31-07-2009, 02:48
Live VS recorded? Good question and I have an answer that have always been the same: Recorded
I don't really know why, but I never enjoyed live stuff, real or on a cd. I never buyed a live cd from any of my favorites band. I have the whole discography of many artists, but only studio, real albums; not even one live cd. I don't even buy shows on DVD.
For me, the studio is THE place for an artist to do exactly what he wants to do, with no limitations. For me, the vision, the way he see his work completed and perfect is something you can never get live. Only in studio he can achieve the music the way he really wants it.
Sometimes I think that one of the best thing technology have done is to create a support for recording music. Imagine Mozart in the studio; he could have recorded it exactly the way he wants.
So yes, live performance is great for the ambiance, lot of fans reunited with the band and some improvisation and new things, but nothings compare to studio for me.
I don't really know why, but I never enjoyed live stuff, real or on a cd. I never buyed a live cd from any of my favorites band. I have the whole discography of many artists, but only studio, real albums; not even one live cd. I don't even buy shows on DVD.
For me, the studio is THE place for an artist to do exactly what he wants to do, with no limitations. For me, the vision, the way he see his work completed and perfect is something you can never get live. Only in studio he can achieve the music the way he really wants it.
Sometimes I think that one of the best thing technology have done is to create a support for recording music. Imagine Mozart in the studio; he could have recorded it exactly the way he wants.
So yes, live performance is great for the ambiance, lot of fans reunited with the band and some improvisation and new things, but nothings compare to studio for me.