirely. But I find it's hard for me to divorce the live performance from what I've already heard on record. Because of that, sometimes the live performance is actually frustrating when it deviates too far from the record because I find myself wanting them to play it straight-up and loud, no messing around.

SY this year playing DDN was a perfect example. The album was so incredible that when it came to them playing it live, because so much time had passed and whatever else, the vocals and guitar just didn't measure up. Even though, as I've said, it was one of the greatest gigs I'd ever seen if just considered on its own merits.

[gualbert]

Considering the music only , I prefer the studio stuff by far ( I know a few bands that sounds better live though , like Buzzcocks and Flag of Democracy )
Also some bands are just as good in both way , SY for instance.

As for concerts , I never got the thrill. I find rather boring to watch a bunch of people playing their instrument , even if they're jumping all around .

[SYRFox]

I think it depends on bands. I can't pretend I saw a lot of live bands though, but for example, !!! were really better live than on studio (though I love all of their albums), where I thought Radio 4 are better studio than live (even if they were good too, live...). I don't know, it's two different things I guess.

Now about RECORDED live songs versus RECORDED studio songs, I usually prefer the first version I hear (for instance, I heard a live version of Animal Collective - Peacebone before the release of Strawberry Jam, so I was a bit disapointed with the studio version at first - now it has grown on me, anyway -)...

[5Against1]

The smaller the venue the better the live show. Recorded music is always better than live if the show is in a stadium or dome, in a club setting live is better.