13-01-2012, 19:00
Welcome aboard MD, Nitedawg!
In most cases I prefer the Live album to the studio version if the specific artist has a live album otherwise it's ok and I'll settle for the studio version.
I have heard a lot of "rough" sounding live albums and a lot of "clean" sounding live albums ! I guess I just take them as they come !
In most cases I prefer the Live album to the studio version if the specific artist has a live album otherwise it's ok and I'll settle for the studio version.
I have heard a lot of "rough" sounding live albums and a lot of "clean" sounding live albums ! I guess I just take them as they come !
nitedawg Wrote:Hi-I'm new to this group...Sorry If I might be posting incorrectly....But I've been watching a lot of live concerts lately,Namely Hall of Fame and tributes to aging rock stars on blu-ray,dvd,Palladium etc. and I think they're really good-a little TOO good!...Most of these songs sound so close to studio-type recordings that they must be really doctored...I mean Crosby,Stills and Nash, Paul Anka,Davy Jones and the rest of the Oldies groups sound better now than they did 20 years ago and not because they've gotten any better....My question is this- Should live music be presented warts and all or is it ok to "tweak it" so it sounds better and therefore more marketable?..In my mind this is akin to lip-syncing entire songs....Either way the public is being deceived. I suspect that vocals and instrumentation are sometimes completely re-done in the studio and passed off as "live"......Maybe I'm just paranoid from smoking too much weed in the 70's.......Waddya think?
The ultimate connection is between a performer and its' audience!
