Studio or Live

[Alex]

Do you prefer your music live or from a studio. A few months ago I would have said studio but I've gotten into live recordings quite a bit. Live recordings seem to legitimize a band in my opinion. If they can do something great live then it's going to be great in a studio, if they can only do something great in a studio and not live then it kind of devalues the musician in my opinion showing that they're not well rounded.


[YOUTUBE]WoAXW30mMAg[/YOUTUBE]

This is a great studio recording



[YOUTUBE]YNYySyEDr-8&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

this is an excellent live recording.

 

[Goliath Uterus]

It does devalue a musician if they aren't able to perform live, but I totally prefer studio, you get a better overall sound, you can hear everything the musicians want you to hear, and there aren't idiotic fans yelling. Much better.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I much prefer studio recordings, the sound is much clearer and you get to hear how the musician wants the song to sound.

I find that at live gigs, the songs always sound alot better than a recording of that gig on cd, and most live albums I own/have listened to, cannot compare with the studio version of a song.

 

[RT]

Definitely studio recordings. They have much better quality and they make the studio version how the artist want's it to sound.

When its a bad i really enjoy it dosent matter if its live or recorded. But when its a band that im not big on i'd much rather hear the studio version of the song.

 

[TheAnimal]

For CD or i suppose nowadays MP3, studio because live would detract from the possibility of seeing the artist in concert. But i do get live albums, although it depends on the quality of artist. Sadly some people need the studio for the editing to make the music presentable.

 

[Ferbian]

It really depends on the band. I usually love a band that can perform very much like the studio versions when they perform live.

For the most of times the studio version is really the better choice, because you know they're gonna be able to come off great there. I've had bands I love that I consider awful live. I've never liked Three Days Grace live for example. But on the other hand there's bands I find amazing in both live as well as studio performances like Metallica or Linkin Park.

I however tend to prefer the live performances, if they're good that is. If they can perform and make me love the live performance. It's not always the case, and in those scenario's I lean more to the studio version.

 

[Dressler]

To me I like a band better if they can play not only in the studio but live as well. Its like if you're a girl looking at a guy on Steroids, sure he might look good but the Main Event is going to be shit. Same with music, sure it might sound good in the studio, but if I'm going to pay upwards of 20-50$ to go see my favorite band I'm gonna want them to be good live as well.

 

[Twiztid Rodimus]

Overall, I'd say Studio, just because thats how most artists few their music, as a full on studio project. Rather than a live experience alone.

BUT

To be 100%, Its on a track by track basis for some artists. Theres versions of songs I prefer live over studio when its more Guitar solo based like Buckethead. Whom is my favorite solo guitarist. His songs are varied SO much compared to his studio stuff. Every time he performs a live song, its performed differently and often times better than his studio stuff.

Examples:
Nottingham Lace (Studio)
[youtube]iyKpoh1YHew[/youtube]
A great song nontheless. But it sounds very much studio here. Very planned out, clear and precise.

[youtube]vYxrdrzmuUw[/youtube]
But live, its raw, very freestyle at certain points. And theres MANY sections not in the original that I love so much. Observe points:
3:36 that very small variation is what I mean of the perfection of BH live
3:57 BH gets his Van halen at that moment with one hand
5:20 BH goes into the main riff of the song but distorts it slightly and it is amazing
5:40 & 6:04 he uses my favorite of his Techniques with the killswitch button

Now in the contrast, Theres a Buckethead song I enjoy better Studio than Live

Final Wars (Studio)
[youtube]DTsi3g5s-zs[/youtube]
Overall this is a better song in studio, but the specifics or why are:
:14, That shredding riff is just amazing, And adds to the song. Its missing in the Live version.

Final Wars (Live)
[youtube]G7INzkhGTyE[/youtube]
at :20 the riff isnt there. Its small, but big music fans break down music second by second, and Im one of those types of cats.
1:36 is MUCH harder and darker in the studio version
2:25 is missing the awesome Killswitch technique that the studio one has



I dont hate this version AT ALL, I adore it, I just prefer the studio over it at certain parts of the song. And vice versa


This shows what I mean by the track by track difference of Live and studio, It depends on what's being talked about, ya know.

 

[kissfan85]

It really depends on the Song and the artist.
Some kiss songs I like studio and some live
Motley Crue.......ummm some live is awesome and sometimes they'll screw up the same song that sounded awesome on another live CD.

I love Poison live because it just looks like there having so much fun, I love Bret C.C Bobby and Rikki....
they have the best message that anyone could ever say to somebody

It doesn't matter who you listen to cause it's all rock and it's all here to stay and they mention some bands....
It's just a good message, there not saying listen to us cause we're the best it's just saying it's all about rock
I love them guys


ac/dc LIVE
Ozzy LIVE

I'm both ways, I just wanna listen to my music regardless

 

[The Jabroni]

I would say Studio. Studio recordings are meant to be the ideal performance of the song. Some bands use elaborate arrangements and layers of vocal harmonies in studio recordings that they couldn't possibly reproduce live. Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody is a perfect example of a song that's almost impossible to play live in a way that sounds exactly like the recording. The recording is too complex. If it's performed live, certain shortcuts have to be made and parts need to be omitted. Also, I believe that live recordings have a certain redundancy about them. If you want to hear a band live, go see them in concert.

 

[tinybignuts]

for the most part i prefer studio but there are some great live albums that i prefer over any of the bands studio stuff, like pink floyd's pulse

 

[El Rev sXe]

IMO a great band is defined (amongst other things) by their live performances. I mean you can have great talent but if in a live concert you can't keep it up with a studio version then you might not be as great as you thought you were in the first place.

I can give the example of Metallica's S&M, the song? Nothing Else Matters... I can't hear this song anymore in the studio version.... IMO, it NEEDS a symphony!

plus the fact that an album studio makes a song "perfect". you can make some fix here and there and you have your one hit wonder song. does Milly Vanilli ring a bell? or Dragonforce? yeah those guys use playback however bands such as A7X, Iron Maiden, Metallica, Foo Fighters, Led Zep have impressive and huge HUGE stage presence wich makes songs better!

 

[Tim]

It depends on the band, but for the most part my favourites go in the order of
1. Live Acoustic (Unplugged
2. Studio
3. Live

I just love how most artists can turn their songs into heartfelt acoustic tracks, or driving acoustic tracks, depends on the song. I love seeing a full band song and something with many complexities being done with one acoustic guitar and one vocal. It brings out the real emotions in the artists, and shows their ability to connect with an audience without all the magical tricks.

Studio is my next favourite, as it basically turns out sounding however the band wants it to sound like. They can change nearly everything to make it their songs, and can add almost anything they want, from a four part harmony, or the sounds of a freeway. The studio offers the artists so much freedom that they can't really have anywhere else.

Live tracks can be great, but it really depends on the band. Bands that are brimming with energy are fun to watch, but then you have some bands that just stand there and do nothing. Without the energy, a live performance is nothing imo. For the bands that can capture the essence of a song live, a live experience is unlike any other, however II don't think many live versions can match up to their studio counterparts.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

I am most definitely a studio man, and the only exception to the rule is actually attending a live show, otherwise I always want the studio version. I prefer the crisp sounding production over the sometime fuzzy sounding live sound.

Though, another exception to the rule would be buying a live CD if you attended the concert, as that can serve as a reminder to the experience of actually being at the live show, but only If I've attended the show, other wise it's just lower quality music in my book.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

Really depends on how well the live performance was done. There are so many factors that can't be eliminated whilst playing on stage compared to recording in a studio. The arena can affect how the sound is heard, the vocalist might not be singing at their peak... a lot of things. For the most part, I'd go with the studio version as it is quite reliable and sets a standard for the live version of the music.

Once I can get a gist of how the song is supposed to sound from the studio, I'll judge between the live and studio to determine which is better. For example, the Evanescence "Anywhere But Home" live perfomances for the most part sucked compared to the album versions... yet the The Open Door tour had some pretty amazing pieces of work that I would have loved to get on CD if they released one (or if I could find one if they did). Then again, some bands are better live than studio (Metallica) yet others need studio to survive (Justin Bieber).

 

[INDYjon22]

It really just depends on how the live album is recorded. If it is done well, then I will prefer it to anything in a studio, but the problem is the live albums I have heard are usually recorded not so well and don't sound all that great. Studio albums at least have the benefit of being doctored up to sound better then they may be, while live albums are, well, live, so there is less editing to them. I love Nirvana unplugged but am not a huge fan of Nirvana: Live at Reading, the difference in the two was how they were recorded. Unplugged was recorded better and therefore I can listen to it more often. The same thing goes for Dropkick Murphy's Live on St. Patricks Day, the live recording cuts in and out at points and just sounds like shit, where as John Mayer's Where the Light is? Live in Los Angeles album which was recorded extremely well and sounds amazing.

Live albums give you that feeling of actually being at the concert, even if it was a thousand miles away. However, if they are recorded badly then they aren't even worth it. Studio albums are at least made to sound good. I love live albums and would much prefer them to studio albums but the fact of the matter is studio albums are a much more sure fire thing, in regards to sounding good.

 

[M. Winters]

It really depends on the band. Some bands sound great live(Iron Maiden, Rush) but as a hardcore metal head a lot of the death metal bands and folk metal bands really lose a lot of their layered sound when you hear them live whether it be because of mixing problems or other sound set up issues. So it's sort of a toss up for me.